Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED - Page 4

Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED

This is a discussion on Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; SelfDefense , for the sake of clarification, your assessment of the 9th Amendment and what it provides for is incorrect. The concept of natural rights ...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 92
  1. #46
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    SelfDefense, for the sake of clarification, your assessment of the 9th Amendment and what it provides for is incorrect. The concept of natural rights provides that all people are endowed with the rights to do whatever they please, so long as their actions do not impede the ability of or prevent others from exercise their own rights. You have no right to kill anyone, because that deprives them of their rights. This very fact is why there is a debate over the Constitutionality of the death penalty, drug laws, etc. Whether or not the Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought (and yes, I know it was, and there was always a fear that the enumerated rights would be taken as the ONLY rights protected, hence the 9th Amendment) does not change the fact that it is the highest law of the land, and remains so until an Amendment process repeals it.

    By that assessment, the 4th Amendment very clearly states that we have a right to be secure (anonymous?) in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures (etc.), and the 9th reminds us that the Bill of Rights lists the rights it deems most important, not the rights that we as individual citizens are limited to having (this was intentionally left open-ended). The “liberty” clause of the 14th Amendment furthers this idea by saying that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Freedom and liberty have been very strongly associated with privacy and to a large degree, anonymity as well.

    The REAL ID has everything to do with privacy. Privacy means to be left alone. When one cannot engage in their normal lawful activities without intervention, their privacy has been diminished. Recently, the CIA put out a paper stating that Americans need to rethink our definition of privacy and that it can't mean anonymity anymore. Yes, the federal government's default position has always been that privacy means anonymity.

    I understand what your point is regarding interstate commerce and licenses (yes, technically state-issued carry permits should qualify, as you allude to; another issue of lack of enforcement), but the question remains this: given the inadequacies existing already, who can say that another version of the same laws (at a different authority level) would yield a different reaction? If the states had been doing their jobs, would 9/11 have occurred? It's extremely difficult, at best, to say. To use another example, many people have issues with the Patriot Act for (among other things) the reason that it was never shown how any of the new measures would be an actual improvement over any of the existing measures. Same idea.

    As for national security, now we've found the crux of the issue. To what extent is the federal government permitted to act in the name of, and for the sake of, national security? Is it toning down foreign military action, or increasing it? Is it permitting better/easier arming of US citizens, or discouraging it? Is having your papers or a card necessary, or even useful?

    I could opt out and say I'm not qualified to answer these questions (at my age and with my personal life experience, I'm not), but I'll try anyway. A national ID card (which the REAL ID is) can only work if it is diligently enforced. If the REAL ID is enforced as poorly as some states enforce their own licensing laws, how has the federal government achieved anything positive, as opposed to placing an unnecessary burden upon its citizens? When TSA recently came out with their report regarding the ineffectiveness of our "beefed up security," and reports have existed for some time affirming that our airports and airlines are no safer now than they were before 9/11, few of us are surprised; this is simply an example of "increased security measures" failing, though well-intended. The REAL ID faces exactly the same issue as state-issued IDs, and that is enforcement. Do we need more laws, or do we enforce existing ones? We shake our heads at more gun laws on top of more gun laws, so why don't we apply the same logic here?


    -B


  2. #47
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No. But I do want illegals and their employers accountable for their actions and terrorists thwarted. The issue has bever been 'Your papers please,' which without probable cause I would be against. as I am ahainst the DUI checkpoints for the same reasons. However, providing difficult to counterfeit identification for employment, air travel and other identification purposes is a very good idea.
    The rules and checks are ALREADY in place. This is similar to the anti-self defense crowd's way of thinking that a new layer of bureaucracy will solve a problem that the current laws didn't solve and only makes it more intrusive for the honest folks.

    Newt Gingrich gave a speech, on U-Tube someplace, that humorously mentions having American Express run the Social Security system. They can run a card with numbers through a machine and within seconds tell if it's a valid card. Employers could do the same thing with SSN's.

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Sergeant Mac,

    I did not want to suggest you are a conspiracy theorist. I certainly see an infinite difference between our duly elected Constitutional government regulating state conduct within its authority and the UN, which has no authority over anything or anyone dictating anything at all. The UN has no authority whatsoever over member nations.

