hear hear

The Constitution does not stop at the border. The government cannot search, question, or detain people at the border without violating the Constitution.

No one has to trade one for the other. You can have both. But as seen in some places in Europe. Open borders have given up both, security and freedom.

AJAshinoff I think you have misses the point. In your example those passing through have more rights than you. That's not how a Republic works. Each person is like a King, but a persons rights end where another person's begin. You can do what ever you want except infringe on another person's rights. If you say, "Stay out." and someone breaks through the gate to your yard are you willing to pick up a shotgun and protect your rights? This is where your neighbors and friends bring their shotguns and help enforce your rights.

To say nothing of the personalities attracted to positions of petty power over the passengers, who are treated like chattel rather free individuals and who are expected to show obedience, submission and deference to the security czars.

While I too would prefer that each airline provide their own security and then allow customers to choose how they desire to fly. I also believe that the Government has a duty to secure the boarders and as it is impractical for an airplane to stop at the boarder for a Customs inspection. It is more reasonable what we currently have in place even as ineffective as it is.

Maybe we should have 2 levels of security on international flights. The first for Customs and then again for the airline in question. Customs would screen for those undesirables (terrorist and such) and then the airlines could have whatever security they each individually desired.

I agree as a pediatrician we have not heard of much upcoming in vaccines or new drugs secondary to regulations. There will be a desperate need upcoming for antibiotics to fight the new superbugs that are next to impossible to kill that we have created albeit from antibiotic overuse.

Just to be clear, the SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement, as an arm of government, has no responsibility to keep you safe. It has a constitutional responsibility to defend you, to the best of its abilities, against enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, our government (local, state, and federal) has a tendency to go overboard with defense measures, adopting counterproductive regulations to attempt to keep us free from harm, including that which might be inflicted on us by ourselves. This is why gas cans no longer work, because the vents have been ordered removed to attempt to reduce spillage to zero.

The issue here is Government rules, vs personal choices. IMHO.

Buy a gun and learn how to use it as well as not how to use it.
That's what we call both freedom and security down here in Alabama.
Oh, yeah, locking doors can really help.
And pay attention to who is around you.

Me dino clicked on your moniker because it looked new. It is.
Welcome to The Gulch.
I'd like to point out that a handful of non-citizens can do very bad things.
Flying passenger jets into buildings and killing 3,000 people is the most extreme example so far . . . so far . . . so far . . .

Fear of not being protected by big government is a tool in the libtard playbook unless you're talking about illegals considered to be future Jackass Party voters.
That's why a smiling and wide-eyed Princess Pelosi called that recent swarm of illegals from Mexico "an opportunity." Never mind that illegals can be infiltrated by even more illegal criminals and terrorists.
Increased empowering votes are more important to Dem politicians than what can happen to innocent people.
.

considering the FACT that the police paid to protect us located in Berkley ca. did nothing to stop the jackasses last night tells me we deserve neither.

Really, I don't think the evidence supports your point of view https://www.aei.org/publication/putti...

The comment that "we have no new vaccines" is obviously from somebody not paying attention. The pipeline of new vax is stuffed and flowing. This is due to a few different reasons.

We have to win the war of ideas, not wage physical war

After briefly reading some of the comments on here, they appear to suggest that more non-citizens (than US citizens) come here with the malicious intent to do harm to US citizens. I ask any of you, how many people born of another country came to America to do harm to its citizens? Not saying the number is zero, but from my research, there are more US citizens that have done harm (acts of terror) to other US citizens than non-citizens have done in recent years. Please correct me if I am wrong about the statistics of acts of terrorism performed by foreign terrorists vs US citizens as committed on American soil. I will say that my research fails in consideration of the failed attempts by terrorists that were successfully prevented by our government and/or other parties as well considering acts of terrorism carried out or prevented in other countries against US citizens.

With this being said, I would like to point out that the Soros-funded protests that destroy and pillage our small business communities are just as much (if not more) a threat to the safety and preservation of our rights as any foreign threats that we may encounter. Your comments are appreciated, however they may come.

No different than the question, do we prefer to belong to a collective for the safety of belonging to that collective, but a collective that nevertheless requires of us to sacrifice our individual self for the greater good of others.

"If safety is your priority then the government should build big prisons and put everyone in them where they can protect them."
Yes!
[Sarcasm]If it saves even one child, then we must do it.[/Sarcasm]

Yes, it was a restriction solidified in print by the Bill of Rights to protect the Natural Right of each individual to defend him/her self. Poor wording on my part.

I agree about the filtering external people wishing to come in more so than those within wishing to travel internally. I'm also very much opposed to national ID and very much for stiffer penalties for harm to US citizens by those "visiting" this country in any capacity prior to deportation.

Personally I don't think we need the 2nd Amendment for a right that is ours naturally. The 2nd Amendment was a restriction placed on government by the people for a right they already have.

I would suggest filtering people who want to become citizens is more important than filtering law abiding people's travel. If people travel across boarders and they break the law, they need to pay the price. And the price should be stiff for non citizens especially for harming American citizens. But if we allow people to become citizens that don't want to assimilate to the values of America, the American citizen is the one paying the price in the devaluation of their country. This holds true for any & every country in my opinion.

Indeed. The government intrusion is an affront. I do not feel any safer and so far they have only proven they are less efficient and more intrusive than private security. Typical...

True that the government cannot keep you safe that's why we have the 2nd Amendment. However it can filter immigration as best it can to reduce the likelihood I'll have to shoot someone. National Defense, including setting and holding a border, is a primary duty of the federal government as given by the people.

Airline did have their own security prior to 9-11. Things have gotten worse ever since.

Yes that would be constitutional, probably better, less expensive, and less intrusive.