In your extension of the Ohio bus analogy, you say that "The bus company has been the target of numerous hijackings...so the security of the bus is now controlled by the government." You might as well throw away everything before "the security of the bus is now controlled by the government." The point is, the government is involved. Justification of the government's involvement is NOT the issue here and is totally irrelevant, and cannot be debated because what you and I consider to be "just cause" for intervention will most likely differ. And because you and I disagree does not mean that one of us has to be "wrong," as you implied in an earlier post.

The security checkpoints at airports are there to control the airways, and are not to merely keep the general public who choose to fly safe. Even private planes have certain security clearances they must go through. The point trying to be made here is that bad stuff happens; where do you draw the line on the security/freedom issue? People get carjacked, mugged and murdered on our public roads. People who rob banks typically get away by the use of our public roads system. It doesn't matter whether a public bus or a private car is involved. Would you be willing to implement regular checkpoints on roads and highways to ensure that no person driving has any contraband or weapons with which to commit a crime? This would only be ensuring the safety of our roadways and the systems connected to them.

The fact of the matter is the government has no business physically opening and searching the property of practically everyone who chooses to use a particular mode of transportation, even if it is in the interest of "safety." Transportation doesn't warrant such Orwellian measures; visiting the White House, yeah, that probably does warrant such security. It doesn't matter that the airline industry has had its fair share of tragic events. Unless you are willing to implement policies across the board that are similar to the policies being used regarding the airline industries, you should be careful in defending such actions as being fully justifiable.

...And, when someone uses quotation marks, that does not necessarily mean that they are quoting you. Please don't try to pull that crap with me like you did with other posters. You know that quotation marks are also commonly used to indicate an emphasis or some other form of differentiation on the words they contain.