TSA Fails to Stop Stun Gun from Getting onto Plane

The latest event to be added to the growing list of Transportation Security Administration's failures involves a stun gun. A cleaning crew (not the TSA) found a stun gun onboard JetBlue Flight 1179 from Boston to Newark. This is alarming, because a stun gun could conceivably be used to hijack a plane. The stun gun's ability to intimidate and incapacitate people could be very desirable to someone wishing to take over a plane. The 9/11 hijackers even considered trying to use stun guns in their attack but later decided box cutters would be more practical.

Given the dangers stun guns could pose in the wrong hands on an airplane, it seems the TSA's primary function would be to keep weapons like stun guns off of planes, but they do not seem to be performing that function very well. The TSA, however, has shown incredible skill at molesting small children, harassing wounded veterans, humiliating handicapped people, and running hot chicks through full-body scanners.

On the topic of stun guns, why are the flight crews not armed with stun guns? A stun gun could be a very effective weapon against a hijacker. If the pilots and some flight attendants had stun guns on 9/11, all or most of the hijackers could have been stopped. Given the morbid incompetence of the TSA these days, the flight crews definitely need to be armed to fight against all of the terrorists and weapons the TSA allows on the planes.

The TSA's Roundtrip Ticket to Your Anus

Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, the Butt Bomber

In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on August 27, 2009, al-Qaeda terrorist, Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, attempted to kill Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, the Saudi Deputy Interior Minister in charge of Counter-Terrorism. Al-Asiri tricked the prince into believing he was a terrorist who wished to surrender and help the Saudi government fight terrorism. Using this ploy, al-Asiri managed to get within feet of the prince--in the prince's home--and detonate a bomb.

You might be wondering how an admitted terrorist was able to get a bomb within feet of a prominent public official in his own home. He did so by concealing the bomb in his rectum. Fortunately for the prince, al-Asiri's body deflected much of the blast away from the prince, and the prince did not suffer any serious injuries. A better-constructed bomb, however, could have easily killed everyone in the room.

Of course, this brings up the issue of airline security. If a known terrorist can use his rectum to get a bomb into a public official's home, what is keeping a terrorist from using his rectum to sneak a bomb past the dolts working the TSA airport security checkpoints?

How long will it be before the Transportation Security Administration decides rectum bombs are a legitimate threat to airplanes? What is in store for us then? Will the TSA have us dropping our pants, bending over tables, and sticking their fingers into our anuses to probe our rectums? How else will they know whether or not we have bombs up there? Those full-body scanners might not be able to detect certain explosives with densities similar to human tissue.

You know, if man can hide a bomb in his rectum, a woman could hide a bomb in her rectum and another bomb in her vagina. How long before the TSA wants to probe around inside of vaginas looking for bombs?

Here the worst part. The TSA is currently defending its intrusive pat-downs of small children on the grounds that no class of passenger can be treated differently from the others. The concept is that, if the TSA does not pat-down children aggressively, the terrorists will begin to use children in their suicide attacks. Based on this logic, the TSA will want to inspect the anuses and vaginas of small children who wish to fly.

By this point, hopefully you are seeing how ridiculous airport security has become. Is our security really worth all of this humiliation? At some point, the precautions become worse than the threat.