The TSA needs to be abolished.

1. Bill of Rights 1a. Bearing Arms Here is why the idea of schools and courtrooms being untopical is valid. The original purposes of the second amendment are these: • deterring undemocratic government; • repelling invasion; • suppressing insurrection; • facilitating a natural right of self-defense; • participating in law enforcement; • enabling the people to organize a militia system, A gun in a school or a courtroom does none of these things. HOWEVER, a gun in a plane does two of these things. It facilitates a natural right of self-defense, and allows a citizen to participate in law enforcement. One could even argue it repels invasion. In a school, as I have stated before, the only real reason to bring a gun is to use it. My opponent has adopted this same argument to be valid for airplanes, but that is simply not true. Nobody that is within a school (students), is going to be a police officer. They probably didn't just get back from a hunting trip. In fact, little to no students would have a concealed weapons license and use it, although an adult would. As you can see there are plenty of reasons a gun on a plane could and is useful. Next, let's examine the idea of mass panic on a plane. My opponent states this: "Say that a terrorist pulls out a gun, and immediately several people start firing. " However, then he goes on to say this: "He would not start a gunfight for several reasons. One, he would easily be overpowered, and two, he wouldn't have enough ammo. He would save it for when it really mattered, and that's for pilot cabin hostages. " A terrorist, as my opponent has made evident, will not be pulling out guns in a cabin full of people and shooting. "Say that a terrorist pulls out a gun, and immediately several people start firing. " I'll play along with this unlikely scenario anyway. My opponent suggests here one simple thing: people are stupid. The minute someone pulls out a gun, people aren't going to go berserk. Just look at United Airlines flight 93. They didn't all flip on immediately. They were able to take control of the aircraft (which, even if the whole situation wasn't prevented in the first place, would have been made a lot easier with firearms), and prevented damage. Calmly. O. K. , maybe they weren't completely calm. That's expected, they all knew they were about to die. They sure didn't go around killing everyone, though. Back to the thing about the mall; Panic is unavoidable in extreme situations. The only thing removing the TSA would do is make the situation less extreme. A guy with a gun surrounded by people with no guns is a lot more dangerous and frightening than a guy surrounded by other guys with guns. The idea that preventing panic is a good reason to establish a government agency is hogwash. 1b. How is the government not able to check every house in the U. S. ? It's not like they can't visit every house in the U. S. , they do it with the Census all the time. They don't do it because it's ridiculous and unconstitutional. There isn't even any proof that the TSA has ever caught a terrorist in the first place. Sure, it may be possible to outsmart behavioral profiling. You CAN, however, outsmart a metal detector, as has been made extremely obvious. Cavity insertion, or even worse, surgical implantation, can pass by a scanner with ease. Behavioral profiling is not the only viable alternative, either. Dog sniffers have also been suggested and proven effective (they are already in place in Hong Kong) [. http://www.wmbfnews.com... ] "the US air industry is much larger than the UK and Israel, making almost impossible to change even if it was better. " Can I get a source for this? 2. Money Waste How is "working up the ladder" bad? Obviously we'd have to stop at some point, but at this point we also need to START at some point. The U. S. needs to cut money SOMEWHERE, and I think this is a good thing to cut. To summarize, we cannot just abolish the TSA. My opponent brings up several alternative answers. I have brought up the They charge the airlines and the passengers. That's called taxes. I fail to see how these "fees" qualify as justification to pay for lavish parties and outsourced hiring. 3. Ineffective A bomb does not necessarily need an outside triggering mechanism. Couldn't it be timed? And even if it weren't a timer-powered bomb, couldn't a controller be put somewhere discreet, such as in an electronic within a carry-on? You can't tell me the TSA would catch these things. Security could go one of two ways. Behavioral profiling or dog sniffing could be taken care of by the Department of Homeland Security, or, alternatively, you could have the airlines take it over. If an airline thinks security is important, it could easily implement these same systems, just without all the added disadvantages of unconstitutionality or increased taxes, and would stop contributing to federal deficit. 4. False Sense of Danger "Just ONE could cause another national disaster. " You say this, but you also admitted that the TSA does not catch everything, here: "If ten people have bombs and the scanners catch 1, then the scanners have helped. " The scanners are ineffective, and we can't prevent another 9/11. If someone wants it to happen THAT bad, it's going to happen regardless. Is there a sense of danger? Yes. Is it necessary? No. There is no proof that the TSA have stopped even ONE terrorist. Since this is my last chance to say anything, I'd like to say a few things. 1. Thank you GavinAurion for providing a strong and educated debate. It's been fun. 2. Thanks to anyone who's been reading for reading. I hope we've both provided exciting reading material, and I encourage you to vote. Before I post I would also like to recap the points that have been considered. 1. Unconstitutionality The TSA goes against our 2nd and 4th amendment rights. They are blatant about doing so, and the fact that other government agencies and laws to this also doesn't justify it. 2. Money The TSA is using our money irresponsibly. 3. Ineffective My opponent has failed to cite one instance in which the TSA was effective, and I have sourced and instance in which they weren't. 4. Letting the Terrorists Win Obviously they breed a fear of danger in the hearts of Americans. Whether it is a rational fear or not has been debated, but at the time being I think the facts point towards the direction that it is not rational. Thank you for reading! I look forward to the final con argument.