TSA Union wants guns for agents

[MAKO69 186]

I have been in public safety for over 15 years, both fire and law enforcement. I have worked at an airport as an airport police officer before transferring down to the fire dept. I still work part time as an l.e.o. I was working at the airport when the TSA first started, before they had uniforms just tan pants and  white shirts no lettering or patches. Don't get me wrong the TSA has some very capable and qualified people, however; a large number of TSA agents I have seen then and now when I travel resemble Danny Devito or his sister. True, anyone who has a fairly clean record and passes a firearm safety course in most states can carry a firearm, but to use such firearm in law enforcement situation in a crowded terminal comes many hours of training, and there are several other choices either side of the firearm in the escalation of force. Departments I have been affiliated with had/have very strict qualification courses for both the pistol, shotguns, and patrol rifles, moving while shooting, several shooting stances standing, prone, on ones knees, daytime, dim light, nightime, and also active shooter with several other towns in the area during school vacation breaks using simunitions. We shoot  every 3 months it's an all day into the night affair. Our instructor is on the state board, so he's very strict with us we qualify to his level. During our qaul he will come by while you are shooting and say your gun arm has been shot switch and continue to the next phase with your other hand. Meaning you now have to keep up with everybody else, just now you shoot and reload one handed using diff techniques to continue. A zero tolerance stance on missing rounds, every round shot has to be accounted for, if 50 rounds are shot 50 holes best be on the paper target in the silhouette, otherwise you faiI and do it again, 2 chances total, if you fail the 2nd qual course your are pulled from patrol until you have remedial training. If you fail again then the union gets involved sanctions and or forced to resign. I say pull the reigns in on this one and think long and hard about it.

 

http://www.jrn.com/kgun9/news/Union-wants-TSA-agents-to-carry-guns-230605521.html

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/arming-tsa-officers-hits-resistance-on-the-hill-99345.html

[JediMaster 451]

I might be wrong, but AFAIK there has yet to be a situation where armed TSA agents would've been necessary? If this is a "we think just in case" issue, I think it's going a bit too far.

 

Now if they want to task existing LEOs to the TSA for this, that's different. Retired cops or those looking to supplement their income on their time off, sure. But to say "let's go get it for all of them" is just exponentially increasing the chances for an accident for the POSSIBLE benefit of MAYBE stopping a problem in the future.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Apologies in advance some of you are not going to like this....

 

 But to say "let's go get it for all of them" is just exponentially increasing the chances for an accident for the POSSIBLE benefit of MAYBE stopping a problem in the future.

 

 Civilian right to bear arms summed up in once sentance...

 

Craig

[JediMaster 451]

There's a difference between private ownership in your home and giving them to dozens of people in a very crowded area that is often filled with overly tense people.

[Toryu 156]

What do they need a gun for? Ain't there proper police at the airport? 

 

 

 But to say "let's go get it for all of them" is just exponentially increasing the chances for an accident for the POSSIBLE benefit of MAYBE stopping a problem in the future.

What kind of problem are they supposed to stop anyway? If there's a need of "firepower", there are other means of assuring that - like a cop with a gun on standby.

[JediMaster 451]

It sounds like the idea is some sort of modern-day "deputizing" of TSA agents. Not a good idea historically to give LEO powers to those not trained as LEOs.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

TSA agents are only one phase of airport security. Their job is the passive detection phase. Airports in the USA have more than adequate armed police. The notion that we should arm TSA employees is absurd. Why don't we just arm everyone at birth and say to hell with it. That is what gun freaks want anyway is it not? A society that produces an individual that enters an airport and shoots people with a knock off M-4 is the problem. The "militarization" of our nation's common citizen is the problem. My take is, if you want to shoot guns and roll around in the dirt become a police officer or join the military. Skeet shoot, duck hunt, deer hunt, plink cans with a .22 all you want but leave the real weapons to the trained professionals. (Like me.......)

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

They (tsa) are asking for discounts now, at private businesses. I saw one example of this; the boss politely declined. And now they want "free" guns, obtained with public debt?

 

Horse, its not that simple. Here's a funny article describing an incident when trained professionals©® became very unprofessional, to the extent of sabotaging military ops....

 

Intruder Alert - Penetrator - Watch out for the "Pink" man! by Al Brewer, USAF ~~> http://50.137.56.231/b-58/cws_sevenhigh.cfm

 

in general, the best traditional method is father and son/daughter for firearms training, but that implies child raising. Oddly enough, SAC under LeMay was a leading indicator of the future breakdown of the American family, with the fathers being hardly at home. I am a bit late on the firearms thing, so I went through a trained ex-marine/firefighter who worked at a local gunshop.
 

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

TSA agents are only one phase of airport security. Their job is the passive detection phase. Airports in the USA have more than adequate armed police. The notion that we should arm TSA employees is absurd. Why don't we just arm everyone at birth and say to hell with it. That is what gun freaks want anyway is it not? A society that produces an individual that enters an airport and shoots people with a knock off M-4 is the problem. The "militarization" of our nation's common citizen is the problem. My take is, if you want to shoot guns and roll around in the dirt become a police officer or join the military. Skeet shoot, duck hunt, deer hunt, plink cans with a .22 all you want but leave the real weapons to the trained professionals. (Like me.......)

