Big Brother

This is a discussion on Big Brother within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Kerbouchard There is a thread that has popped up a few times in the last few months about "how long do we ...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 100

Thread: Big Brother

  1. #46
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    There is a thread that has popped up a few times in the last few months about "how long do we have left?" A government that is elected by the majority of the people cannot last indefinitely. There will come a point in any democracy, where the have-not's will vote to place people in power to take the property of the 'have's' for the greater good.
    Then exactly how would government work if not elected by the people? With all our flaws we still have the best system of government ever conceived. And our success is evident from our economic stability, our technological achievements and our extraordinary standard of living without peer.

    As to the have-nots voting for people who will take from the haves, my position has always been that only the haves should vote. That was the intent of the Founders and the only method that will preserve the Republic.

    You can easily say that 'we' elect our officials and that 'we the people' are the government, but what happens when 'we the people' does not represent me, or you anymore?
    All we can do is convince our neighbors of the correctness of our values. We are sliding into socialism. FDR was the worst president in our history for initiating a pyramid scheme that transfers wealth from the have-nots to the haves.

    Well, I see our government turning into something that does not represent me, or the values that this country was founded on. If my government, or 'the sheeple' turn against me, I do not want that government being able to track me.
    Well, the government is not able to track you nor do they want to. No one is proposing to implant a GPS under your skin. Still, anyone is easy to track. You are required to file an income tax return, for example. I also see the government sliding into an authority that I do not like. European socialism is not my idea of a free society. But even that will not have the oppressive nature that so many fear with the implementation of RealID. The complaints aired on this thread are down in the noise compared with the real problems to the Republic that we face.

    If I could see a real value from the real id, I would not oppose it so strongly, but it simply isn't there.

    You said it could help with border security, or to deport those that don't have ID's, but our LEO put people in jail all the time that don't have ID and they are usually released shortly after because Immigration doesn't think it's worth it to 'only' pick up a few people.
    That is not an argument against RealID, but rather an argument that our current laws are not being enforced. I wholeheartedly agree. The fact is that the 9/11 hijackers were not here legally and if RealID were implemented at that time they would never have been able to board those fateful flights. They entered legally and had legal drivers licenses from multiple states, which is all that is currently required to board airplanes. Will this solve all the problems. Of course not. It does help plug a gap that has been exploited. It also helps employers comply with existing law regarding illegals. Again, there is no downside to law abiding citizens.

    To enhance security, it would have to be completely secure, and not have the ability to be cloned. That lasted all of 2 weeks.
    It is far more secure than any current document. The fact it is not perfectly secure is not an argument against it. Our money has many security features to prevent counterfeiting. Can it be counterfeited? Sure. Just not as easy as it was before.

    My bulky wallet with my D.L., credit cards, and SSN, cannot be read remotely. I have to open my wallet and give somebody those cards by choice. With ID that transmits signals, it takes that choice away from me.
    It can be read by a sensor that is close to the chip. We are talking very short distances not the connotation of remote, which implies long distances. We have this technology embedded into our badges at work and they are not recognized at more than a few inches.

    The BG's have the same technology we do, and often can manipulate it before we can. A lot of our current technology is in response to what the BG's do.
    If a BG wants to steal an identity it is far easier to simply pluck some bank statements out of the trash. Shredders. Security measures for RF or other communications are far more secure with even basic encryption.

    With ID theft already on the rise, I cannot fathom a reason why the gov't would make it easier for criminals to intercept that information.
    It is far easier for them to look over your shoulder as you open your passport, or use tiny cameras, or microphones. It is impossible to believe that identity theft is a credible argument against RealID.

    As far as your argument about electronic communications, I believe it to be completely without merit. Your argument that it is not my papers or effects because it is in transit would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. If BG1 sends BG2 a letter, can the gov't open that letter w/out a warrant? It is in transit, neither is in possesion...so why is there a difference? Only because we allow there to be.
    Exactly! We have specific laws that prevent opening mail sent through the USPS. We have no similar law preventing electronic communication to not be intercepted under all circumstances. And there is a significant difference between data mining and reading your email. You write he address of the recipient and name on the outside of our letter. Do you think it is illegal to note the sender and receiver? Further, looking for specific words of phrases in email may prevent enemy attacks. No one wants to read your email to Aunt Judy. But if Aunt Judy is coordinating an attack on America then the sooner we arrest dear Aunt Judy the safer we all are.

