National Id card

We already have a national ID system in place, whether people want to believe it or not.

SS, Driver's License, Passport, Birth Certificate, Credit History, et al. It's quite easy to cull that information together and get a complete history of someone. A national ID card would basically do what we've currently got.

Any issue I'd have would have to be based on how it's used. For instance, if you needed one to move around in this nation, then I would have a big problem. You know, the whole "Your papers please" faschist nightmare scenario.

On the other hand, it could end up being a logistical nightmare. If you lose your passport, that doesn't automatically give up your SS or your Driver's License, and vice versa. If it's all combined into one card, if you lose it or its stolen, it could be a tremendous headache.

It's a good idea in theory, but in practice it probably would not be the best thing, if they combine it into one super ID.

RussSchultz said:
Same reason we in America tend to like the right to own guns--the government isn't always your benevolent nanny.
Click to expand...

Just as a quick aside. The only thing I don't like about the gun lobby is the fact that whenever people try to enact sensible gun control laws, they are shot down as trying to violate the constitution and take away people's guns.

I for one don't see a problem with requiring people to go through a 3 day waiting period/background check at gun shows. You are required to go through that when purchasing guns at a store, so why not at a gun show? What's so wrong with having mandatory "child proof" locks on guns? Things like that seem to be purely common sense safety additions, but they're always shot down as violations of the 2nd amendment. I think that's kind of silly.
 
Itll be easy to get around thes cards. Either no illegal will bother with them or they will be faked kind of like sat tv piracy. Whenever you mass produce any tech it can easily usually be reproduced shortly after. Now my only concerns were with costs which shouldnt be a prob if the cards are phased in as people replace their drivers licenses or such. But the plans Ive seen called for quick replacement and costs were in the billions up here...
 
This thread is somewhat surprising to me :)

Anyone have a link to a report or something on which countries have which kinds of IDs, etc.?
 
Natoma, "sensible gun laws?" An absolute civil liberty is exactly that, a liberty which trumps all other public policy concerns. It makes no more sense to whiddle away the Second Admendment to "save lives" as it does to take chunks out of the Fourth Admendment to "fight terror better." Policy should work within the limits of the Constitution, not through them.
 
So why shouldn't it be illegal for individuals to possess nuclear arms, or tanks, or howitzers, F16s complete with Napalm??? The constitution only specifies arms, which does not neccessarily mean guns. You could take all people's guns away and it would still be constitutional. Let them have bows and arrows, for christ's sake.
 
Clashman said:
The constitution only specifies arms, which does not neccessarily mean guns. You could take all people's guns away and it would still be constitutional. Let them have bows and arrows, for christ's sake.
Click to expand...

Um, this is the problem. People read a sentance from the Constitution and get these big ideas about what the framers intended as if they actual had a clue. I don't know what they were thinking, but I know what they stated and it's alot different than the leftist bullshit your talking about. For example, you state that "arms" is ambigous to the extent that you can take their firearms and give them bows & arrows - and still retain Constitutionality.

Second Amendment to the Constitution said:
"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."
Click to expand...

With the knowldge that the framers used the term "militia" to refer to any citizen capable of bearing arms, it's clear that the point of this admendment was intended to provide the singular citizen a form of personal defense. Bows & Arrows are clearly not practical forms of personal defense in the 21st century world, to restrict this to Bows & Arrows is unconstitutional. The use of "arms" is powerful in it's ambiguity in that it scales as technology advances. But, it's clear what they intended:

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Virginia Convention.

If the framers intended the line of thinking that you state (which is such ridiculous horsehit) why didn't they limit it? Why didn't they impose a limit on personal defense, say, to the still utilized Bow & Arrow? I already answered this when I talked about their intentional ambiguity; basically they knew technology and self-defense needs would increase in time. What they didn't expect is the modern man like yourself.

