Keep in mind what you'd possibly be losing by refusing a National ID card:
-Driving privileges
-All of your rights as an American citizen if you can't present it to an Officer
-Your ability to get a job
Printable View
Keep in mind what you'd possibly be losing by refusing a National ID card:
-Driving privileges
-All of your rights as an American citizen if you can't present it to an Officer
-Your ability to get a job
ofcourse not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqGM5fE3rw
1. Bicycles are better for the environmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
2. Isn't that happening now anyway?
3. Luckily for me I never was keen on "getting employed" but rather doing the employing.
TO HELL WITH THE ID CARD, AND TO HELL WITH OUR GOVERNMENT...I'M A HUMAN BEING GODDAMNIT!! MY LIFE HAS VALUE!! :pissed:
I would like to say no. I couldn't claim "no" until the time comes.
No.
If the law comes around I think I'll have to move out. It's just like an invasion. I was planning to move out anyway. I hope France deosnt require these.
Word. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
What`s so nasty about this card anyways, is it bugged or something?
Well it has an arrow pointing towards big brother and, to Christians, major implications.
ID # 1442865 says I do :borg:
Yeah aside from a tracking chip there's also talk by certain bankers and other very powerful people that an ID card r even eventually a chip implanted in your skin should be connected to your only bank account and that without it electronically installed one would not be able to buy or sell. The bible reference is that in the time when the beast reigns no one would be able to buy or sell with the mrk or the number that is their name.
Am I getting the wrong end of the stick here, or is this just political propoganda when they say these ID cards will help to eliminate terrorism, or go some way to helping deporation etc of anyone who cannot present a valid ID card?
Yup. Look up RFID the technology is becoming rapidly available. Chips are already being implanted for certain reasons and, if I’m not mistaken, used in passports. Also, folks, another reason I would be angry if this national ID card just sprung out is because it's been in the works for a long time. Since May 2003 or before. Why in the world has it been kept in the dark? Why hasn't there been much media coverage on it? It's damn suspicious, not to mention the slimy tactics used to get the REAL ID act passed way back when. They attached it on to a hurricane relief bill so no one with good conscious could say no. What kind of political system is that? Sad thing is they've used the same tactic for getting other things passed as well.
I don't trust America anymore. At times I might even say I hate America. I'm sick of the nation being distracted on red versus blue (we‘re not really in a war right now), and I'm sick of being tricked. They can say what they want about the benefit of national ID card, but I will always remain suspicious of their true motive (most likely something to do with money).
Sorry, I rant.
Giving a single card so much power means that a single card can take away that power. If your card is damaged, lost, or stolen, you have lost your ability to do many important tasks, and how will you prove your identity so that you can get a new card? You'd use all of the personal information that is already being used to prove your identity.
In essence, the NID is only as secure as that information is, and the NID makes that information less secure because it creates new venues by which that information can be lost or stolen.
It's primary purpose is to give the federal government the power to deactivate your ID card so that you can no longer perform basic tasks, a crime-prevention tactic. Of course, if the government suspected you of a crime, its priority should be to arrest you, not prevent you from performing legal activities(I assume illicit activities would not require ID).
On the plus side, when most common tasks require all of the information that the NID will contain, it'll be more convenient to use the NID.
I hate to say it, but this rebellion is a bit pointless. First of all, we already have National ID's, they're called Social Security Numbers. You already need an ID to drive, its called a drivers liscence. All this national ID is, is all of these things THAT WE ALREADY HAVE consolidated into one ID, instead of many. Its not anymore (or less) "evil" than what is already in place.
Suprise! :banana::banana::banana:
They can already deactive your rights whenever they want! Simply because they have to deactive two ID's instead of one doesn't change this fact
However, as soon as GPS implants become mandatory, then I'll have something to gripe about.
It could help, but I think terrorists mostly work underground. So if a police officer doesn't stop him, not even an ID card will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration
Taking away human rights is still a recent event and protesting the NID is just the opportunity Americans all finally have to say no to all the BS the federal government has been trying to pull.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
:lol: First the bad news...but look at the bright side!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
But what rights do we have now that we will loose if we get NIDs?
I mean, if you are going to protest stuff like this, that’s perfectly fine. I'm all for challenging the government when its warranted...but don't do it just to do it. Try to accomplish something a bit more constructive than defiance for defiance's sake. Like I said before, we already have national ID's. Protesting this isn't going to change that. We already need ID's to drive, and protesting this isn't going to change that.
So what's the point in protesting this, seriously?
I may just be missing something, but as I understand the issue, all this is is the consolidation of several different types of IDs *we already have* into one. There is nothing dubious about that, its just more efficient. And to tell you the truth, I’ve never seen anyone complain about SSNs or needing a license to drive until the idea of NIDs...which makes me wonder why suddenly people seem to act like this stuff is a "new and serious threat to our rights" even though this level of citizen-documentation has been around long before people our age had even been born. It’s almost as if this anti-government mentality is just another trend the youth is buying into.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the government, and I do believe that our rights are slowly being eroded away. I just think protesting this specific issue is a waist of time and energy because, even if people somehow managed to keep the government from making NIDs mandatory, it doesn't actually change anything. We're all already in the system to the same extent we would be with NIDs. If you want to counteract the erosion of our rights, do something that is actually going to make a difference.