 

Damn straight.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

I beg to differ Lexx. It really is that simple.

[+Dave 2,319]

Soap Box rant on

 

Cars kill more people than guns, lets ban them. McDonalds makes people fat, ban that too. Why is it that when someone kills someone with a gun they blame the gun, but someone drunk kills a person with their car, you don't hear the charge to ban alcohol or cars. Both were tools used by someone to commit these acts and kill far more then people with guns.

 

I will say this until I am blue in the face and yet no one listens, it isn't the guns, its the people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they do not use a gun, they use an ax, or a knife. Look at those wack jobs in China going around stabbing 10 to 20 people in one rage fest.

 

Better mental health care and a better system of IDing the ones who might go postal is in order. It wont catch everyone. However in many cases you see that a person had a history of some sort of odd behavior prior to their rampages. Look at the Colorado movie theater shooting, Sandy Hook, the attack on Congresswoman Gifford, the naval yard shooting, all of them were wack jobs and people knew. Nothing was done or said. The system is broke.

I have guns, I carry guns, my kids know how to safely handle and shoot guns. Even my 9 year old twins girls know what to do if they find an unattended firearm. Education and prevention is a key component here. It won't catch every situation but its a start.

 

Soap Box rant off

 

The TSA screeners do not need guns. That is what the airport police are for. I think that this is a recipe for disaster. LEO train and train and then when they are sick of training, they train some more. I don't see a week long or a month long course for a TSA worker, then you can carry a firearm is a good idea. If they are going to they need to train like LEO's and train often.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Alcohol is not a tool whose sole purpose is to kill. Rant debunked. Next slide. Ha!

 

It is the ability of the average citizen to acquire weapons suitable for the battlefield that is the problem. That goes back to the whole "all Americans must be armed to fight tyrannical government thesis," which is both illogical and infantile. Because overweight fan-boys who spend thousands of dollars on knock off "Bushwhacker Tactical Carbines" have no hope of becoming "Patriots." But they do have the ability to become "Domestic Terrorists." With that they will become dead. Groups of fat fucking rednecks with assault rifles do not scare me. Because I know they are pussies. The first time a dude from 3rd ID blows up their buddies 4wd with a Javelin they will literally shit their pants. The Army will fight those who rise up. That is their job. The Army did a pretty good job preserving the Union last time. No doubt they will do it again.Sure some will refuse. But guess what, just like every conflict I have been in, those who do not honor their oath will be jailed. It is the lone wolf retard that spends his day at his shitty job listening to Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh wishing he was this "great warrior" that wants to "take his country back" that scares me. He is the one that has the potential to do harm. He is the spawn of the "fear the government" post 911 backlash. People who have actually had to fight these "terror wars" do not support this kind of bullshit. If you claim to be a veteran and you support this kind of bullshit, then I would bet the closest you ever came to combat was handing out shitpaper at Balad. Say something, I dare you.... It is the wannabes on the fringe who do. No one that actually knows what combat is like would ever wish that it happened on the streets of their town. A true WARRIOR and PATRIOT seeks civil and non-violent resolution to problems and never even considers the act of taking up arms to settle minor social or idealogical differences. If they rise they will be destroyed in detail. So with that said, why don't people just live their fucking lives and take care of their families and CONTRIBUTE to our society as a whole instead of wasting their energy on this Walter Middy, John Wayne bullshit.

 

How is that for a rant.................................................?

 

Getting back on topic. The TSA serves an important role in the security of our nation. If I owned a hotdog stand I would afford them a discount due to the simple fact that they have volunteered to serve. They are not the 1st Ranger Battalion, but they do play a role in the overall scheme of things and their service should be recognized and admired. But, they do not need guns.

 

In closing, I really do not care if anyone agrees with me or not. You might consider this my opinion, but this opinion was earned in blood, and if they passed a nationwide law banning military weapons designed after 1945 for civilian use, I would come back in just to help load the truck.

Edited December 23, 2013 by CrazyhorseB34

[+Dave 2,319]

Jamie

 

A gun is a gun though, they all fire bullets. One might look more sinsister than the other. But a 7.62 will fire out of anything that is meant for whether it is a military looking weapon or a Ruger hunting rifle. What they look like does not matter. The damage is the same.

 

 I meant alcohol was used as a tool was for lack of a better word. Catalyist? You knew what I meant.

 

 

If you claim to be a veteran and you support this kind of bullshit, then I would bet the closest you ever came to combat was handing out shitpaper at Balad. Say something, I dare you.... It is the wannabes on the fringe who do. No one that actually knows what combat is like would ever wish that it happened on the streets of their town. A true WARRIOR and PATRIOT seeks civil and non-violent resolution to problems and never even considers the act of taking up arms to settle minor social or idealogical differences. If they rise they will be destroyed in detail.

 

I guess that is aimed at me then huh?

