Just around the corner...

People sometimes say they're not concerned about national ID cards - and the use of "biometric" tags such as retinal scans and so on - because, after all, we've been using fingerprints for years and "biometrics" are just the next logical step.

Except for one key point, that's true.

The difference is that while fingerprints have, indeed, been routinely used for decades - they've only been used routinely to track criminals. Or at least, people who have been formally arrested and charged with a crime.

I've yet to be fingerprinted. Probably you've never been fingerprinted, either. In fact, the majority of Americans have likely never been "inked." And for good reason. The government has no business with you until you've given reason to suspect otherwise. Or at least, that's the way things used to be.

Soon, we may all be required to submit not merely to being fingerprinted - but perhaps also forced (if we want a driver's license, that is) to allow our retinas to be scanned, possibly our DNA itself catalogued.

In about two years, the federal Real ID Act will begin to impose its will on state governments - and the state governments, on us via our driver's licenses. The new, enhanced licenses will become de facto national ID cards - and in addition to the biometric info about ourselves that will be sampled and collected, the IDs themselves will be able to track our every movement via miniaturized Radio Frequency ID (RFID) transmitters built into them. This is not science fiction - or paranoia. The technology exists; the "biometric" tags are already in use - and the Real ID Act is very real indeed.

Ostensibly, the Act is all about "protecting" us (isn't it always so?) but in fact it's about allowing ourselves to be treated like common criminals - duly registered, catalogued and easy to be kept track of. That people don't get this - and react with outrage - is itself anoutrage. Or ought to be.

And we'll be kept track of by more than merely the government. Private corporations are eager to compile extensive dossiers on each and every one of us. Where we go and when, what we buy and how - in order to better "target" us as consumers. If that sounds innocuous, keep in mind that unlike the government - which must still at least pretend to abide by a few threadbare legalisms regarding what information it may collect and how such information may be shared and used, private corporations labor under no such restrictions. Indeed, the government may (and has, in fact) used private corporations to brazenly (and with impunity) skirt the law; the private company collects the info - and turns it over to the government. (Recent disclosures about ISPs providing details about customers' surfing habits and e-mails being one case in point; another being the wholesale giving over of phone records - and so on.)

A secondary effect of the Real ID Act is that once we have these IDs forced upon us, we will be compelled to produce them in order to transact business, open a bank account, enter public buildings, travel on commercial carriers - ad infinitum. It will literally be a new America - one in which, "your papers, please!" is no longer a phrase spoken by Brownshirts of a long-gone era but a reality of everyday life in what's left of these United States.

And I think we will accept it.

9/11 opened a window into the soul of America, all right. And it is the soul of a cringing beaten dog with its tail tucked between its legs - ready to submit to its master's voice. The test case was the TSA and the oddly-named Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like something right out of 1939 Germany, only translated into English. Abteilung des Sicherheit des Vaterland.

We accepted - in the name of "security" and the "war on terror" - being physically felt up by TSA goons, allowing routine rifling of our personal possessions, at random - without any pretext or probable cause whatever. What else will we accept?

Apparently, anything.

And everything.

END

I've been fingerprinted so many times, I've lost count. No, I'm not the guy you see on cops. At least, not the one getting put into the back seat. When I had a badge, we were printed each year in case an injury occured that damaged one finger or something else caused the print to vary. Plus, I have a permit to carry a fire arm concealed on my person or in my vehicle. It was recently changed to a life time permit but before last year, the permit had to be renewed every 4 years. Many years ago, I drove a truck for places that hauled high security cargo. I rarely did but EVERYBODY got a back ground check. As a side note, one question on the employment exam is "Have you ever thought about robbig an armored car?". If you said no, you didn't get hired. Everybody thinks about it from time to time. Personally, I don't want to look over my shoulder the rest of my life and basically, if it isn't mine, i don't want it. I've got a lot of stuff around here and it's all paid for. Sometimes with a loan and sometimes in cash but always paid for.

If you were ever in the military, your prints are on file. If you ever had a security clearance, your prints are on file.

If you ever apply for a concealed handgun permit your fingerprints will be on file!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grouch

I've been fingerprinted so many times, I've lost count. No, I'm not the guy you see on cops. At least, not the one getting put into the back seat. When I had a badge, we were printed each year in case an injury occured that damaged one finger or something else caused the print to vary. Plus, I have a permit to carry a fire arm concealed on my person or in my vehicle. It was recently changed to a life time permit but before last year, the permit had to be renewed every 4 years. Many years ago, I drove a truck for places that hauled high security cargo. I rarely did but EVERYBODY got a back ground check. As a side note, one question on the employment exam is "Have you ever thought about robbig an armored car?". If you said no, you didn't get hired. Everybody thinks about it from time to time. Personally, I don't want to look over my shoulder the rest of my life and basically, if it isn't mine, i don't want it. I've got a lot of stuff around here and it's all paid for. Sometimes with a loan and sometimes in cash but always paid for.

---

Amen to all that!

And for me, there is the additional issue of havingmaybe to use violence to get the job (robthe truck) done. Can't see doing that under any circumstances. It's is an aspect of criminal behavior I have never understood. I have to admit a grudging admiration for the ingenious crook you see sometimes in film or read about who plans the Master Burglarly, quietly sneaking into a gallery to make off with a million dollar painting (but never harming or even threatening to harm anyone). Or the "Office Space" move - where a geek figures out a way to get a software program to deposit a gazillion dollars in his account by syphoning off pennies here and there. I wouldn't actually do it - but that kind of thing doesn't outrage me. Use of gratuitous violence does. I find that completely unacceptable and if I were the real Decider and had the power to do it, I'd impose severe punishment for it in any context. For non-violent stuff, my policies would be very liberal. And I'd immediately decriminalize simple possession/use of currently illegal drugs, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Rose

If you ever apply for a concealed handgun permit your fingerprints will be on file!

---

Yes - one of the reasons I haven't acquired a permit!

Fundamentally, I don't believe I need permission to defend myself. That includes carying a weapon when I see fit.

The other thing about concealed-carry permits I don't like is that you are now on a government list as being someone who has handguns. When guns are outlawed (perhaps after the next 9/11) guess whose doors will be knocked on first?

Not mine. I ain't got no guns. No sir. Sold 'em all years ago....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D_E_Davis

If you were ever in the military, your prints are on file. If you ever had a security clearance, your prints are on file.

---

True - but still a relatively small percentage of the population. Probably no more than 3 out of ten of the current adult male population; the ratio is probably even less for adult women.

And in any case, these people chose to pursue a line of work where that is a requirement. They were free to decline, if they did not like the idea of being fingerprinted.

I absolutely reject the idea that ordinary citizens should be compelled to provide fingerprints, retinal scans and present their "papers" to go about their business.

It's as un-American a thing as I can imagine. Whatever happened to the notion of being free to move about, without being watched or recorded or having to ask permission/get approval?

Why are we even fighting a "war on terror"? We're trading in everything that makes fighting "them" worth the effort....

>>The other thing about concealed-carry permits I don't like is that you are now on a government list as being someone who has handguns. When guns are outlawed (perhaps after the next 9/11) guess whose doors will be knocked on first?<<

You are so wrong here--- If you ever get stopped and have to show your DL to a cop, handing over the CHL with it will get you a few extra points. Police love the hand gun licensees because that gives them extra help at times. They also know immediately that you are no threat to them and automaticly relax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Rose

>>The other thing about concealed-carry permits I don't like is that you are now on a government list as being someone who has handguns. When guns are outlawed (perhaps after the next 9/11) guess whose doors will be knocked on first?<<

You are so wrong here--- If you ever get stopped and have to show your DL to a cop, handing over the CHL with it will get you a few extra points. Police love the hand gun licensees because that gives them extra help at times. They also know immediately that you are no threat to them and automaticly relax.

---

I've heard this from others; it does sound good... but then, I am a paranoiac!

>>but then, I am a paranoiac! <<

Really? Who would have known???? ::)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Rose

>>but then, I am a paranoiac! <<

Really? Who would have known???? ::)

---

These days, it's not such bad policy....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Rose

>>but then, I am a paranoiac! <<

Really? Who would have known???? ::)

---

At least I'm not paranoid. I don't think they are out to get me I know it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

The test case was the TSA and the oddly-named Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like something right out of 1939 Germany, only translated into English. Abteilung des Sicherheit des Vaterland.

---

Interesting reference to Germany. We're faced with a similar ID card system in the UK. A news item I heard this week made the comment that the proposed national data base, to which ID cards would be linked, would be illegal in Germany. The Germans, 'with memories of the Gestapo & the Stasi', have passed legislation expressly forbidding the establishment of such a database.

Of course, the idiot politicians believe that we need these things for improved security; no doubt they expect terrorists to have a card marked 'terrorist'! They seem to be under the misapprehension that biometric cards can't be forged...if it can be made legally, it can be made illegally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

The test case was the TSA and the oddly-named Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like something right out of 1939 Germany, only translated into English. Abteilung des Sicherheit des Vaterland.

---

Interesting reference to Germany. We're faced with a similar ID card system in the UK. A news item I heard this week made the comment that the proposed national data base, to which ID cards would be linked, would be illegal in Germany. The Germans, 'with memories of the Gestapo & the Stasi', have passed legislation expressly forbidding the establishment of such a database.

Of course, the idiot politicians believe that we need these things for improved security; no doubt they expect terrorists to have a card marked 'terrorist'! They seem to be under the misapprehension that biometric cards can't be forged...if it can be made legally, it can be made illegally.

---

Indeed!

I'd go further. I believe the powers that be know perfectly well that it's not about "security" or preventing a terror attack. It is about power over us.

I find it incredible that so many people are so ignorant of history - and so naive about human nature and the inevitability of unchecked power becoming abusive power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

The test case was the TSA and the oddly-named Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like something right out of 1939 Germany, only translated into English. Abteilung des Sicherheit des Vaterland.

---

Interesting reference to Germany. We're faced with a similar ID card system in the UK. A news item I heard this week made the comment that the proposed national data base, to which ID cards would be linked, would be illegal in Germany. The Germans, 'with memories of the Gestapo & the Stasi', have passed legislation expressly forbidding the establishment of such a database.

Of course, the idiot politicians believe that we need these things for improved security; no doubt they expect terrorists to have a card marked 'terrorist'! They seem to be under the misapprehension that biometric cards can't be forged...if it can be made legally, it can be made illegally.

---

One of the the things I heard (which may or may not be true) is that when the Nazis occupied a country during the war (didn't say which one -- I would guess France or Poland), the national registry of citizens (which had things like professed religion, national origin, etc) greatly assisted them in rounding up the 'undesirables' and sending them off to the camps.

Chip H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D_E_Davis

If you were ever in the military, your prints are on file. If you ever had a security clearance, your prints are on file.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

True - but still a relatively small percentage of the population. Probably no more than 3 out of ten of the current adult male population; the ratio is probably even less for adult women.

---

That's why we need the draft reinstated - many more would know how to fold clothes and make the bed(g).

Quote:

---

And in any case, these people chose to pursue a line of work where that is a requirement. They were free to decline, if they did not like the idea of being fingerprinted.

---

Nah. Those, like me, chose to eat regularly. A prerequisite was a security clearance.

Quote:

---

I absolutely reject the idea that ordinary citizens should be compelled to provide fingerprints, retinal scans and present their "papers" to go about their business. It's as un-American a thing as I can imagine. Whatever happened to the notion of being free to move about, without being watched or recorded or having to ask permission/get approval? Why are we even fighting a "war on terror"? We're trading in everything that makes fighting "them" worth the effort....

---

No argument there. What bothers me is the linkage of all these various databases, so the security clearance fingerprints are now available to any agency who wants to look.

The FBI is looking for bidders on a new $165 million contract to extend the fingerprint database system (AFIS) to include other biometric data -- handprints, iris patterns, tattoos, etc.

Chip H.

>> I don't think they are out to get me I know it!<<

The problem is that they already got you and you don't know it!

"That's why we need the draft reinstated - many more would know how to fold clothes and make the bed(g)."

Actually, I support the idea of making voting and "full citizenship" conditional on military (or civilian equivalent) service. Such a policy would provide a much needed "common experience" for Americans from all backgrounds and bolster positive nationalism/idealism. Today, the rank and file military is comprised mostly of people from the lower socio-economic strata - whose options are not as viable as those from middle and upper class backgrounds. There are many (myself among them) who would have liked to go in for a year or so, but who did not because of the tremendous competitive disadvantage a several-year committment to the military poses relative to one's peers who go directly to college and from there into the workplace. By the time a current enlistee gets out, he's several years behind his civilian peer group. Most middle and upper class kids won't buyinto that.... understandably.

"No argument there. What bothers me is the linkage of all these various databases, so the security clearance fingerprints are now available to any agency who wants to look."

Amen.

Things have gone topsy turvy - with alleged "conservatives" kowtowing to (if not cheerleading for) policies that are the antithesis of what conservatism used to mean.

When did Americans become such a spineless, fearful people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Rose

If you ever apply for a concealed handgun permit your fingerprints will be on file!

---

Yes - one of the reasons I haven't acquired a permit!

Fundamentally, I don't believe I need permission to defend myself. That includes carying a weapon when I see fit.

The other thing about concealed-carry permits I don't like is that you are now on a government list as being someone who has handguns. When guns are outlawed (perhaps after the next 9/11) guess whose doors will be knocked on first?

Not mine. I ain't got no guns. No sir. Sold 'em all years ago....

---

Here, here. You should never need permission to defend yourself. Beside concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. Right to bear arms is a RIGHT not a privilege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

"That's why we need the draft reinstated - many more would know how to fold clothes and make the bed(g)."

Actually, I support the idea of making voting and "full citizenship" conditional on military (or civilian equivalent) service. Such a policy would provide a much needed "common experience" for Americans from all backgrounds and bolster positive nationalism/idealism. Today, the rank and file military is comprised mostly of people from the lower socio-economic strata - whose options are not as viable as those from middle and upper class backgrounds. There are many (myself among them) who would have liked to go in for a year or so, but who did not because of the tremendous competitive disadvantage a several-year committment to the military poses relative to one's peers who go directly to college and from there into the workplace. By the time a current enlistee gets out, he's several years behind his civilian peer group. Most middle and upper class kids won't buyinto that.... understandably.

"No argument there. What bothers me is the linkage of all these various databases, so the security clearance fingerprints are now available to any agency who wants to look."

Amen.

Things have gone topsy turvy - with alleged "conservatives" kowtowing to (if not cheerleading for) policies that are the antithesis of what conservatism used to mean.

When did Americans become such a spineless, fearful people?

---

This may sound out of left field, but it first became evident to me when I looked at our reaction to the 1973 energy crisis. That was truly the transforming event of our lifetimes in terms of a paradigm shift in the US position in the world and our peoples relative reaction to events. American drivers accepted (for quite a while) the most idiotic law ever passed by a legislative body: the 55 mph national speed limit.

There were certainly not enough freedom loving people to tell congress to stick this law where the sun doesn't shine.

I saw that as a pivotal point in our country's history. A look back again will prove me correct, I believe.

>>Here, here. You should never need permission to defend yourself. Beside concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. Right to bear arms is a RIGHT not a privilege. <<

And that opens the door for every criminal to legally carry a gun----

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Rose

>>Here, here. You should never need permission to defend yourself. Beside concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. Right to bear arms is a RIGHT not a privilege. <<

And that opens the door for every criminal to legally carry a gun----

---

C'mon Jim - that's a non-sequitur...

For the first 150 -plus years this country existed as a nation, no one needed a permit to carry a gun.

The issue is dealing with people who commit crimes using weapons; deal with them harshly - but quit telling people who have never committed a crime of violence that they must be treated as if they had committed such a crime. Or are "likely" to - simply by dint of being armed. That is nonsense.

Armed freemen are no threat to anyone - and the bulwark of a free society.

Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws - "concealed carry" or otherwise. Do you really believe that the existence of such laws presents any impediment to criminals? How many street thugs with Glocks in the underwear do you think have permits? Or are deterred from carrying guns to commit crime?

In fact, all they do is make it a hassle for people who are no threat to anyone (other than scumbags who might try to assault/rob them) to carry a gun.

Criminals love "gun control" - because it disarms their victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

Things have gone topsy turvy - with alleged "conservatives" kowtowing to (if not cheerleading for) policies that are the antithesis of what conservatism used to mean.

When did Americans become such a spineless, fearful people?

---

Things have been too good for too long. During the depression my parents and their peers knew things weren't really good at the moment but they were working hard to make the next moment a trifle better. They had to work, and work hard; there wasn't time or money enough to waste on standing still. And, they knew things would improve if they put their hearts and souls into it.

>>Criminals love "gun control" - because it disarms their victims. <<

Perhaps that's what it used to be--- Now, they have no idea as to who is carrying and have gotten some really big surprises here in Texas. Hardly a day goes by anymore when a criminal doesn't get shot by a victim who is legally carrying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Rose

>>Criminals love "gun control" - because it disarms their victims. <<

Perhaps that's what it used to be--- Now, they have no idea as to who is carrying and have gotten some really big surprises here in Texas. Hardly a day goes by anymore when a criminal doesn't get shot by a victim who is legally carrying.

---

Excellent; but that simply proves the point, eh? More weapons in the hands of average Joes and Janes makes things safer - that is, more risky for scumbag criminals. But it is the opposite of what people who push so-called "gun control" seek to impose.

There is no "gun control" group or politicians who favors concealed carry laws. They want handguns banned; which amounts to taking them away from people who aren't the problem.

Concealed carry laws just make it more of a hassle for people who aren't the problem to carry weapons. They do nothing to prevent violent thugs from carry weapons, concealed and otherwise. Surely you'll concede this point? (Viz - gun crime is rampant in DC; there are thugs all over Anacostia and PG County with "nines" in their waistbands - but not one with a permit. See also Detroit, South Central LA... Etc.)

Concealed carry laws are politically correct, feel-good Big Momma BS.

Generations of Americans handled (and carried) weapons without having to beg the government for permission; I see no reason why we ought to have to do so now.

Self-defense (including armed self-defense) is a right, not a privilege.

We, as a people, need to be reminded of that. And protective of it, too.