Boycott Commercial Air Travel!

It has been nearly a decade since Leonidas has refused to travel by commercial air. It happened one day in 2000 when an airline declined to allow him to board a flight from Eureka, California to Los Angeles while in possession of his legally permitted Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver.

He relented one time in 2007 at the entreaty of Mrs. Leonidas for a flight to Antigua in the Caribbean and was only prevented from decking a surly and arrogant Walmart reject TSA "officer" in San Juan, Puerto Rico by his better judgement.

Since that time "alternate" modes of travel have been chosen and it now appears the idea is gaining traction.

THIS IS A NATIONAL BOYCOTT CALL.  

Specifically:

• We will not consent to be sexually assaulted as a condition of getting on an airplane.  A virtual strip-search is no different than a physical strip-search, and a "grope" is a sexual assault.  Period.  Such a "Custody Search" is only permissible under US law when one has been arrested with probable cause to believe one has committed a crime and is being taken into custody.  We refuse to accept being treated as literal Federal Prisoners as a condition of boarding an aircraft.

• We assert that virtual strip-search machines do not in fact, and cannot in fact, detect things such as an explosive device inserted into the anus, which has already been done by a terrorist in an attempt to kill a Saudi Prince.  The so-called "purpose" claimed for such searches is thus in fact a lie.

• We understand that flying carries risk - including the risk of a terrorist attack.  But a terrorist can do just as much damage exploding a device in the security screening line, which of course, a scanner and intrusive grope will not prevent as they haven't been encountered yet.  Again, the claimed purpose of said procedures is a lie as any terrorist intending such an action can simply explode himself while standing in line.
  

• You are more than 100 times as likely to die in a car crash then from a terrorist attack on US soil.  About 42,000 people die annually in a car crash.  3,000 people died on 9/11, and a few in other terrorist attacks since (e.g. Ft. Hood.)  The odds are clear - under 4,000 people have been killed in terrorism attacks on US soil since 2000, while over 400,000 people have died in car accidents.  While terrorism is horrifying it does not rise to a risk that justifies abrogation of our Constitutional rights - especially when the proffered claims of "safety" against said attacks made by the government are in fact intentionally false and misleading.

• We assert that metal detectors are sufficient to detect weapons such as guns and knives. Armed pilots, marshals and even armed citizens with concealed weapons permits would and will stop armed assaults.  In point of fact, United Flight 93 was stopped on 9/11 without any weapons at all by the passengers once they determined the terrorists intended to use it as a bomb.  In short, other than by means of explosive, arming pilots, marshals and/or citizens is more than sufficient to prevent terrorism on board.  Further, claims that gunfire on board would cause "explosive decompression" are intentional lies - the average aircraft intentionally bleeds off massive amounts of air from the cabin to balance cabin air inducted from the turbine bleed as a routine part of pressurization for high-altitude flight.

• We further assert in defense of our position that no prohibited item was brought through security on 9/11.  In point of fact boxcutters were permitted items on board aircraft at that point.  There was no breach of airport security on that day.  No guns, no bombs, nothing but permitted items and determined individuals who were willing to both kill and die.  The reason 9/11 succeeded was not due to "lax security" by the airlines but rather because the government refused to act on reports of suspicious activities at flight schools in Florida and also refused to run down and remove persons in this country on expired Visas!  That is, 9/11 happened due to government incompetence, not due to airline security breaches - and that's a fact.

• We do not, and will not, consent to being under effective arrest just for setting foot inside an airport.  The position that the TSA takes that one cannot refuse screening and decide not to board - that is, you cannot determine what you are to be subjected to in advance and elect to give or not to give consent.  That is, once apprised of the nature of the screen to be performed you cannot then refuse and not fly.  This is an arrest when one has committed no crime.  It is our position that this procedure constitutes unlawful detainment and felony kidnapping.

  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!