For your average citizen, this isn't going to change anything. Your SSN can be flagged and your driver's license can be revoked without your permission nowadays, so no change there. The only changes will be that undocumented citizens are going to have a MUCH harder time surviving in this country (since the NID can't be easily forged), and I imagine that this would be the same for wanted criminals.
So, in what situations exactly would this ID take your rights away? You no longer have the right to get a job if your a wanted criminal or an illegal immigrant? Ok. You can no longer legally drive if your a wanted criminal or an illegal immigrant? Fine. And how exactly does this harm your average citizen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Its not news if they can already do it ;)
We can't afford your apparant ignoranceQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHCYeX_DqUw
I don't have any card like that now. What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
We can't afford or have time for moonbeam either. Move out the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkgGOFXuYPw
The card doesn't allow the government any more power over the citizens than they already have. What it does do is allow the government to make it much harder to be an undocumented citizen and survive in this country, and the same would probably be true for criminal with warrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Paranoia seems like one of the most effective tools for manipulating the populations, and makes me wonder if the illuminatti has as much control over the world as people seem to think, and if they "control all sides", then stuff like that video seems suspect for foul play in itself, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
Nothing would distract us more or destroy us faster than ourselves fighting each other as "they" sit back and watch...
What about tracking devices? There's certainly nothing like that yet.
Since when were there ever going to be tracking devices in the NIDs? Am i missing something??
It's in the documentation about them. RFID chips will be imbedded in all released, and furthermore all new electronic passports already have these chips imbedded in them.
can I see the source so I can check it out myself?
Frankly I don't like the idea of being able to be tracked...
I'm going to put my passport in a microwave for 10 seconds before I take a flight out.
don't worry about it, it's all for your safety and protection, you'll hand over your rights to them and they will do whatever they can to protect you, and it's all for your safety. :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
its easy to just pigeonhole anyone who doesn't just buy into this (lets face it) hard to swallow conspiracy as just another sheeple. But there are sheeple on both sides, and it doesn't really matter which side you are on. If you aren't the one doing the thinking for yourself, but instead are simply allowing others to spoon feed you potential BS information (which happens on both sides), then you're at no less of a risk of being manipulated.
Honestly, that video, even if having truths in it, was one of the most obvious propaganda films i've ever seen...
:angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
So when's the law supposed to take effect exactly? I thought I saw both spring of 08 and sometime in 09.
Yeah I haven't checked the sources of the videos I've seen but they reference the very bills about the NID when saying they'll have RFID hardware in them.
I would very much like to see them if you ever get a chance to check out your sources.
It's in Alex Jones video as well as Zeitgeist.
If it really is going to be a part of the NID thing, there should be official government documents that confirm it (like the bill in which it is proposed)
eff the national id card :pissed:Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
what about SSNs and Driver licenses? They are the same thing just rolled into one.
No they aren't. If they were there would be no need to issue a "National ID Card". Think about it...Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
They are on public bills accoridng to the documentaries. They're just overcited because no one in DC reads what they're passing. They read the headline and ignore the rest.
State IDs are under the control of the state. National IDs are under the control of the federal government. Do we really need to blur the line between state and federal government even more?
This is why I love dreamviews; much free thinking going on here.
I would die before I accepted a national ID. I do not think it will be a problem anyhow, as some time next year I intend to seperate from society's grasp almost completely. I will either a) build a cabin and grow my own food, or b) become a vagabond; walking my life away.
When you do not have a car or a job, you need not worry about any of this nonsense.
Then what's different about them...aside from the benefits of making living in this country illegally much harder to do, or aside from the fact that it could make living in this country as a wanted criminal much harder to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
What exactly it the evil secret behind this NID that people seem to think is so dubious, but at the same time are unable to put their finger on? Its just seems like this general sense of fear about this NID without a core reason behind it.
If this NID *is* going to have a tracking device in it, then I understand. That shit is not cool, and is a very big problem we all should be worrying about. The truth is that there are reasons why they are doing this, but simply because there are, doesn't mean that they are automatically "evil" reasons. Sure, the possibility is there...but I need a bit more confirmation that this possibility is actually happening instead of this unchecked paranoia where everything the government does is evil simply because the possibility is there.
This next part is just a side note.
Ever since being exposed to the whole illuminatti phenomenon, I have seen correlations between what the illuminatti stands for (mass enslavement, human destruction, etc), and what getting caught up in this crap will end up doing to people. Paranoia is one of the most effective tools of mass population enslavement, and of mass destruction.
Think about it, if they control all sides...why is this one an exception.
Problem: Currupt government that needs to be destroyed
Reaction:Anarchy and all it entails (Mass hysteria, massive casualities, and a severly crippled country needing and asking for help)
Solution: The reinstatement of a new, stronger, more controlling government where too much freedom is believed to be dangerous.
I think even if there weren't tracking chips, (and I can't say for certain there are as I haven't requested the documents via freedom of information act and read them myself, I have to trust the film-makers I've seen simply aren't lying when they say the bill mentions RFID chips) it's still another step of state power being transfered to a national bureaucracy. You know what other country is run by a National Bureaucracy? China.