To futher reinforce the right of an individual to bear weapons, the Congress approved this version over a previous one in which the statement contained the terms, "For the common defense," due to their wanting to make it clear that defense was on a per citizen level. Clearly showing that the defense was intended to be personal in nature.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

Clashman said:
So why shouldn't it be illegal for individuals to possess nuclear arms, or tanks, or howitzers, F16s complete with Napalm???
Click to expand...

This is a seperate issue (although you obviously don't know enough to seperate it) and the case can be made between what's necessary for personal defense, which the Constitution protects, and the need for infastructure to provide for National Defense (eg. Nuclear Arms) as per the 1794 Congressional authorization to create a Navy and procure 6 frigates.
 
akira888 said:
Natoma, "sensible gun laws?" An absolute civil liberty is exactly that, a liberty which trumps all other public policy concerns. It makes no more sense to whiddle away the Second Admendment to "save lives" as it does to take chunks out of the Fourth Admendment to "fight terror better." Policy should work within the limits of the Constitution, not through them.
Click to expand...

I had no idea children had a right to fire a gun and kill themselves or their friends, nor did I have any idea that murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, and other unsavory types had a right to purchase guns without a background check.

How does background checks at gun shows, which are currently required at store purchases, violate the constitution? How does having locks on guns to prevent kids from firing them violate the constitution? I still to this day do not understand where anyone's constitutional rights are being violated. The constitution says you have a right to bear arms. It says nothing about making sure those arms aren't getting into the hands of criminals, or being fired by children.

Unless of course you are being sarcastic and I'm missing the point of your post. ;)
 
Well surely even criminals are citizens. Therefore, criminals should also have the right to own guns. :p

I'd say that it doesn't matter who owns the guns and what they own as long as they don't use them illegally. Of course, human nature being what it is...

Hence the high death rate from shootings in the US.
 
High death rate by guns in the US? Understatement of the century...

Can't believe you actually have a right to have a gun in the US...
 
davefb said:
ahh but when the uk was a young state ;). there were laws that every man had to practice archery... they even made football illegal because it interfered with people practising :-O

-dave-

AND it's legal to kill a scotsman (using a bow+arrow) in york apart from on a sunday.......

http://www.mundayweb.com/weirdlaws.html#britain
Click to expand...


I know u're being funny, (and u r!) but we're in 2003 and the US has still something like 11000 (ELEVENTHOUSAND) deaths by guns every year compared to around 60 (SIXTY) in Australia, little more than 100 in the UK etc...

I mean don't they see there is something horribly wrong here?


EDIT: And don't ask me for links, and don't come out with the "But we have more people". A 5X bigger population (250million US - 50million UK... Very approximated) that has a 110X bigger death-rate by guns? mmmm...
 
The number of gun-related deaths isn't just a function of the number of guns available; IIRC countries such as Canada and Norway have about as many guns per capita as the USA (my father used to have two machine guns, a shotgun and a bazooka), yet have much, much lower numbers of gun death-rates per capita.

The other common explanation for the high gun death rates in the USA is 'culture', although I would like to see that explained in a little more detail - can someone point out specific culture differences that causes this huge difference?

As for national ID cards: Forged ID cards, if possible, would make the system useless for tracking villains (which would seem to me to be the main argument for such a system), unless there exists a central database somewhere, in which case the villain could very well haXor into it and steal other people's identities for whatever purposes he might dream up. What assurances do we have against either scenario?
 
Natoma said:
I had no idea children had a right to fire a gun and kill themselves or their friends, nor did I have any idea that murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, and other unsavory types had a right to purchase guns without a background check.
Click to expand...

Your statement contains a huge epistemological conundrum. How are we, before the fact, supposed to determine just who are the "murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, and other unsavory types" without infringing on the rights of others? And I have yet to see a major US terrorist attack committed with firearms. I suggest we ban jumbo jets, after all the US does have a vastly higher rate of airplane homicide over the past three years than other nations. :LOL: Not to mention that in Britian crime including murder has actually gone up since Blair's 1997 ban on pistols after Dunblaine.

And if whittling down the Second Amendment in the hopes of preventing maybe 3,000 firearms deaths a year is desirable should we obivate the rest of the Bill of Rights to help prevent terrorist acts that could cause orders of magnitude more homicides? For liberals who support hard, comprehensive gun control yet oppose this "Patriot Act" abomination this is a question they will be forced to answer in the next few years. If they (we) haven't lost this battle already...
 
arjan de lumens said:
The other common explanation for the high gun death rates in the USA is 'culture', although I would like to see that explained in a little more detail - can someone point out specific culture differences that causes this huge difference?
Click to expand...

Well I have heard as a generalisation that American culture often encourages the use of force as a way of resolving problems, far more so than any of the other western countries that have a lot of guns in circulation.

If you are really interested, the film "Bowling For Columbine" does raise some other interesting issues, such as the way that US TV likes to whip up fear of crime into a frenzy as it makes good TV. It does however make Americans have a greater fear of crime than many other countries.

BTW, I don't mean to push anyone's buttons (because I know mentioning Michael Moore sparks a lot of people into a spitting fit), but "Bowling For Columbine" is an interesting view into American Gun culture for the non-American.
 
akira888 said:
Natoma said:
I had no idea children had a right to fire a gun and kill themselves or their friends, nor did I have any idea that murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, and other unsavory types had a right to purchase guns without a background check.
Click to expand...

Your statement contains a huge epistemological conundrum. How are we, before the fact, supposed to determine just who are the "murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, and other unsavory types" without infringing on the rights of others? And I have yet to see a major US terrorist attack committed with firearms. I suggest we ban jumbo jets, after all the US does have a vastly higher rate of airplane homicide over the past three years than other nations. :LOL: Not to mention that in Britian crime including murder has actually gone up since Blair's 1997 ban on pistols after Dunblaine.

And if whittling down the Second Amendment in the hopes of preventing maybe 3,000 firearms deaths a year is desirable should we obivate the rest of the Bill of Rights to help prevent terrorist acts that could cause orders of magnitude more homicides? For liberals who support hard, comprehensive gun control yet oppose this "Patriot Act" abomination this is a question they will be forced to answer in the next few years. If they (we) haven't lost this battle already...
Click to expand...

Again. How is closing the gun show loophole a whitting down of the Second Amendment? How is putting child proof locks on guns so that it's more difficult for children to fire them a whittling down of the Second Amendment?

You're talking about whittling down of these things and liberals this and Patriot Act that, but you still haven't answered my questions.
 
The other common explanation for the high gun death rates in the USA is 'culture', although I would like to see that explained in a little more detail - can someone point out specific culture differences that causes this huge difference?
Click to expand...
US culture seems to promote that winning/being first is the only thing that counts, no matter what the costs are. And some people seem to take 'no matter what the cost' quite literally. Besides, the high number of deaths and injuries gives the appearance of normality so you're automatically less careful to avoid it.
 
I think it's utterly disgusting that a goverment is so stuck up its own power-trip-thing that it doesn't do anything to avoid this.
 
I don't think the government is to blame for it, rather the other way round, the way the government acts represents the way the people think anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BRiT
First American Financial Corp. Leaked Hundreds of Millions of Title Insurance Records
Replies
4
Views
1K
AlphaWolf
A
A
Holy Wall of Text: My impressions post Playstation 4 (PS4) unveil
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
20K
(((interference)))
I
F
Sony's Next Generation Portable unveiling - PSP2 in disguise
42 43 44
Replies
871
Views
232K
liolio
L
G
Samsung SyncMaster S27A850D Mini-review
Replies
2
Views
8K
Grall
G
A
No Rumor, Xbox Live on Windows Phone 7
2 3
Replies
52
Views
14K
AzBat
A
Back
Top