    Certainly, you agree with that, yes?
    Not particularly.

    Technically, based upon its charter, no, the UN has no command authority over its member nations. It can, however, apply considerable pressure to any one of its member nations -- the pressure being applied by other member nations.

    Furthermore, our very own federal government was never intended to "regulate state conduct" in any manner beyond facilitating/protecting interstate commerce and preventing states from warring amongst themselves. There is a HUGE difference between the FEDERAL government that the founding fathers intended (and laid out in the Constitution) and the NATIONAL government we now see.

    To use an analogy - a federal government is like a shelf upon which the boxes of state governments sit. It's not a larger box to put the smaller boxes in.

    ....and a huge international governing body such as the United Nations will naturally seek to become simply a bigger box.

  4. #49
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    SelfDefense,

    Please understand. I don't buy into all the CFR/Bilderberger/Trilateralist nonsense about global conspiracies.

    I don't even believe that the United Nations INTENDS evil.

    I merely believe that ANY form of collectivism, left to its own devices, will bring out the most ugly aspects of humanity, as it always has, and that the very best way to keep it in check is to espouse individualism and oppose collectivism in all its forms at every turn.

    .....and Real ID, to me, is collectivism enforced upon state governments by the federal government, and in turn, by the state governments upon the citizens of their state.

    When you start putting boxes in boxes, it gets tough to read the labels.

  5. #50
    Member Array BlackBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    184
    A national ID card (which the REAL ID is) can only work if it is diligently enforced.
    And therein lies the problem. Since state participation is voluntary (and I'm glad I live in a state which has chosen not to participate) there are still going to be gaping loopholes. So what have we accomplished? If we could really accomplish the stated goal (of reducing the ease of illegals getting valid identification, and overall reducing terrorism) then it might - might be worth it. Since not all states are participating, we can't ensure that total control, and thus the act has accomplished nothing except the needless intrusion on privacy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fear-mongering conspiracy theorist, but I don't think the "FAKE ID" Act was the best move, either.

    And Sergeant Mac, I love that analogy. That is great.
    "When you start putting boxes in boxes, it gets tough to read the labels."
    I love it.
    I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code

    Semper Vigilans et Paratus

  6. #51
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    SelfDefense, for the sake of clarification, your assessment of the 9th Amendment and what it provides for is incorrect.
    In your opinion. I think your assessment is incorrect and as will bevome clearer as I respond to your individual points.

    The concept of natural rights provides that all people are endowed with the rights to do whatever they please, so long as their actions do not impede the ability of or prevent others from exercise their own rights.
    That is your libertarian view. It is not supported anywhere in the Constitution. There is nothing to suggest that view has anything to do with the natural right as defined in the Declaration of Independence, which states life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are natural rights. It seems natural for you to think it is your right to do anything as long as it does not impact others but there is no evidence of that in our Founding documents.

    The plain fact is that EVERYTHING you do impacts others either directly or indirectly. It is a matter of what society tolerates. Some of these rights are clearly enumerated. The Ninth enumerates nothing. You cannot make up some right and claim the Ninth covers it because it does no. Obviously. More to the point, the Ninth, which enumerates no rights, does not indicate whether the rights not described can be limited, or use language such as 'shall not be infringed.'

    You have no right to kill anyone, because that deprives them of their rights. This very fact is why there is a debate over the Constitutionality of the death penalty, drug laws, etc.
    Rights are taken away all the time. And you do have the right to kill someone if they threaten your life. The debate concerning the death penalty concerns a nonsensical argument that execution is cruel or unusual punishment, which it is clearly neither. And the debate concerning drug laws is typically espoused by pot heads. No serious person wants to legalize meth, heroin or any of the many illegal narcotics and psychedelics..

    Whether or not the Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought (and yes, I know it was, and there was always a fear that the enumerated rights would be taken as the ONLY rights protected, hence the 9th Amendment) does not change the fact that it is the highest law of the land, and remains so until an Amendment process repeals it.
    Yes, it is the highest law of the land. It simply doesn't having any substantive meaning. If there are other rights protected can you enumerate them for us and provide evidence that the rights you state have Constitutional backing? Bottom line, you cannot simply make up a right that you like and claim it is covered because you will not be able to provide and evidence in the legal sense.