    The government is going way to far, and needs to back the heck off. I don't need the gov't to make me safe or to provide food for my table.
    Everyone needs the government to provide national security. It is the ONLY reason we enjoy the benefits of our free society.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; April 5th, 2008 at 08:51 PM. Reason: typos/quote tags

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,132
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    But a right to privacy? There is no right to be anonymous ...
    Privacy and anonymity are two completely different things. I said privacy. I would submit that the 4A is indeed about privacy, in the real, physical sense of the word, about one's right to the government's hands-off treatment of us and our things unless warranted. "Persons, houses, papers and effects" pretty much covers the collection of things about us that we have in our possesion or write. And yet, much is ignored and sidestepped. And so it goes, incrementally.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Then exactly how would government work if not elected by the people? With all our flaws we still have the best system of government ever conceived. And our success is evident from our economic stability, our technological achievements and our extraordinary standard of living without peer.
    It wouldn't work any better than it works now. No government in the history of mankind has lasted forever, I don't think this one will, either. If you asked the citizens of Rome or Cathay if they ever thought their cities would lie in ruin you would have been laughed out of the country, or burned as a heretic.
    As to the have-nots voting for people who will take from the haves, my position has always been that only the haves should vote. That was the intent of the Founders and the only method that will preserve the Republic.
    Well, that's not very democratic of you, but I happen to agree. I don't believe people who cannot contribute in any meaningful way to society should have a say on how that society is ran. The fact that they do is asinine.
    Well, the government is not able to track you nor do they want to. No one is proposing to implant a GPS under your skin. Still, anyone is easy to track. You are required to file an income tax return, for example. I also see the government sliding into an authority that I do not like. European socialism is not my idea of a free society. But even that will not have the oppressive nature that so many fear with the implementation of RealID.
    There are many who think that this is a step in that direction. A lot of people read the Bible and believe in Revelations.
    The complaints aired on this thread are down in the noise compared with the real problems to the Republic that we face.
    Which is why I chose to chime in. Yes, there are serious problems and the Real ID isn't even close to the top of the list, but it could and will impact the larger problems in a negative way(I'll get to how in a minute)
    That is not an argument against RealID, but rather an argument that our current laws are not being enforced. I wholeheartedly agree. The fact is that the 9/11 hijackers were not here legally and if RealID were implemented at that time they would never have been able to board those fateful flights. They entered legally and had legal drivers licenses from multiple states, which is all that is currently required to board airplanes.
    I'm not sure if you are saying they were here legally or not. Either way, they entered the country legally and obtained their ID's legally. They obtained official ID through the same officials that would issue the Real ID. I fail to see how issuing a more secure ID, will change the fact that inept officials will still be issuing the ID.

    You are correct that our current laws are not enforced and that the fact that the current laws are not obeyed or enforced is not an argument against the real ID, but in the same way, they cannot be used for the real id. I hope your argument is not based on "Just because we don't enforce our current laws, doesn't mean we won't enforce the new laws that we write." I give you too much credit for that, so I will assume you mean that it will make the laws easier to enforce. That may be true. But if our current laws were enforced in the first place, there would be no need for the Real ID, because we would be prosecuting the people that we catch, instead of exercising the 'catch and release program'.
    It is far more secure than any current document. The fact it is not perfectly secure is not an argument against it. Our money has many security features to prevent counterfeiting. Can it be counterfeited? Sure. Just not as easy as it was before.
    The fact that it is not perfectly secure would not be an argument, if it wasn't being billed as the solution to all of our problems. Because it is supposed to be completely secure, I believe it could actually pose more of a national security risk. Part of the argument for the ID is that it makes things more secure, therefore less of a hassle, and easier to get through check points. When the system is corrupted(I almost used 'if', but decided 'when' was a better word.), the national security nightmare could be far reaching.
    It can be read by a sensor that is close to the chip. We are talking very short distances not the connotation of remote, which implies long distances. We have this technology embedded into our badges at work and they are not recognized at more than a few inches.
    Current technology allows reading at close proximity. My badges also use a proximity sensor. Sometimes 8" sometimes 1-2". It depends on the badge reader. To believe that somebody will not come up with a way to read these signals from larger distances is shortsighted. Within 10 years they will probably be able to be read by satellite, if not already.)
    If a BG wants to steal an identity it is far easier to simply pluck some bank statements out of the trash. Shredders. Security measures for RF or other communications are far more secure with even basic encryption.
    It is far easier for them to look over your shoulder as you open your passport, or use tiny cameras, of microphones. It is impossible to believe that identity theft is a credible argument against RealID.
    No argument, but all of those require me to be negligent. To throw away personal info or to flash ID's where others can see them. My personal choice vs a system that could allow remote detection. I'd prefer the responsibility to safeguard my own information, without depending on the gov't to provide a radio signal that cannot be intercepted.
    Everyone needs the government to provide national security. It is the ONLY reason we enjoy the benefits of our free society.
    Yes, our government should provide national security, by enforcing our borders and destroying our enemies both foreign and domestic. The enforcing borders thing isn't exactly our gov'ts best selling point.