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

No one aimed anything at you Dave. I never once heard you say that we should form "citizen militias" to rescue our nation from the grips of "Afro Marxism," so no it does not apply to you.

 

Sure guns are a part of American culture. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and the like are what most young men are raised to use in a safe and sane manner. Not military type weapons. Teach a kid to shoot a .22 and he will shoot EXPERT at BRM with an M-4. That is the American way. My Grandpa was a USMC WW2 vet. He taught me how to shoot with a .22. He told me that it was the military's job to teach me the hard stuff. Hard stuff meaning the FM 7-8 stuff. Due to his instruction I moonwalked through BRM.You don't train your kids to shoot M-4's so they can take back the gubbament fo all us good Christian white folks. That is counter productive. You teach the basic handling and operation of firearms to your kids so it will make some guy at Ft. Benning's job easier when your offspring needs to answer the call.

 

My point is that weapons with a modern battlefield capacity should not be allowed to proliferate our streets. Jesus, the first gun laws in America came about because of the use of the M1928 submachinegun by organized crime elements during prohibition. If anybody wants to waste their time shooting AR's and "moving tactically" in their own time that is their problem not mine. Just don't bring that "gunclub skillset" to the street to settle our nations problems. Because there is a 90% chance that the ones who would try that will die really bad.

[+Dave 2,319]

"Afro-Marxism" dude you owe me some monitor wipes. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.

 

I do agree with you about the "lets take back American" crowd of gun nuts are idiots. Those are the same people who say the Boston Marathon bombing was an inside job to see how the general public would react to Martial Law. (i.e. when everyone was told not to leave their homes why the FBI looked for those two fuck stains) I don't buy that. These are also the same people who say that 9/11 was another inside job.

 

"Just don't bring that "gunclub skillset" to the street to settle our nations problems" I like this statement because it describes the morons above.

 

Yes I like my high capacity weapons. I like shooting them, I like using them in competitons. I am not going to take the streets for a "revolution". That is just silly and those who have that mindset of the "fascist regime that occupies the White House" are people who are out of touch with reality. So you are displeased with your current officials? Then do the most American and patriot thing you can do...VOTE! Yes the government right now and I mean all of them is fucking up by the numbers, but what one in our history have been stellar? None that I can think of. There is dirt in all of them.

 

We are not becoming socialist or is the President trying to change us to that. Sorry folks that dog doesn't hunt. You can quote all the websites you want, most of them are ran by the aforementioned nut jobs.

 

Bi-partisian support on issues is what needs to happen. Example, even though the budget that passed is not the greatest at all, at least they all came to some kind of agreement. (The veterans getting the COLA decrease, as small as it is, its the principle behind it that chaps my ass) If the government is going to move forward on anything there needs to be bi-partisian support, this all or nothing mindset is killing this countries progress. With bi-partisian support there are always going to be things that not everyone will like. But as a quote from a book I just read sums it up. "We didn't lose, but we didn't win either." Not sure how I go on this rant....sorry.

 

 

 

For the record I am not a Republican (I used to be) or a Democrat. Boths sides have been less than stellar and I think the government as a whole needs new blood from the ground up.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Progress is the answer. If people just put their energy into positive things we would be ok. But for most fake macho turds at the gun club or tea party rally owning knockoff AK's makes you a patriot and a man more than volunteering to help teach county jail inmates GED courses, or helping immigrants with citizenship tests. As a nation in the last 30 or 40 years we have failed to teach our children what their true civic responsibilities and duties are. Shame on the violent and for profit modern American Conservative movement.

[+Dave 2,319]

One person helping out at a homeless shelter or a food bank can do more than a person saying we need a revolution.

[JediMaster 451]

The practical definition of a compromise is an agreement where no one is happy. As long as it's too much for one side but not enough for the other you know you've found a decent middle ground. Probably not ideal, but better than one extreme side or the other getting their way.

 

Also, any commander will tell you it's always better to make a decision, even if it's bad, then to make no decision and waffle. Because if you make a mistake you can then work to correct it, but if you haven't DONE anything then nothing is getting done!

[Toryu 156]

 

The practical definition of a compromise is an agreement where no one is happy

 

A compromise is a solution where all parties are alright with the outcome, even though all of them had to trade-in a couple of paragraphs from their agendas.

So certaily it's not about being unhappy for not completely getting throgh with your agenda*, but about being happy that a solution was found that covers everybody's needs to a satisfying degree.

 

That's what a democracy and an open society is all about. If everybody is developing a partisan-attitude, the country will head nowhere but into a deadlock and the society will go down the drain.

 

_____

* That's what seems to be the aim of our societies nowadays. There used to be times when agreeing on compromises was a sign for maturity. 

Edited December 25, 2013 by Toryu

[JediMaster 451]

That's why I said "practical" and not "ideal".

 

As for your final sentence, that is exactly what is happening. When you have parties run by idiots who believe it's ok for the country to collapse as long as it gets them voted in (because once they're in total control it'll be easy to fix it all), the non-ruling citizens (ie 99.999% of the population) are screwed.