    By that assessment, the 4th Amendment very clearly states that we have a right to be secure (anonymous?) in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures (etc.), and the 9th reminds us that the Bill of Rights lists the rights it deems most important, not the rights that we as individual citizens are limited to having (this was intentionally left open-ended). The “liberty” clause of the 14th Amendment furthers this idea by saying that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Freedom and liberty have been very strongly associated with privacy and to a large degree, anonymity as well.
    I agree with everything except your last sentence (the crux of our argument) because there is nothing to support it other than the judicial activism of five Americans in robes. Freedom and liberty have absolutely nothing to do with anonymity.

    The REAL ID has everything to do with privacy. Privacy means to be left alone. When one cannot engage in their normal lawful activities without intervention, their privacy has been diminished.
    With this view, you are against idrntifying yourself to your employer, to the motor vehicle department, to the IRS, to the bank to the air travel authority, to...being a member of society. What is missing is with freedom comes responsibility. You are responsible to the rest of society to be a good citizen and that means living within the law. It means identifying yourself at a traffic stop, to the tax man, to the employer. You have no right to privacy. at times, you can have n expectation of privacy but that is not a right.

    Recently, the CIA put out a paper stating that Americans need to rethink our definition of privacy and that it can't mean anonymity anymore. Yes, the federal government's default position has always been that privacy means anonymity.
    Do you have a source for this? If you strike the word 'anymore' it is a sentence I agree with.

    So, the Ninth does not enumerate any specific right though it does hint there are others (but they are unidentifiable.) There is certainly no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution. And there is no reason to believe that privacy includes anonymity.

    I understand what your point is regarding interstate commerce and licenses (yes, technically state-issued carry permits should qualify, as you allude to; another issue of lack of enforcement), but the question remains this: given the inadequacies existing already, who can say that another version of the same laws (at a different authority level) would yield a different reaction?
    This is not another version of the same law. It is a tamper proof ID card that supplements state driver's licences as a form of identification to thwart terrorists from movingly freely and makes a consistent methodology to allow employers to verify the identity of illegals. It imposes no hardship whatsoever on US citizens.

    [QUOTE]If the states had been doing their jobs, would 9/11 have occurred? It's extremely difficult, at best, to say. To use another example, many people have issues with the Patriot Act for (among other things) the reason that it was never shown how any of the new measures would be an actual improvement over any of the existing measures. Same idea.[QUOTE]

    But the Patriot Act is directly responsible for thwarting terrorists! Some of the data has been made public. I'm certain that most of thwarted terrorist plans are not made pblic, as well. Again, the Patriot Act has not caused any hardship for law abiding US citzens.

    As for national security, now we've found the crux of the issue. To what extent is the federal government permitted to act in the name of, and for the sake of, national security?
    The Federal government is responsible for all national security. It is a mandate that the Federal government does EVERYTHING in its power to keep us safe. Don't like the policies? Every four years we vote for a new executive. Don't like the Patriot Act. Vote for Obama. Don't want us protected from growing threats overseas? Vote for Paul, Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. Want illegals to flood our nation unchecked? Vote for Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Paul, McCain. You get the point.
    The American people like the Patriot Act and we liked it so much that it was renewed by representatives of the American people.

    Is it toning down foreign military action, or increasing it? Is it permitting better/easier arming of US citizens, or discouraging it? Is having your papers or a card necessary, or even useful?

    I could opt out and say I'm not qualified to answer these questions (at my age and with my personal life experience, I'm not), but I'll try anyway. A national ID card (which the REAL ID is) can only work if it is diligently enforced. If the REAL ID is enforced as poorly as some states enforce their own licensing laws, how has the federal government achieved anything positive, as opposed to placing an unnecessary burden upon its citizens? When TSA recently came out with their report regarding the ineffectiveness of our "beefed up security," and reports have existed for some time affirming that our airports and airlines are no safer now than they were before 9/11, few of us are surprised; this is simply an example of "increased security measures" failing, though well-intended. The REAL ID faces exactly the same issue as state-issued IDs, and that is enforcement. Do we need more laws, or do we enforce existing ones? We shake our heads at more gun laws on top of more gun laws, so why don't we apply the same logic here?
    I don't disagree with most of that. We do need to enforce existing laaws and maybe that would be enough. However, claiming that new ideas should be discarded because other ideas have failed is not a good argument.