    We are approaching some scary times. Global terrorism. Oil prices. A weak dollar. An entitlement society that believes it is owed something. Criminal street gangs are growing daily. MS13 is becoming more powerful. Our gov't is trying to reduce or eliminate consequences for bad decisions. Peak oil will probably occur in our lifetimes.

    We have a lot of huge problems. And so far the only cure to any of these problems has been more government.

    With a possibility of a collapse of the dollar and a civil uprising, I believe I would prefer if I did not have a card that could send out electronic signals broadcasting my presence/secure information. That's just me.

    Even if I will concede that the card will probably never be able to be read from more than 25-50 feet, I still say it provides a solution to a nonexistent problem, and the gov't should be worrying/planning for other things.

    Enforce the laws that we do have, stop spending money we don't have, and try to figure out a way to educate citizens in cause/effect relationships.
    Last edited by Kerbouchard; April 5th, 2008 at 10:20 PM. Reason: spelling
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  5. #49
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    can i have the "real id" chip embedded in my belt buckle?
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

  6. #50
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    Sounds like the ones supporting this crapola are either Lawyers or Tax Payer hired govt hands or private company hired hands that stand to make money on this crapola or parts of the three combined.

    U.S. Constitution - read the words - word for word - read what those words mean not your personal opinion of those words - use a dictionary to look up the words.

    We do not need lawyers to tell us what the U.S. Constitution says, it is plain and simple wording = plain and simple meaning, just some lawyers and govt hired hands try to twist the U.S. Constitution to their way of thinking

  7. #51
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The anti-Federalists, as many are on this forum, afraid of governmental overreach. But by specifically enumerating some rights that are prohibited from infringement by the Federal government that actually opens the door for infringment.
    Sorry I'm late. You called?

    Regarding the subject, having aforementioned anti-Federalist leanings, I'm of the opinion that this is a function better performed by States, as there is no federal authority to do as is being sought to do. However, those traveling to and from the country (yes, including US citizens), would certainly fall under federal jurisdiction. Anyway, my biggest gripe about any kind of new federal ID is that it's unnecessary and won't solve anything (akin to creating new laws to solve problems that are already occuring outside the law), and is a vast waste of taxpayer monies. Oh, and the federal government has proven to be routinely bad at keeping private information private. RF technology hasn't progressed far enough to be near as full-proof as it ought to be if concrete law were to be based on it.

    At the State level, I'm fine with these measures, provided it can be proven that they would be effective, efficient, secure, and voluntary. States have the capacity to be more effective, efficient, and secure than the federal government can ever be, short of a technological revolution and a makeover for the many federal bureaucracies. Right now the vast majority of identity and information theft is internal, and will continue to remain that way until programmers and the folks they program for give up the back door fetishes and make their programs full-proof, period, without exceptions. As I said earlier, the federal government has consistently shown itself to be pretty bad at safeguarding large numbers of peoples' information, and as such I have zero reason to believe a new ID such as that described would be an improvement over anything.

    Short Version: Identification OK, Card OK if technology approves and if applied by States, federal government's not very good right now at safeguarding personal information of large numbers of people, and I think that covers it.