Just out of curiosity, can you point me to a reference? I believe you, as I have researched the hell out of this subject and understand the purpose, but still I have not heard of anything more drastic than losing your job. If you remember where you got the info great, if not, that's okay. So far it seems they market this on the idea that it is "optional", so any real information is difficult to obtain. This being "optional" is always believable to people who do not see their privacy being sucked away; it does not affect them if they do not care. I, however, believe I have a right to be left the f alone if I so choose.Quote:
-All of your rights as an American citizen if you can't present it to an Officer
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/14898res20030908.html
Anyone that looks or sounds like a foreignor and cannot present this identification would face harrassment and possible arrest.
Thanks, and yes, that is the logical conclusion. Once instituted into the mainstream, the common individual would gape at those without a label, and, as any excuse will do with human prejudices and desires, such is all they would need to harass not only foreigners, but anyone of "foreign" thought patterns.
The beauty of all this is that, ultimately, when they fully replace paper and printing, the worst that can happen by refusing this is you lose your identity; basically you do not exist. Sounds like heaven to me.
I like to think social rejects could form their own societies living in preindustrialized societies, even with electricity, just sustainably made.
May I suggest that all Americans put on black suits, a white mask, a cool tall black hat, and wield ninja sai's and bomb the parliament building while killing the government.
Fellow workers and civillians! Form together and revolt! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Anyways, I do not advocate the ID card (however, I am not american).
~
We don't have a parliament, but thanks for the advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Does anyone have any clue when this is supposed to start?
lol.. I think you missed that I was getting carried away referring to "V for Vendetta". :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
~
Oh I thought it was just some weird canadian thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I was born in Germany, actually! *Shakes fist in rage*Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
~
:eek: Oh sorry...I meant some really cool Canadian thing, obviously influenced by the even cooler Germans! We should do that, definitely!Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
*Holds bombs in reserve* That's more like it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
~
I highly doubt it, unless what you are talking about is a very small group of people (as opposed to a city, or state, or country). When you have too many people without any authority to keep them behaving, civility goes out the window and people get crazy. They riot, rape, pillage, and murder. And in that sort of society, those who act civilly are likely to be the one’s who become the victims to such behavior, whereas those who are ruthless, cutthroat, and scheming thrive in such conditions. Either way, society can’t survive until order is somehow restored, and when we are taking about large numbers of people, the only way that happens is with some form of government…and the whole process begins again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I never said there wouldn't be leadership or law. I was just saying it'd be self-sustainable and disconnected from regular society.
Yes, but there are even some anarchist societies that function quite well; but as has been suggested, they are small.
Moonbeam: Last I heard it was to be implemented in May 2008; though that may have changed by now. The majority of states are opposed to this.
I will for sure refuse this card. if it means i have to take the bus for the rest of my life, ill be a bus riding mofo sleeping good with a clean councious. change comes thru sacrifice, man up.
Totaly agree, We aren't any cow need to have a number to not get lost in a Phucking cage. Human beings not a cow or a bull :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Thanks. I saw different things. Maybe it is being delayed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
It might not help to go to another country because a lot of them have cards like this.
I wonder where the most free place in the world is. I mean civilized place.
Any opinions on that?
The woods!
Seriously that is a good question. I would say Mongolia. Population 2.9 million and one of the largest countries; almost half of the people are nomadic and live the old ways. Of what religion there is, most of it is Buddhist. I think it is one of the last holdouts for freedom and natural living in the world.
Sounds attractive for a little while...Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
My geography is not the best, but isn't that part of China? How long will they remain that way? And an ousider couldn't just go join them probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
I guess I meant what country has the best government?
Mongolia is political apart of China but because its mostly nomadic they have no political power there. Of course, You have to get used to the Ghobi desert.
It's not mostly Buddhist, it's mostly indiginous.
the brighst side is this: if you rebel they turn off your chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
I was just joking about how RD described it. It sounded funny, a bunch of bad stuff, but one good think after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ranma187
I don't think "turning off my chip" would be a bright side. That doesn't sound good.
That's the spirit. Only your drivers licence is a number. You have much more than a number to label you. Your identity includes many bits of plastic and paper. Soon as your born you even get a certificate that ses you officially exist. That means you are now private property and the certificate is a contract of your agreement. That's worse. You are also lost in a cage that is known as a Monentary System.Quote:
We aren't any cow need to have a number to not get lost in a Phucking cage. Human beings not a cow or a bull
But don't worry. I'm just conspiracy. lets not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories.
Don't worry, I'm sure all of DV would go to war with them if that happened to you. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
NID is supposed to happen in 2008 I think? It's a little late to educate the masses. I like to tell the christians :bowdown: it's the mark of the beast!! :evil:
yeah moonbeam kicks ass! i would go to war for moon! sorry moonbeam i didn't mean to sound harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
That is a great argument. Agree 120%. Btw I always like your posts ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
A little late, but thanks guys. I'll help you if they try to turn off your chips too. :sniper:Quote:
Originally Posted by ranma187
If I was a tyrant psycho. Which I'm not. But if I was and I was in power. Like many that want to create this card. I'd love to give everyone a national ID that I can de-activate whenever it suited me. That would be perfect for control. more convenient for the criminals, yes. But I'm not on there side am I.Quote:
It'll be more convenient to use the NID
Why don't you just get a bar code on your forhead like an idiot and love it. That's what all good sheep do.