    I have yet to read anyone concisely articulate a negative effect of Real ID. Only vague references to privacy without an example of how privacy would be invaded, if that was even an issue and how it would be different than our current necessity to identify ourselves. Nothing new to citizens in Real ID, only terrorists and illegals would be negatively affected.

    Whew!
    Last edited by SelfDefense; January 3rd, 2008 at 09:12 PM. Reason: negating a typo

  7. #52
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Mac View Post
    Not particularly.

    Technically, based upon its charter, no, the UN has no command authority over its member nations. It can, however, apply considerable pressure to any one of its member nations -- the pressure being applied by other member nations.
    The UN is an impotent organization. When it does something it usually fails and often time is a detriment to any situation it considers. Member nations do not apply pressure to each other and certainy not the United States. The United States and our allies can apply pressure to nations through economic sanctions and sometimes miltary intevention. UN nations cannot similarly affect the United States. The UN has no effect on our policies other than those we choose to follow.

    Furthermore, our very own federal government was never intended to "regulate state conduct" in any manner beyond facilitating/protecting interstate commerce and preventing states from warring amongst themselves. There is a HUGE difference between the FEDERAL government that the founding fathers intended (and laid out in the Constitution) and the NATIONAL government we now see.
    I don't disagree that our current Federal government is ot what the Founders intended. I wish there was a candidate that could effectively limit governmet. If Paul had the slightest idea how to administer foreign policy, or at least if he would be willing to learn how the world actually works, he would be a reasonable choice.

    But you do minimize the role of Federal government. First and foremost, it is the responsibility of Federal overnment to secure the nation. That includes mandating the states through withholding funding or other coercion. But not only that, the Federal government is charged with dealing with immigration. If that is best done with Real ID then that is also the purview of the Federal government, regardess of whether states want to opt into the idea.

    To use an analogy - a federal government is like a shelf upon which the boxes of state governments sit. It's not a larger box to put the smaller boxes in.

    ....and a huge international governing body such as the United Nations will naturally seek to become simply a bigger box.

    Bad analogy. The Federal government is the overarching authority for the states. And, we are sovereign. Thus, the UN has no authority whatsoever.

    On a personal note, it is refreshing to go back to the arguments of the 18th century, when the Federalists and anti-Federalists were determining the course of this nation. It is a much better debate than the Republicans versus the liberals, whose socialist ideas are antithetical to every one of the Founders and the liberty we now have.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; January 3rd, 2008 at 08:19 PM. Reason: fix uote

  8. #53
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    To preface, I too enjoy this sort of debate (and the ability to have it in a civil tone!).

    SelfDefense, the problem I have with much of your argument is that it is based on the premise that We The People are limited to those rights outlined by the Constitution. The Constitution of this country is designed to limit the government, and only the government, not the people. The Constitution is a contract drafted by the people to bind its government to certain (limited) behaviors; the 10th Amendment describes this very clearly, and nowhere in the Constitution is it remotely suggested that human rights are limited to those listed in the document. Your argument that "if it's not in the Constitution, you don't have it as a Right" is contrary to what the Constitution was intended to do and to the idea of natural rights.

    This leads me to expand on my libertarianism comment. Both it and the Constitution stem from the idea of natural rights; they share similarities because of their roots, and thus have some overlapping ideals. It's not my view that I'm presenting, it's history. Strict libertarianism in government would be represented best by no government beyond acting as a policing organization to enforce equality laws and contracts. A constitutional republic is the idea that the government is limited by a contract between it and its people, and as such the size and scope of the government are restricted. As I said, there are similarities, but a constitutional republic recognizes the need for a government that is efficient in its role without being overreaching, whereas a strict libertarian "government" would be virtually no government at all.