    SelfDefense, for what it's worth I agree with the passage I quoted, and feel that adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution completely undermined the State sovereignty the anti-federalists sought to keep. This does not change my position that the federal government, though, has overstepped its bounds, quite often, and the erosion of the concept of state sovereignty has permitted a complacent attitude and contributed to the overreaching of federal power beyond its given authority. Like the kid who knows he's not going to be punished, so he keeps causing trouble or breaking rules. But, regardless, I do agree, and wonder how things would have been different had the BOR never been added.


    -B

  8. #52
    Senior Member Array Cap'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    And where you're located? Where did that come from? We are discussing identifying yourself to the government, not having them track you.
    And you don't think in the near future that this realID won't have GPS capability. With the development of nano technology growing at a rapid rate, you can bet the farm your realID will have GPS capability.
    RealID nuff said!
    Welcome to Tennessee, the patron state of shootin' stuff.--SHOOTER

  9. #53
    Senior Member Array briansmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    688
    i dont like it. no amount of fast talking salesmanship i see on the proponents parts is even twitching the needle on this.

  10. #54
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    It wouldn't work any better than it works now. No government in the history of mankind has lasted forever, I don't think this one will, either. If you asked the citizens of Rome or Cathay if they ever thought their cities would lie in ruin you would have been laughed out of the country, or burned as a heretic.
    I have no illusion that the experiment in government that is the United States will last forever or even to the next generation. I do know that our government has allowed the people of the United States to be the weathiest, most secure, and most free of any society. And the reason is self determination.


    Well, that's not very democratic of you, but I happen to agree. I don't believe people who cannot contribute in any meaningful way to society should have a say on how that society is ran. The fact that they do is asinine.
    And therein lies the problem. It is extremely difficult to take away the privilege of voting to those that think it is a right and more importantly, to those have-nots that currently vote. At least not considering the hypocrisy of people who do not want an oppressive government unilaterally overriding 'the will of the people.'

    Of course, we CAN do something to stem the tide of illegals voting. And that is a Federal ID that would not allow illegals to vote for Federal offices. RealID.

    I'm not sure if you are saying they were here legally or not. Either way, they entered the country legally and obtained their ID's legally. They obtained official ID through the same officials that would issue the Real ID. I fail to see how issuing a more secure ID, will change the fact that inept officials will still be issuing the ID.
    I meant to say the 9/11 hijackers entered this country legally and obtained a legal drivers license. Then they illegally obtained multiple drivers licenses from different states. They illegally overstayed their visa. ReaID would have identiied them priior to boarding the planes. Solving that problem is exactly the reason the legislation was proposed in the first place.

    You are correct that our current laws are not enforced and that the fact that the current laws are not obeyed or enforced is not an argument against the real ID, but in the same way, they cannot be used for the real id. I hope your argument is not based on "Just because we don't enforce our current laws, doesn't mean we won't enforce the new laws that we write." I give you too much credit for that, so I will assume you mean that it will make the laws easier to enforce. That may be true. But if our current laws were enforced in the first place, there would be no need for the Real ID, because we would be prosecuting the people that we catch, instead of exercising the 'catch and release program'.
    Well, RealID was never intended to solve the catch and release idiocy. It is designed to help law enforcement prevent non US citizens from traveleing unfetterred throughout the United States.


    The fact that it is not perfectly secure would not be an argument, if it wasn't being billed as the solution to all of our problems. Because it is supposed to be completely secure, I believe it could actually pose more of a national security risk. Part of the argument for the ID is that it makes things more secure, therefore less of a hassle, and easier to get through check points.
    It does make things more secure. From what I understand, it is easy to falsify virtually every document: passports, social security, drivers licesnse, etc. Technology such as RealID will be next to impossible to forge. It is literally tamperproof.

    When the system is corrupted(I almost used 'if', but decided 'when' was a better word.), the national security nightmare could be far reaching. Current technology allows reading at close proximity. My badges also use a proximity sensor. Sometimes 8" sometimes 1-2". It depends on the badge reader. To believe that somebody will not come up with a way to read these signals from larger distances is shortsighted. Within 10 years they will probably be able to be read by satellite, if not already.)
    Well, sure. But even if it could be read from larger distances that would pose even more technological problems such as directing your reader to focus on a single source when many RealIds are present. And to what end? All your information is easily accessible now for anyone with a bit of investigative curiosity.

    No argument, but all of those require me to be negligent. To throw away personal info or to flash ID's where others can see them. My personal choice vs a system that could allow remote detection. I'd prefer the responsibility to safeguard my own information, without depending on the gov't to provide a radio signal that cannot be intercepted.
    We rely on government for many things. We rely on government to provide radio signals for military communication that 'cannot' be intercepted. Most of all, we rely on government to enforce immigration laws. RealID will allow for more efficiency in enforcement and more efficiency for the people boarding planes, voting, etc.

    We are approaching some scary times. Global terrorism. Oil prices. A weak dollar. An entitlement society that believes it is owed something. Criminal street gangs are growing daily. MS13 is becoming more powerful. Our gov't is trying to reduce or eliminate consequences for bad decisions. Peak oil will probably occur in our lifetimes.
    Every time is a scary time. I think we are in one of the less scary times of my life. No threat of fallout from a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. We have a defense to enemy missiles launched at our country. Despite the negativity and misinformation about the economy, we have a strong economy with no signs of anything but, at worst, a minor contraction. And when the entitlement programs run out of money we will be in no worse shape than before those programs were created; people will again be responsible for their own well being. Peak oil is a myth.

    We have a lot of huge problems. And so far the only cure to any of these problems has been more government.
    I'm sure we agree that the solution to many of our problems is less government. But until we stop the have-nots from voting we will have to minimize the waste of government and make the small, incremental improvements that we have seen for the last few years.

    With a possibility of a collapse of the dollar and a civil uprising, I believe I would prefer if I did not have a card that could send out electronic signals broadcasting my presence/secure information. That's just me.
    The dollar is not on the verge of collapse. We are not on the verge of a civil uprising. Power will transistion as it has for most of the last two hundred twenty years. Free and fair elections. And with 5% unemployment (also called full employment) and a rate of inflation that causes people to spend most of what they earn, our money is more than secure.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; April 6th, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason: typos

  11. #55
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram Rod View Post
    Much as the 'powers that be' attempt to propagate this venue, I think it's still a long time to fruition. Granted--some of the system is already in place. Thing is absolute power and the internet. This is the way the world will crumble. All information online and available----then--someone is going to cut the link--no internet--no information--no banking-no economics--total collapse of everything. Think about how almost everything now depends on the internet. What's going to happen to you when you get pulled over and law enforcement is unable to identify you? That's just the way things are headed. Bad.
    Hence the theme for the movie: Live Free or Die Hard

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    This is one of the repeating topics here. Everytime it appears I ask the question as to exactly what rights are violated and why people are frightened of being identified. So far, the answers have not satisfactorily addressed the issues, only emotional arguments revolving around the mythical right to privacy.

    Personally, I welcome any technology that alleviates my carrying a wallet full of credit cards, debit cards, licenses, permits, membership cards, insurance cards, discount cards and access cards. Not to mention a passport that [until the new passports arrive, which by the way, were attacked by some here] doesn't even fit in my wallet! If I can get a single card, microchip or other technological advancement that solves these problems I will be first in line. I am certainly not afraid of the government. And no one has provided any evidence as to why I should be fearful of government.

    Anything that makes my life easier and helps others do their jobs is a good thing. Placing obstacles in the way of law enforcement or Federal authorities only makes their tasks more arduous, more frustrating and more expsensive for the taxpayers.
    Are you a Cylon or just a sympathizer? In the Matrix perhaps?

  12. #56
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Regarding the subject, having aforementioned anti-Federalist leanings, I'm of the opinion that this is a function better performed by States, as there is no federal authority to do as is being sought to do. However, those traveling to and from the country (yes, including US citizens), would certainly fall under federal jurisdiction. Anyway, my biggest gripe about any kind of new federal ID is that it's unnecessary and won't solve anything (akin to creating new laws to solve problems that are already occuring outside the law), and is a vast waste of taxpayer monies. Oh, and the federal government has proven to be routinely bad at keeping private information private. RF technology hasn't progressed far enough to be near as full-proof as it ought to be if concrete law were to be based on it.
    It will solve the problem that it is easy to forge current documents. It will me far more difficult to forge an RF technology solution. US citizens will see no difference in their daily lives. Terrorists and illegals, on the other hand, will see their current unfetterred travel more closely scrutinized. And yes, the government is not good at keeping private information private. But they are better than the average citizen. And the truth is that virtually none of your private information is actually private at all.