I might actually agree with Mystic a bit.
:clap: p.s. I subscribed to that Red Ice Creations link you gave me earlier, not that much money either ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
. . .
. . .
. . .
<^>
I don't see how its much different than the current state ID/social security number system. Your government will control you as much as it see fits until there is a war and a new government arises to control you.
Well there you have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Good one. Now, do you feel like offering anything meaningful?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
We already have the national ID card. Its called your social security card.
You mean they can track me by that little crumpled up piece of paper I've had for about 30 years? :shock: Good, maybe they can find it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
No need. They've been watching you for decades from space and have video footage of where you put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
We arent talking about an ID card with a transponder in it, are we?
Oh, good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
andQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Awesome. It won't, however, ever become a necessary ID. The invasion of privacy clause would shoot down any attempt at this before it could even take off.
Still, tracking chips require some sort of power source. That technology is extremely expensive, and I doubt our government would spend millions of billions of their oil-blood money on finding out if I'm going to my female neighbor's house while my wife is at work. The chips, if any at all, are ID chips, and not tracking chips.
Also, I think the claim of increased bigotry is unfounded.
They don't take any power. Its basicly a small chip, then you send a radio signal(or whatever it is) at it and it replies with its number. Its like them little chip you put in your dog or cat, and people scan it and it will give you their address and phone number and who owns them and all that. Its stuff thats been around.
Its not like its broadcasting your position or anything. Basicly you would stick a scanner in a doorway, and its constantly sending out a signal. Then when a person walks in, it will scan them and say, "So and so just walked into the building." Or you build a toll booth and you stick one on there and suddenly you know every person that travels through that toll booth.
At the start your really not going to be losing much privacy at all but as technology goes on and they can build more powerful chips and scanners that go longer distances, eventually you will get to the point where they will be able to know everywhere you go.
Isn't that still invasion of privacy? The American people would never allow something like this to happen.
I really think you overestimate "American people". Remember it's not people who make the big decisions in a government. If it is to be done, I doubt there is much people can do to fight it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
It was included in the patriot act as a slick way to use fear to get people to accept it. Fortunately, the vast majority don't want this to happen; we will have to see if it still goes through, but I think it will. Want it or not, not many people will refuse it.
Currently it is "optional"; meaning if you do not accept it, life will be harder and harder, and as the majority switches over, so does the "optional" part. Ancient tactics that never fail.
Exactly. It was the same with credit cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
Has life really changed that much because of the Patriot Act?
Of course they wont allow it to happen, hence why people keep complaining. Hence why Ron Paul is so popular. People don't want this stuff, and they are saying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Its the culmination of years and years of laws being passed that strip away the freedoms of the people here in the US. The Patriot Act is the final straw, and people are just tired of it. They just had enough of it, and they just keep passing more and more laws, each one worse than the one before it. Lucky the people are not going to take it anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
I don't feel like my freedoms are that restricted. But thats just me. You know, there was a time when saying "damn" was too risque for a theater film (Gone With the Wind) and blacks were required by law to drink from seperate water fountains. Our society is looser than ever before, and is getting more liberal with every year
We have laws on the book that says you can be arrested and held forever without a trial if your a suspected terrorist.
We have a law comming into a effect that says everyone needs a national id card, which is ran by the federal government instead of by the stats, and has the chips in we were talking about before.
There are many restrictions on who can own a gun, and where you can bring a gun. There are restrictions on what guns you can own, and some states require you to register them with the government.
The president has admited to using illegal wiretaps to monitor peoples calls and is still doing it.
Everyone is legally forced to give a portion of their earned money to the government to pay for social secuirty, if they want it or not.
We pay huge amounts in taxes.
Many drugs are illegal, even if they cause no harm to anyone but yourself. Carrying even a few ounces of a dug can get you long sentences in jail.
The US has more people in jail than any other country in the entire world.
The government has passed laws dealing with "free speech zone", where they can limit your right to speak your mind in certain areas.
Eminent domain, and its abuse over the years.
Anti smoking laws that force owners businesses to follow the laws if they want to or not.
Laws that forces you to wear seat belts, when it causes no harm to anyone if you don't.
Various restrictions and licenses dealing with your right to travel, and owning a car.
The list just goes on and on. Theres so many restrictions on our freedoms and they keep adding more. You might think some are not as serious as others but they all deal with freedom and how the government restricts them. Lets go over it again, this time I will use the bill of rights to show how everyone of our freedoms have been broken.
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The free speech zones I listed before, limit our right to speek in some areas. I can find many videos of police tasering and harrassing people who try to peaceably assemble. We have tons of restrictions of what can and can not be said on tv and radio and in the press.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The government is always passing laws to restrict gun ownership. Restrictions on where we can bring them, on who can own them, on which kind we can own. And in many places your forced to register them which is another form of control. Theres has also been many illegal gun confiscations over the years.
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This one is a little outdated and clearly wouldn't be broken right? Wrong! There are reports of soilders taking over homes and buildings in New Orleans after the flooding there. They just walked in and based their operations inside buildings without permission of the owners of said buildings. Even in a disaster situation it is totally illegal.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Illegal checkpoints are known to be set up in some states, where cars are searched at random. This also deals with the illegal wiretaps the president has admited to.