    The United States of America is founded on the blended principles of Hobbes' concept of natural equality among people and Lockean natural rights, where all people are entitled to life, liberty, and property. Although the word "property" has been substituted with "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, the concept of property rights has always existed; 4th Amendment makes it clear that unless there's a damn good reason to take what's mine, the government can't lawfully take what's mine. Consistent with this is laws regarding theft and patent laws, which regard ideas as intellectual property. I mention this to be clear that not all rights we as persons possess are outlined explicitly by the Constitution, and will explain later how this relates to privacy rights.

    Does the federal government have the authority to exercise power? Yes, but only so far as their authority extends. The Constitution defines those limits. Does the federal government have the authority to do EVERYTHING in its power to keep us safe? Yes, and the limits of its power is, as I stated above, limited by the Constitution.

    The federal government does not have the authority to be totalitarian (create and enforce laws it sees fit). It does not have the authority to redistribute wealth (take from one and give to another). It does not have the authority to pass laws IT things is best for national security, but instead it has an OBLIGATION to prove to We The People the need for such laws, and then to abide by the commands of We The People if we say yes or no.

    This beings me to the issue of REAL ID and privacy issues (the source you requested is coming). In early November, this article was printed under the headline "Intelligence official says people need to redefine idea of privacy". The second two sentences, comprising the whole second paragraph, state this: "Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information." The domestic spying issues of the past and now present also highlight a long-understood right to privacy possessed by a free people. Contrary to what you state, I have absolutely no issue with identifying myself to my employer, to the motor vehicle department, to the IRS, to the bank, to the air travel authority, etcetera. In those cases, I am willingly giving my personal information for their records. I have an enormous issue with them sharing that information, and just as large an issue with people taking that information when I did not elect to give it to them. In most cases where such information is given to places of business or government, part of the contract is that the information will not be shared. Period. If someone in government wants that information bad enough, they can petition to a judge for a warrant for exactly what information they want, and the judge can determine whether or not they are permitted to acquire that information.

    Regarding the Patriot Act (since it also ties into privacy issues and I did mention it before), I'll be brief and say only that it is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that we might see in our lifetimes. It passed in record time and with minimal review, and various components have already been deemed unconstitutional as more time passes and it is more thoroughly reviewed. We The People don't like it so much when we read past the name of it and get to the meat of the law, which is why We The People are so openly opposed to it; it is not just a small number of activists.

    A national ID card isn't needed; it is already an employer's responsibility to check the citizenship of its employers. There is no reason it would be easier for an employer to do exactly what they should have been doing in the first place if this ID card were to become policy. It is not the responsibility of We The People to prove why legislation wouldn't be good, but the responsibility of the legislators to prove why it would be. I have seen absolutely no proof that REAL ID would make the nation any more secure than if our current laws were simply enforced. My argument to you is that it is not needed, because it wouldn't change anything except to add another bureaucracy to oversee its operation/enforcement. Worse, it has already been estimated to have a "major impact on services to the public," and for its total costs to exceed $23 billion. This is not simply an inconvenience.


    -B

  9. #54
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    To preface, I too enjoy this sort of debate (and the ability to have it in a civil tone!).

    SelfDefense, the problem I have with much of your argument is that it is based on the premise that We The People are limited to those rights outlined by the Constitution.
    I want to make it clear that I don't believe the Constitution is the source of our rights. Nor are they limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I believe in the Ninth Amendment even though I do not think there is any substance in it. What I do beleve is only those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are protected by the Federal government. The rest are fair game delegated to the states and the people to design the breadth and depth of protection, if any.


    This beings me to the issue of REAL ID and privacy issues (the source you requested is coming). In early November, this article was printed under the headline "Intelligence official says people need to redefine idea of privacy". The second two sentences, comprising the whole second paragraph, state this: "Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence.