    At the State level, I'm fine with these measures, provided it can be proven that they would be effective, efficient, secure, and voluntary. States have the capacity to be more effective, efficient, and secure than the federal government can ever be, short of a technological revolution and a makeover for the many federal bureaucracies.
    True, but this is a Federal issue and a national security issue. It would be a inconvenient to board a plane in one state without proper identification and be detained at an intermediate stop because that state required identification.

    Right now the vast majority of identity and information theft is internal, and will continue to remain that way until programmers and the folks they program for give up the back door fetishes and make their programs full-proof, period, without exceptions. As I said earlier, the federal government has consistently shown itself to be pretty bad at safeguarding large numbers of peoples' information, and as such I have zero reason to believe a new ID such as that described would be an improvement over anything.
    It's not as if there is valuable information here. We are talking about your citzenship. I will proudly exclaim I am a US citizen. If someone figures that out on their own, so what?


    SelfDefense, for what it's worth I agree with the passage I quoted, and feel that adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution completely undermined the State sovereignty the anti-federalists sought to keep. This does not change my position that the federal government, though, has overstepped its bounds, quite often, and the erosion of the concept of state sovereignty has permitted a complacent attitude and contributed to the overreaching of federal power beyond its given authority.
    A strong, limited, central government is not incompatible with state sovereignty. The erosion of state sovereignty is, in many cases, because the states have abdicated their independence. Federal tax dollars are a huge incentive to allow the Federal government to run roughshod over the states. There must be a balance between Federal oversight and state sovereignty. Unfortunately, this nation is quickly devolving into a national socialist state. And in that, we all lose.

    Like the kid who knows he's not going to be punished, so he keeps causing trouble or breaking rules. But, regardless, I do agree, and wonder how things would have been different had the BOR never been added.
    There would be far less lawyers.

    I don't think there would have been any significant difference. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were well understood at the time without actually incorporating principles into the Constitution. If citizens of the United States were properly educated by parents, schools and church then these questions would never be a problem. The Constitution is for moral men. No amount of legislation will prevent the immoral from ruining the country.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; April 6th, 2008 at 12:03 PM. Reason: typos

  13. #57
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    I've been following this, but haven't really wanted to invest the time into another political debate. Now I guess I'll chime in late.

    First off, RealID doesn't solve the real problem that we have of people illegally entering the country. How many come in from Mexico (or Canada) each year without stopping at the border checkpoints? These people don't show any ID to begin with, so how will RealID help?

    If the answer to that is that anything you do/buy, ie. shopping, insurance, movies, employment, school, etc. you need a RealID, then it is getting more like the Big Brother title of this thread. Although, our current laws haven't stopped illegals from obtaining driver's licenses and employment yet so I fail to see how a new ID will solve all these problems.

    Second, it's not as secure as people think. The new passports are manufactured in Asia and Europe. It's easy enough to bribe an American into breaching their employer's security, how easy is it to bribe someone making $2 a day?

    The third thing is kind of offtopic from the thread but has been mentioned a couple of times already. The thought of not allowing Americans to vote that don't contribute is scary, almost Orwellian. This discussion just blew me away. Drawing a distinction between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is a class war that we do not want to have in this country. There was a time in this country when this was allowed to happen, but thankfully, now blacks and women have the right to vote just like free white men. You're talking about setting up a ruling class, and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers did not have that in mind.

    Where is the line? What if you've worked your whole life, but recently got laid off or injured where you can't work? What if you're born with a physical handicap that prevents you from working? What if you work one or two jobs, but don't make enough to pay a lot of taxes? What if your spouse works, but you stay home with the kids? What if you're retired? What if you're 16 and have a good job paying taxes, by this rule could minors be voting?

    I really don't think denying American citizens the right to vote, and it is a right, not a privelege, is what the constitution is about. It is very scary that people would contemplate this, because then where does it end? Are these people that can't vote still citizens? If we can take this right from them, should they have other rights? Maybe they should lose the right to free speech, we wouldn't want them talking rebellion. Maybe they should lose the right to keep and bear arms, they don't have much money so what are they protecting, and they'll probably just use the guns to rob the rich.

    People that would agree with this should ask themselves this question. What will you do when the bar gets raised? If you're raising the bar this time, who's to say it can't be raised again. It could then move up to you have to own a home or have certain amount of wealth to vote. Now wouldn't that be scary.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
    be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    — Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
    be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
    — Nineteenth Amendment (1920)

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
    primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
    — Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)

    The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
    — Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)
    I don't see "privelege" anywhere in there....

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    The third thing is kind of offtopic from the thread but has been mentioned a couple of times already. The thought of not allowing Americans to vote that don't contribute is scary, almost Orwellian. This discussion just blew me away. Drawing a distinction between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is a class war that we do not want to have in this country. There was a time in this country when this was allowed to happen, but thankfully, now blacks and women have the right to vote just like free white men. You're talking about setting up a ruling class, and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers did not have that in mind.
    ...
    I really don't think denying American citizens the right to vote, and it is a right, not a privelege, is what the constitution is about. It is very scary that people would contemplate this, because then where does it end? Are these people that can't vote still citizens? If we can take this right from them, should they have other rights? Maybe they should lose the right to free speech, we wouldn't want them talking rebellion. Maybe they should lose the right to keep and bear arms, they don't have much money so what are they protecting, and they'll probably just use the guns to rob the rich.

    People that would agree with this should ask themselves this question. What will you do when the bar gets raised? If you're raising the bar this time, who's to say it can't be raised again. It could then move up to you have to own a home or have certain amount of wealth to vote. Now wouldn't that be scary.
    I can't speak for SD, but I can speak for myself. I was not advocating creating a ruling class or restricting the right to vote. Only pointing out that no democracy can last because as the majority(i.e. have nots) vote to take away from the have's, to give to the have-not's, we will end up bankrupt.

    I don't have an easy solution, such as restricting the right to vote to those that pay taxes.

    All I know is that as a democratic society progresses, it will vote itself more entitlements, and at some point that becomes unsustainable. You can be the judge if we are already passed that point or if we are approaching it.

    Either way, a Real ID provides a non-sustainable gov't the ability to track and restrict the actions of it's subjects, therefore I am against it.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  15. #59
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    First off, RealID doesn't solve the real problem that we have of people illegally entering the country. How many come in from Mexico (or Canada) each year without stopping at the border checkpoints? These people don't show any ID to begin with, so how will RealID help?
    RealID is not meant to solve that problem. It is to prevent terrorists from using easily forged documents to travel throughout the United States. The law was crafted to prevent the security hole used by the 9/11 hijackers. As an additional benefit, it will help employers follow the law as to the prohibition of hiring illegals.

    If the answer to that is that anything you do/buy, ie. shopping, insurance, movies, employment, school, etc. you need a RealID, then it is getting more like the Big Brother title of this thread. Although, our current laws haven't stopped illegals from obtaining driver's licenses and employment yet so I fail to see how a new ID will solve all these problems.
    Not anything you do, but anything you do that pertains to Federal law and national security. I have no problem with deporting every single illegal as soon as they are discovered whether they are robbing a US citizen or if they are at their local market. Illegals are criminals. It does not matter how they are caught.

    Second, it's not as secure as people think. The new passports are manufactured in Asia and Europe. It's easy enough to bribe an American into breaching their employer's security, how easy is it to bribe someone making $2 a day?
    If that is a reason then we might as well give up on every document because they, too, are easy to forge or bribe people. RealID is far more secure than any form of identification we currently use.

    The third thing is kind of offtopic from the thread but has been mentioned a couple of times already. The thought of not allowing Americans to vote that don't contribute is scary, almost Orwellian. This discussion just blew me away. Drawing a distinction between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is a class war that we do not want to have in this country. There was a time in this country when this was allowed to happen, but thankfully, now blacks and women have the right to vote just like free white men. You're talking about setting up a ruling class, and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers did not have that in mind.
    Actually, the fact is that the Founders assumed only landowners would have the privilege of voting. The original laws of the coloines mirrored that of England. It makes no sense to allow people without a stake in society to vote. It has nothing to do with class warfare. Everyone in America has an opportunity to succeed and contribute. And that is quite different than discriminating because of race, religion, or gender.

    Here is a short summary by historynow.com:

    Voting Rights on the Eve of the Revolution

    The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a "stake in society."
    Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes.

    Many colonies imposed other restrictions on voting, including religious tests. Catholics were barred from voting in five colonies and Jews in four.

    The right to vote varied widely in colonial America. In frontier areas, seventy to eighty percent of white men could vote. But in some cities, the percentage was just forty to fifty percent.

    Where is the line? What if you've worked your whole life, but recently got laid off or injured where you can't work? What if you're born with a physical handicap that prevents you from working? What if you work one or two jobs, but don't make enough to pay a lot of taxes? What if your spouse works, but you stay home with the kids? What if you're retired? What if you're 16 and have a good job paying taxes, by this rule could minors be voting?
    The operative words are 'stake in society.' How that is determined should be determined by those with a stake in society. Having deadbeats, welfare queens, illegals and others that only vote for their own benefit will (and has been) causing the deterioration of society.

    I really don't think denying American citizens the right to vote, and it is a right, not a privelege, is what the constitution is about.
    The privilege of voting is not a right. There is a right that all men are created equal. There is a right to equal opportunity. There is no right to equal outcome. The Constitution is not about rights, it is about the basic mechanics of our Federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to appease naysayers who were against the Constitution. It was the only way to get the Consitution passed. It certainly isn't what the Constitution is about.

    It is very scary that people would contemplate this, because then where does it end? Are these people that can't vote still citizens? If we can take this right from them, should they have other rights? Maybe they should lose the right to free speech, we wouldn't want them talking rebellion. Maybe they should lose the right to keep and bear arms, they don't have much money so what are they protecting, and they'll probably just use the guns to rob the rich.
    A bunch of strawman arguments. Our society cannot survive when the have-nots can steal the money of the haves. Unless you subscribe to the doctrine: to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.

    People that would agree with this should ask themselves this question. What will you do when the bar gets raised? If you're raising the bar this time, who's to say it can't be raised again. It could then move up to you have to own a home or have certain amount of wealth to vote. Now wouldn't that be scary.
    As an American, if the bar gets raised I strive to achieve the goal. Since the Constitution, and indeed our Republic, is ony for moral men, your question answers itself.

    It is quite easy to identify someone who has no stake in the country.



    I don't see "privelege" anywhere in there....
    Actually, the Amendments you quoted clearly demonstrate that the right to vote CAN be controlled except for those specifically enumerated. Again, there is a significant difference between discrimination due to race or gender, things we cannot control, and having a reasonable set of criteria that every American can obtain.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; April 6th, 2008 at 06:23 PM. Reason: typos

  16. #60
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    SD wrote: "As an American, if the bar gets raised I strive to achieve the goal."

    And what if that goal is utterly unattainable? What if the guys who define that goal deliberately do it in a way that will forever exclude you and your posterity?

    Some of what is in this thread scares the holy c... out of me. Apparently a few participants here wouldn't recognize totalitarianism if it hit them between the eyes.

    I'm with morintp when he wrote: "The third thing is kind of offtopic from the thread but has been mentioned a couple of times already. The thought of not allowing Americans to vote that don't contribute is scary, almost Orwellian. This discussion just blew me away." That is the starting point for all totalitarian governments--define away voting rights and citizenship so that more and more of the political out-group can't participate.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. ... My Brother's Keeper
    By Lewis128 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 13th, 2009, 11:43 AM
  2. Gun complaint from brother-in-law
    By dldeuce in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: July 19th, 2009, 02:55 PM
  3. Big Brother for G26 Thanks to the Forum
    By SaddleSC in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2009, 12:40 PM
  4. Big Brother
    By dukalmighty in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 4th, 2008, 09:48 AM
  5. My brother wants a gun
    By Euclidean in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 16th, 2005, 07:33 PM

Search tags for this page

dhs form i-872 and inac 2010

,

how did 9/11 affect big brother government security

,

tennessee ddfivers licenmse 46389

,

the patriot microchip is intended to be implanted in terrorists

Click on a term to search for related topics.