5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The whole terrorist who are arrested without being given a trial falls under this. You might think, "Well they are terrorists." but the laws also says any american citizen can be taken if suspected of being a terrorists.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Same as the last one, people being taken and not charged of any specific crime, nor given a public trial.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
We have all kind of issues with our courts. Especially with judges basicly doing what they want, and even at time ignoring the jury.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
The death penalty can be considered cruel to many people. There is also the point of all the excessive fines are fairly common now a days.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Pretty much everything else not listed that was taken away falls in here. Such as them limiting peoples right to travel. Also using harmless drugs could fall under rights protected by this, yet they are illegal and you can be arrested even while harming no one.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This one is totally ignored. If the constitution doesn't specifcally says the federal government can do something, they are not allowed to do it. Every time you hear someone saying, "Thats not in the constitution." They are breaking this.
There are so many other stuff too. I am just giving some examples here. Maybe you think some of them are good, or maybe none of them bother you, but no one can say we are free. Atleast not compared to when the country was first made. We are no where near as free as they were back then.
This is a good point. I knew these cards weren't gpoing to have GPS in them for that would not only be rediculously expensive, it would require a super-small, self-renewable power source. But, what has just been explained here is a very disturbing reality that is much more probable, should these cards have such chips in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Of course, all that will mean for me is to craft a lead cardcase for my NID lol. There's always a way around the control if youre clever enough
I thought this picture to be befitting.
Very much so. They can keep all their bullshit, the only thing I will miss is Dreamviews....hehe.
if nobody accepts a national ID card, nobody can enforce it on you, PERIOD.
:D LoL!.... but all in all it isnt really a laughing matter. Too close to a realistic picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranma187
Indeed. Power by numbers. Civilians could have so many things if we all would stick together. Sadly this is more than difficult achieve. :P
Yaaa. I wasn't kidding. :PQuote:
LoL!.... but all in all it isnt really a laughing matter. Too close to a realistic picture.
:P
Alric, about that list of laws.... I strongly disagree that resticted gun ownership and seat belts being required is an argument against the government. As I see it, these laws are in place to protect the common citizen from his/her fellow common citizen who might turn out to be a nut case. If a mother doesn't think seat belts are important, she will load all her kids into the van and get them all killed in a car crash.
People are unstable. Instability + gun ownership to whoever the hell wants one = death.
But I digress.
A grown adult should be able to decide if they want to wear one or not. If its dangerous or not isn't the issue. Its the fact a person should be able to decide, and the government should respect their choice.
As for guns, people already have protection from their fellow unstable citizen who happens to carry a gun. Which is a gun of their own.
But if that person dident have a gun, said other citizen would not need one to protect himself. And plus, a unstable person would do ALOT less damage if they went beserk without a gun, then if they did with a gun.
But that unstable person is going to have a gun, law or no law. Banning guns would get rid of guns about like banning drugs (at least the ones politicians don't care so much about doing themselves) has gotten rid of drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcon
Thats not true, because there are other threats you need protection from. Unless your able to elimite all of them, limiting people who can defend themself isn't right. What happens if in the process of trying to ban someone you deam unstable to to own a gun, you ban someone who is stable from owning a gun? What happens if that person then gets attacked by a criminal and dies because he had no way to defend himself. You would be directly responsible for that person death. The governments job is to protect people not put them into danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcon
I don't know if there are enough cases of criminal attacks toward common citizens (I mean like a middle class family who owns a nice little house type of thing) to warrant making gun ownership legal to everyone. There are many cases of children getting a hold of those guns... In my opinion, the negatives of gun ownership far outweight the positives, but I do realize that this is not a black and white issue, and I definitely understand the points that were made on the other side.
Why is it important to not restrict the types of guns people can own?
Kids need to be educated on guns, starting in nursery school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Lots of times it's little toddlers who aren't old enough to talk yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
In any case, if guns were made legal to everyone, I highly doubt an improvement in the education system will go hand in hand with that.
Theres so many things wrong with that I dont know where to start. First off, there are tons of crimes against people. Obviously the US isn't a country of peace and love.
Second, there no such thing as an average citzen. You saying poor people shouldn't be able to defend themself? This isn't about groups of people(middle class families), this is about individuals. And all individuals have the right to own a gun.
Third, what warrents people having guns? How many people can die and it still be ok to ban guns? To me, its totally unacceptable for the government to take away a persons ability to defend themself in the face of danger. Even if its one person who dies because the government banned guns, is not right.
Fourth, the right to own a gun and defend yourself is a god given right everyone has. The government has no right to take away this right, for any reason. It is not up to them to decide.
And lastly, is you remove weapons from the hands of the people, the government has the manoploy on force. Without guns we are China, we are Russia, we are iraq under suddam and germany under hitler. Once guns are banned from a country your steps away from having a totalitarian government. Governments have killed more people than anything else in the world. They can not be trusted. If you give up your right to defend yourself, you give up all ability to stop the government from murdering and enslaving you. Would the US government do that today? No because we own guns. Would they do it if we gave up our weapons? Based on the known history of the world, yes. They would.
For seat belts. You have to look at the bigger picture. What it is costing us health providers?