    Thanks for the link. I have the utmost respect for Donald Kerr. His accomplshments speak for themselves. (He is a much better rocket scientist than I ) I still disagree with his belief because I never believed privacy meant anonymity. Still, I am yet to be convinced that privacy has been compromised by the Patriot Act or Real ID. The Patriot Act was never domestic spying no matter what the NY Tmes exclaimed, but was monitoring communication between terrorists and American citizens. Sounds like probable cause to me. I have been in the intelligence community and I assure you that the Patriot Act is, well, as it relates to foreign communication intercepts a grain of sand in the Sahara desert.


    Contrary to what you state, I have absolutely no issue with identifying myself to my employer, to the motor vehicle department, to the IRS, to the bank, to the air travel authority, etcetera. In those cases, I am willingly giving my personal information for their records.
    Then there is nothing different with Real ID.

    I have an enormous issue with them sharing that information
    That is exactly the 'wall' that was determined to have played a role in 9/11. The sharing of information is crucial to our national security.

    I see the Real ID as something new and effective. The fact is that it is designed to be tamper proof. Currently, identification theft is a huge problem domestically. What we hear less about is SS numbers stolen and used by illegals for employers. They run the number (if they even do that) and it comes up clean. They counterfeit drivers licenses and use those for nefarious purposes, as I demonstrated with the 9/11 hijacker example. The Real ID will make it easier for the Federal government to exercise their mandate of national security and immigration.

    I do appreciate some of the libertarian arguments. I simply think we need a very strong central authority (of limited and well defined scope) to make us a cohesive nation.

    Lincoln is considered one of our best Presidents. He must be the bane of libertarians.

  10. #55
    Member
    Array GBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    468
    My problem with the 'solution' is that we are rewarding people who refuse to do their jobs. The government refuses to enforce laws that have worked in the past and now want to be rewarded (give-me-more-authority) with more restricive laws.
    Broadening authority, and centralizing it really isn't a great idea. If I piss somebody off who has access to my records, they can do a lot of damage. Laugh all you want, but Europe went through this about 50 years ago. I bet it was a great time if you were a member of the right party (s-e-x, drugs, & Wagner).
    The others got 'free' Health Care -

  11. #56
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Patriot Act aside (as it's only slightly on-topic), the meeting point we come to is that "wall" regarding sharing of information. I find it offensive, you find it a new and effective idea. It sounds like we're looking at it from two different backgrounds, and we've come to about as close to an agreement as we can. I understand your points of view, even if I disagree with many of them. I'm cool with that.

    It still rests on the federal government to prove that such measures would be effective though; given its current wording, cost, projected impact on Americans, and almost violent opposition by many states, the people are owed that, at the very least. I have no issues with sharing my information, but if there is a contractual agreement that says my privacy will be maintained I expect them to keep their end of the bargain. To make a law changing this is counterintuitive, since breaking of such a contract is grounds for a lawsuit as it is.

    For what it's worth, yes, based on my own research Lincoln certainly was/is despised by pretty much any opponent to bigger/stronger centralized government, libertarian or not (his two greatest wrongs seen as the creation of marshal law and his perspective and subsequent action regarding secession).


    -B

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    If the federal government was actually doing their job of protecting our borders would we even need to have this discussion?
    Doesnt the constitution say that the job of the federal government is to protect the borders? They could do that without having to affect the lives of our citizens.

    Michael

  13. #58
    Member Array Mr_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    49
    DefensiveCarry .Com members should rule the world...global "shall issue"....new 1911's for every adult....free ammo....DefensiveCarry.Com Real Id's
    Sorry guys...been a long week.

    Mr_D

  14. #59
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Agave View Post
    See Revelation 13:15-17.

    Exactly.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member
    M.C.R.G.O.

  15. #60
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687

    National ID

    What does anyone think about the upcoming national ID? Feds deadline is May 8, 2008. Think it will happen? Have you heard about it? Could this be anything but bad? Thanks

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. This guy is a real nut!
    By TedBeau in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 18th, 2010, 11:25 AM
  2. Is that a real gun?
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 13th, 2009, 11:38 PM
  3. You know it is getting real bad when...
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 12:36 AM
  4. OMG! Is this for real?
    By Flippinstk in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: May 15th, 2009, 11:40 PM

Search tags for this page

is international real id bad
,
samuel e.rohrer right to travel
,

state representative samuel e. rohrer right to travel

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors