At Denver International Airport for a flight back home to ABQ. My cologne, which cleared TSA screening for the flight here, was confiscated because it was “too full.”
My response, irritated and early in the morning, was “You have to be f-ing kidding me.” The TSA screener told me he “didn’t appreciate cursing,” and if I did it again he’d get a supervisor involved.
We have a First Amendment. If you don’t like cursing, stop working in a public facing job applying arbitrary criteria that results in confiscation of personal property.
This is America. I have a right to free speech, and no one has a right to never be offended.
they stole your cologne.
Should a poured some out on his head and told him now its only half full
casey reed That’s why next time my cologne bottle will be filled with urine.
Colorado. Where I watched someone legally smoking a bowl of weed while driving on the interstate, but my 16 round Springfield XD is illegal.
It’s legal to smoke weed while driving in CO???
Recreational use is. If it’s illegal to drive, the heavy stoners are going to have problems just like the problem drinkers.
OK, just clarifying. So you’re really just comparing people’s right to get stoned to your lack of a right to own an instrument dedicated to the act of killing. Makes sense.
I have guns from which I derive great enjoyment, and have never killed anything. I shoot only paper, clay and other target materials. So a firearm has enjoyable uses other than killing.
All I’m saying is that it is reasonable for a state to determine that some things are too dangerous for individuals to own or do. And that it is reasonable for a state to determine that smoking weed statistically harms almost no one, while gun ownership statistically harms many.
Citation needed.
Citation needed for what? To prove that guns kill tens of thousands annually and that weed kills almost no one? Now you’re just being silly.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
… while gun ownership statistically harms many.
“Harming many” when used in a sense of statistics means that a significant percentage of guns manufactured then harm people. I’m not sure that if such researched numbers exist they would bear that out. Thousands die in automobile accidents each year. But given the statistics of automobile ownership and usage, not many are harmed statistically. It’s about a 1:10K chance of being killed in or by a car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Two thirds of US gun deaths are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the US. The number is closer to ten thousand, not tens of thousands. Contrasted with 32K-42K automobile related deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf
The critical distinction is that virtually all car-related deaths are accidents – side effects of having cars in society – while virtually all gun-related deaths are intentional – the instrument being used as intended – to kill. That was my original point.
Statistically, the primary intention is to end one’s own life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wright
( I don’t know if his Spy catcher book ever came off the banned list in the UK)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarium_%28Suvorov%29
I’m almost sure I read this particular guys book about how he got inducted into the GRU. If you want to know how spies learnt their trade a few years ago it is interesting.
Sir John Harvey-Jones did a huge service to the real world where he mentioned ICI being spied on and the details of the state spying became an industrial product in another company (maybe the book was Getting It Together: Memoirs of a trouble shooter).
these gentlemen all wrote of subterfuge
… a pen and notebook is secure until the wrong person opens it …
even if you use a one time pad
computers are too complex to actually write a guarantee of security and it is a myth that a lot of people like to believe they are not of interest to those who would eavesdrop on their interaction with the electronic world
(funny side bar – Lenin designed the USSR to have three arms, Politburo, GRU, KGB so that if any stepped out of line the other two would be able to control it. It is well documented that Stalin was objected to by Lenin, what did Stalin end up controlling, both the KGB and Politburo, the troika model failed once one person could control two of the organs.)