Do you feel it is another law enacted to force new tickets and gain more money. Or possibly that they are in cahoots with the health care providers? I'm not being sarcastic, this is possible.
Why is it that when someone finds something they feel it taking away their rights, they now become defensive and BIG brother is out to get them. :parapet:
To a degree, I understand that you have to be very careful, as governments slowly slip in their control.
This is why, in another post Universal Mind, that I said, "Stand for something and fall for everything."
Gun control and the drug war. What a poor comparison.
If they did ban guns, would there be more gun owners than before because it is illegal? The forbidden fruit if you will? Like how you claim that is happening with drugs.
Also going back to our other debate.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. We do not want that.
When drugs are illegal (as they are) only drug users will do drugs - As it should be.
"Only" used sparingly. Not all inclusive. It never is.
The governments as we know them now, are far beyond the capabilities of a well regulated militia. I don't think our fourfathers ever had imagined that it would ever get this lopsided. If it ever did come down to this I would wish we would have the courage to band together, maybe like Red dawn. Or like we see or insurgents that we are currently fighting. Small secular ARMED groups in remote terrain.Quote:
And lastly, is you remove weapons from the hands of the people, the government has the manoploy on force. Without guns we are China, we are Russia, we are iraq under suddam and germany under hitler. Once guns are banned from a country your steps away from having a totalitarian government. Governments have killed more people than anything else in the world. They can not be trusted. If you give up your right to defend yourself, you give up all ability to stop the government from murdering and enslaving you. Would the US government do that today? No because we own guns. Would they do it if we gave up our weapons? Based on the known history of the world, yes. Theywould.
Would it suprise you or anyone else to know that back in the 40's and fifties, when my dad was in school kids routinely took guns onto the buses and into school and kept them in their lockers and went on after school to go hunting and trapping as well as target shooting. Society never had a second though about it. And we are talking about 6, 7, 8 year olds and up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
They knew gun safety, common sense and how to use those guns. There were no school shootings, no misuse of the firearms etc.
This is in this area with many small towns of populations 900 - 2000 and several bigger cities of 30,000 plus.
Education happened at home with guns and alot of other things. Its not the guns that is a problem, its the lack of education in and around the home thats lacking these days.
Large authoritative entities bring stupidity upon the people under them. IWthout the stupidiity being ingrained into the people the authority cannot control those under them.
The question is how did the situation degenerate like it as, and has done throught history from the ndividual taking care of his own responsibilities and own business with the social well being in mind to a pont where the individual is servant to the authority, dependant on that authority for seemingly everything?
Who cares what it costs US health providers? The US government has no business protecting businesses in that way. See it really doesn't matter why they do it. If its because they think it will help save lives, to protect health care providers, to make money writing tickets, or just because they jerks. The thing is they have no right to demand such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
As for us fighting the government. Well just look at Iraq, if they can do it, then so can we. It might seem unbalanced and it might be but we still have our guns and thus a chance to defend ourself. Without guns, we would be throwing rocks at them, and believe me. We don't want to be there.
Hospitals cannot legally refuse emergency medical treatment to someone simply because they don't have health insurance. So, should someone get in an accident and not have medical insurance, guess who picks up the tab?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Tax payers.
That consequence is worse than you simply having to put on a seat belt. People should be doing that shit anyway. Yeah, I get it. The government shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your own body...but in this case, rebelling seems to be an ego thing. The only reason you don't like it is because the government is making you do it....which is just childish, if you ask me.
It's not like its a burdern or anything, it takes one hand and 2 seconds for christ sake. And no, i doubt its the government asserting its authority simply to slowly eliminate our rights. It saves lives, it can save you money, time , and hassel... and it can save innocent people the psychological trauma of killing your dumbass in a car accident, because you were trying to "stick it to the man" by not wearing a seatbelt. :roll:
You know, there are a LOT very import issues on which we should question, resist, and perhaps even flat-out defy the government on...but this just isnt one of them. This is just childish rebellion from an authority figure without any good cause. This is just disobedience for its ownsake.
Your right, they probably should be doing it anyway. I always wear mine, but thats not the issue. They still have no right to tell you what to do. You can't pick a choose what the government tells you to do. You either let them as they wish, which is what we are basicly doing now. Or you tell them no.
So what if in this case its actually a good idea? What about all the stuff that is stupid and pointless? Its not up to the government to decide, its up to each person to decide. Guess what? If it wasn't against the law I would still wear my seatbelt, I don't need the government to tell me. I am able to decide on my own.
Its not all or nothing, meaning you don't have to fight the government on every issue simply to preserve the rights you wish to keep intact. You focus on the issues you don't agree with (and concentrate your efforts on those) instead of waisting your time trying to fight every single issue, even the ones you agree with. Thats pointless, and even counter-freedom (since freedom is something that needs protection, whether its from people or the government). The only thing keeping the US even remotely free is the law of the constitution. Without that, the government wouldn't have to be so slow and sneaky about increasing their authority. They would just do it and kill anyone who disagreed...like so many other countries. And you have to remember, the government isn't a "one-minded" entity, its composed of millions of individuals with individual feelings. There are people in the government who actually are fighting for freedom, there actually are people who are trying to make things better for the people (instead of only themselves or the government).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Thats my point exatcly. You aren't fighting the law because you don't agree with it, you are fighting it because you are stubborn. "If it wasn't against the law I would still wear my seatbelt, I don't need the government to tell me. I am able to decide on my own" demonstrates this point very clearly. If you think wearing a belt is a good idea, why stop doing it because the government feels the same way??
If people (as a whole) could take care of themselves, the government wouldn't have to make stupid laws like the seatbelt law, or the transfat law. But guess what? MILLIONS of people are too stupid to make wise decisions and take care of themselves, and unfortunately the only thing the government can do for these people is to force them to make wise choices via the threat of punishment.
Yeah, its sucks for those of us who can take care of ourselves, but whats the big deal about just abiding by the laws we were going to do ourselves anyway...if only so that those who aren't wise enough to do it for themselves can also be protected. Do you really have so much stubborn pride that you would, not only disobey laws you personally feel are right, but also try to eliminate the only form of help these unwise people have on their side?
Hey Alric. The first I used "US" health care providers. Then I used thehealth care providers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
So I meant us providers, Those who have insurance and that pay outrageous costs for those who do not have it. I should have been more specific.
I agree though, It is still a touchy issue to demand that. Similar to wearing a helmet too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Often in these debates we compare countries. I don't think that this is accurate to do so. Our culture is much different than any others.
They stand behind something, united, religion.
We are too diversified I think to ever unite on anything. That is unless we were invaded. Like WW ll. If it were our government it would likely happen very slowly and methodically. Like Hitler did with the Jews.
What do you think?
Its called hypocrisy. How can I stand up for freedom, if I only stands up for freedom when its in my benefit? Its like with drugs. I am totally against drugs, I hate them, I think they are stupid. Drugs and seatbelt laws are exactly the same with me, but I am still against the laws for both.
Maybe I think wearing seatbelt is all great but someone else thinks it stupid? Who am I to force them to wear their seatbelt? Or maybe someone thinks taking drugs is the greatest thing they ever done. Who am I to throw them into jail for doing drugs?
You can't pick and choose your freedoms. Thats how it always works, first you sacrifice freedoms of other peoples, stuff you don't agree with. Then once they are all gone, you may very well be next.
If you wont protect peoples rights when they are in the minority, who is going to protect your rights when your in the minority? No matter who you are, its impossible to agree with the government on everything. So its better to allow people to make up their own minds instead of forcing them all the time.
This is not the kind of help people need. You said it yourself, the government is forcing people to do what they feel is best. Which is wrong. The government has no right to force its opinions on others in the forms of law. It has no right to defend people from themself. Its a ridiculous claim that you can defend people from themself, and it shouldn't be done. Its not their job.
what about murder and rape, then? It really doesn't matter if you personally feel that they are wrong...By your logic, you ought to go out and murder/rape people just to protect our general freedoms...
its the same thing, isn't it?
You personally feel wearing a seatbelt is important, yet you break that law to protect our freedoms.
You probably feel that not killing and not raping people is also important, but it looks likes you are going to have to break those laws too...to protect our freedoms from the big bad government.
otherwise that would be hippocritical of you, wouldn't it? To break some laws and not others eventhough they all affect our freedom somehow?
They key difference is that if you murder or rape someone you are harming another person. Wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm anyone but yourself, and only if you get in a car accident. No one has the right to harm other people. Thats the difference, and its a huge one.
You not wearing a seatbelt can harm others, I have already given at least two examples. Firstly, should you not have health insurance, not wearing a seatbelt and getting hurt causes financial harm to other citizens. Secondly, should you get into a car accident and die because you were not wearing a seatbelt, that can do psychological harm to the other person, regardless of it the accident was or was not that persons fault. Thirdly, if you have dependents in your family, not wearing a seatbelt can harm them, not only psychologically but also financially. There are probably a lot more ways not wearing a seatbelt can harm others that I haven't listed, but you get the point.
Keep in mind, however, that I agree with you (in your general stance) more than i disagree with you. I feel that people ought to be able to commit suicide, so long as doing so doesn't infringe on the rights of others. So, if you have no kids, no debt, no other contracts, etc...and are of sound mind, you ought to be able to kill yourself, so long as you do it on your private property.
Yea but accidents happen. You can't really blame someone if they die and their child loses their dad. You also can't be blamed for the secondary psychological harm to someone. Thats all stuff out of your control. Also if you want to get into arguements like that, one could argue that driving a car in the first place put you at danger of having an accident. And now you have a reason to ban driving cars. You could also take it a step further and say your at fault for leaving your house, but now we are just being silly.
Someone once said if a government becomes tyrannical and infringes on the people's natural rights, the people have the right to overthrow it. Some famous guy. I doesn't matter who.
I'm somewhat mixed on this. In a perfect world, centralising ID would make things a lot more efficient and easier. Of course, it isn't a perfect world so you have to worry about the government screwing up or people stealing it. Overall though...I'd be for it as long as very tough measures are put in place to protect the data.
Well, just looking at how the government operates without a national i.d. (ie. illegal wire-taps, detention without a lawyer, waterboarding, etc) would have anyone know that it's pretty impossible to safeguard privacy. So, giving them more information when it's not necessary, isn't a good thing... at all.
If taking care of a child is a legal responcibility, than shouldn't taking basic precautions to helping ensure that guardians well-being be legally binding by extension?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I agree there should be a line drawn somewhere, but what you are proposing is a slippery slope fallacy that could just as easily be applied to any law, not just those that float somewhere in a gray area. Slippery slope fallacies work by making many incremental, yet small logical *assumptions*, that produces an end conclusion seems very probable. In reality, when you look at the overall gap in logic created by these individual (and small) assumptions, you begin to see why they are referend to as "fallacies". In fact, the same method can be used to justify the aboltion of law in general, since, as soon as you take that first step of allowing an authority figure to control what you can and cannot do of your free will, you are on that same slope of logic...just higher up the hill.
Because the assumptions are individually so small, they don't strike people as unrealistic. But overall, the conclusions that you can come to via numerous assumptions like this can indeed be quite unreasonable. The reason this specific fallacy is so dangerous is because you can't really pin-point the spot where the logic "gaps" (or gets fishy) because each gaps is tiny and evenly spread out. You see a lot of this in politics for all of these reasons.
Nevertheless, I still think this argument is redicuclous, especially considering that you yourself have already said that, if it weren't for the government telling you you have to wear a seatbelt, you would be wearing it anyway. Its not the principle of defending our rights as autonomous beings, its childish rebellion...or at best, not the wisest battle to pick if you really are trying to defend personal freedoms.
Thats all I really have to say about the issue.
What I would like to propse is that we are already on the slippy slope and seatbelts are near the bottom. See you claim the government has a legal responsiblity to force people to take care of their children. But how far can they go? Well you start by saying something very reasonable like, child abuse is illegal. We all agree on that. Its hard not to right? Well then you move down, and next you say people who do drugs or are on medication shouldn't be allowed to take care of the children, since the drugs effect them. This is a grey area. Some people probably say thats a good idea, others argue the parents should have the final say. So then we continue down to seatbelts and you say, there is some small chance that if you don't wear a seatbelt you may die and leave your child without a parent, your being irresponsible.
Well at that point, its kind of ridiculous to say a person is ignoring their responsiblity as a parent because they are not wearing a seatbelt. And what about people who live alone? They still have to wear seatbelts too. So this arugement is really kind of silly.
See we agree, I know its totally insane to make that arguement. The thing is the slippery slope fallacy was already made, with the end result being seatbelts. I just took it to the next step.
Let's stick to Ron Paul.
Who here has a half-assed argument that he's not the most popular republican candidate?
I WILL DIE BEFORE I GET AN NATIONAL ID CARD.
I am not exaggerating at all.
I will fight to the death before I let the government track my every move and choose what I can and cannot do(at least more so than they already do. I'm already pissed about whats going on now).
Come home Deus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
"Those who are willing to forfeit liberty for security will have neither."
- Benjamin Franklin
I will go all kinds of hillbilly with a shotgun on anyone who tries to make me carry "papers".
BTW you don't have to give your social security number to anyone. If they want a number you can give them anything else that is tied to your identity. I haven't given mine out in seven years.
If america gets a National ID card, than we canadians as well might get it. Since we copy US mostly in everything. From the Federal Gov' to the banks.
They postponed the NAtional ID act to 2009, so we have 1 more year to do something against it. In my opinion, they are gonna do something horrible, such as another 9/11 and force us to accept it, while being chipped at the same time.
They know that they cannot force us to accept it unless theres another fear factor taking place. So be ready Americans.
Hell no.
And I'm never getting a car with GPS either.
Hrm, an old thread brought back to life again?
My answer, no.
Pirate life, here I come!!!
If any of you knew why the Illumanti was formed by Adam Weishaupt you would know the reason was not mass enslavement.. But Rights for everyone and peace...
Let dah crew bring deeQuote:
Originally Posted by Invader Tech
shiptopic back to deh oceanbed!
--
You always have the option of moving, you know.
As much as I'd love to believe in someone who aspires to so much power over other people, a quick review of human history (and the warning in my heart) brings me back to my senses.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Aye, that would be New Zealand for me............Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
....
.......
...............................
RIGHT AFTER I PIRATE A SHIP TO BE GETTIN ME OVER THERE, YARRR
Wow interesting topic. I'm very, very glad that most of you are saying no to this despite the possible consequences. If the majority of America sticks together and refuses the ID card, then they can't possibly force it on us...I hope.
It's not like the government doesn't have anything better than to spy on YOU, YOU out of all the people lol
We had ID cards since before WWII, it's not that bad.
ID#666 says that obama is the antichrist.no i will never allow them to "give" me one ,they can kill me if they like.
Do you have a cellphone? If yes...too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by acatalephobic
The good thing about all this is, recently (and not so recently for some) many states have made formal declarations of their rights under the 10th amendment to the constitution which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Also 17 states have already formally opposed the national ID's specifically. There is a good chance that when the time comes to stand up against the federal government, it won't be individual citizens that have to organize, but entire states including their governing bodies that will stand together.
That gave me the shivers. The whole idea is really creepy!
hello. i r bob. i like bumping dead threads too. what u r name?Quote:
Originally Posted by acatalephobic
It's interesting you bring that up, because over the past few weeks, many states have begun to try to pass more strict laws protecting that sovereignty, as the federal government has been eroding quite severely over the past several decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria