Real ID. Senate goes for it tomorrow, Tues 10th.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Take a look at the bill status and summary link at Thomas. Check out who cosponsored this bill. Check out who votes for this bill. REMEMBER who votes for the bill and cosponsors it and vote them OUT of office come 2006 and 2008.

I strongly urge you when you vote to vote for a third party....just please for god's sake do NOT continue to vote for the Republican pukes who introduced this crap.

My own representative co-sponsored this BS. He will NEVER get my vote again even if he goes gung-ho for everything the NRA/GOA, etc. want introduced in Congress.
 
Good ole Saltydog said;

"Like I said. People turn their heads and move on."

Wow, they really do, don't they?

I gotta admit, I'm a little suprised. But not really suprised.

So then you haven't read the bill, don't understand the technology, and are centent to go along with the herd's opinion rather than make up your own mind, elsewise you'd have some specific objection to some provision of the bill (eg. the use of SSN's in the license).
 
chick2.jpg

One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head

"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."
 
Yes, it is sad, but I will sleep well, given that I personally did what I could.

I wrote some posts, wrote to and called my congress and senate critters, I've also spoken to some people.

An old saying comes to mind. You can Lead a horse to water, you cannot make him drink.

All else being said, I believe that that sums the thing up. As for those who simply did not understand what is involved in this fiasco, or who simply didn't care, may their chains rest lightly on their shoulders.
 
All else being said, I believe that that sums the thing up. As for those who simply did not understand what is involved in this fiasco, or who simply didn't care, may their chains rest lightly on their shoulders.

Wow, imagine having to provide 4 forms of id instead of the current 3, and have a DIGITAL photo taken instead of the present analog one (which is immediately scanned (digitized) into a database) when you go get a driver's license.

Truely we are living in the Gulag now, the mark of the beast is upon us. Undoubtedly the Southland Corp. with is teams of Cryptanalysts and banks of super computers will be able to decrypt watermarked glyph from the digital image on these licenses every time you get a Slurpee and find out what brand of diswasher detergent your wife uses.

munch.scream2.jpg
 
Forced presentation of ID has already been approved by the Feds; US vs Hiibel. The Supreme Court decreed that it is a-ok for a state to pass a law requiring anyone to present ID to a cop whenever requested. Only a few states have chosen to do so at this point, but any that wish to already have Federal sanction.
 
http://thomas.loc.gov/r109/r109d09my5.html
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report: A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, at approximately 10:45 a.m., on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.

Page S4794


The five versions of the bill can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.+1268:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...-257](Amendments_For_H.R.1268)&./temp/~bd968z
120. S.AMDT.429 to H.R.1268 To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.
Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Proposed amendment SA 429 withdrawn in Senate.
I don't see anything later than that update, regarding this issue.


Now, I've never looked at Thomas before, so I could be very confused. Does this mean that the ammendment has been killed?

Also, I'm trying to find out how the debate/vote actually went. Can anyone anyone help an interested citizen figure it out?
 
I find it amusing that most of the people who are poo-pooing this, saying "Oh, what are you so upset about?" would be the ones screaming the loudest if it was introduced by Democrats. You'd hear all the same 1984'ish arguments from them in that case, but since it was introduced and passed by Republicans it must be ok. :rolleyes:
 
Holy cow! 28 posts before someone used this phrase:
may their chains rest lightly on their shoulders.
Think I'll take my Schlumberger Access 32K card (with the RFID chip, bar code and magnetic strip) out of the slot on my keyboard now and get ready to leave work ... maybe stop on the way home and make sure I get the "Preferred Shopper" price on a six-pack of Sam Adams for the game tonight by using my Albertson's Preferred Shopper Card ...
 
CoolHandLuke"Wow, imagine having to provide 4 forms of id instead of the current 3, and have a DIGITAL photo taken instead of the present analog one (which is immediately scanned (digitized) into a database) when you go get a driver's license.

Truely we are living in the Gulag now, the mark of the beast is upon us."



What CoolHandLuke says when they open the first gulag;

(sarcasm)"Wow, imagine having to perform simple labor in a prison environment instead of it being just optional to perform labor. And have a sentence imposed for not carrying your ID instead of just having a sentence imposed for not carrying your ID while operating a vehicle.

Truely we are living in the Gulag now, the mark of the beast is upon us."(sarcasm)



Lol I don't know why some people try to reason with people like this. No need to call them names, but let's refer to them as, 'avid supporters' of pretty much anything. Oh oh here's a good one, 'enablers'. See it's a good term, they're enabling stuff to get done. Danmit someone has to make the trains run on time! And to hell with those multinational mediation bodies that condemn our little foreign excursion.

Man now that I think about it people comparing police states to Germany have been all wrong, 1930's Italy is where things are going. Damn the resemblance is uncanny! I might have to start doing some deeper research to see what is in store.
 
We'll see where this goes. I bet the Jewish population (that cares, anyway) is a bit annoyed.
 
Lol I don't know why some people try to reason with people like this. No need to call them names, but let's refer to them as, 'avid supporters' of pretty much anything

You folks are beginning to remind me of the shrill, strident, advocates of global warming or Kerry supporters from the DU forum. I imagine you must be typing red faced, the veins sticking out on your necks, spittle flying as you shriek: DOOM DOOM DOOM WE ARE ALL LOST. WHY WON'T THEY LISTEN!!!???

So apparently by not buying into this breathless, overblown alarmist line from you people about how this paltry change to driver's license i.d. requirements is the advent of the anti-Christ I am in favor of the institution of a Soviet Gulag. Right. :rolleyes:

The only significat change is the added requirement of a SSN number to the license application. That's it. And as I said, I object to that.

God, what a joke this non-issue is. :D

OH MY GOD, THEY'RE ASKING FOR FOUR FORMS OF I.D. NOW,

IT'S THE RAPTURE FOR SURE!!!! :D :D
 
Prepare to start living a darn clean life fellas cause you will not be ble to outrun a $2 parking ticket or a library fine in the near future.
If I were a fence sitter on this issue, the above quote sure doesn't make me want to object to this. If your argument against this is so petty that you have to justify it by not being able to hide from $2 parking tickets and library fines, I could care less if it passes. Just some honest feedback about how rediculous you sound when you try and position yourself agaisnt this by saying you can't committ petty crimes against society anymore. I understand the bigger context, so you don't have to call me a sheeple or anything like that.

I have a SS#, DL #, all of my gun transactions go through the PRK DOJ, I have a Costco card, Albertson's card, and we have biometrics to clock in and out at work already. I think it is a little too late to claim the sky is falling, it is already below us. Oh and don't forget your IP address is linked to this post. :neener:
 
How do you cook a frog....

Heat the water slowly so he doesn't hop out of the pot.

How do ya feel, froggy?

I find it strange that everyone on this forum can quote chapter and verse of every affront to their right to keep and bare arms since 1934. Everyone can debate endlessly about how our gun rights were stolen a little bit at a time un-noticed, until some of us living in places like Washington DC or Chicago have no right to firearms.

Ain't you feeling a bit froggy about this RealID thing. I am. Think about the next logical step, just a tiny one, and then the next step after that.

Not too many years from now you'll have RFIDs buried in your 'papers'. Everyplace you go can be tracked. Will they have the means to track everybody, no. Will they have the means to track anybody, yep. It isn't called paranoia if it's your future.

Ribbit
 
Yea, it's a completely harmless bill. Just making sure all DL's look the same and have the same information.

Well, also, to have all the information into a nationtional database too. But that's ok. It's completely harmless.

Well, except they specifically shot down a proposed provision that would have prevented the RealID database from being used as a national database of gun owners.

But, yea, it's harmless.
 
It's all good in the minds of people like Cool Hand Luke because it doesn't directly affect them, yet. Who else spoke about this sacraficing liberties for safety?
 
Hmm. Interesting. I just got an emailed notice here indicating that the emergency spending bill that the RealID act was attached to passed the Senate 100-0.

I oppose the bill for reasons I choose not to debate here (it's late, after all), and I find it alarming that totally unrelated bills can be ammended to another bill. Kinda like the AWB put on the lawsuit-immunity protection bill from last year...each bill should be voted on its own merit, rather than being attached to "must-pass" legislation.
 
If your argument against this is so petty that you have to justify it by not being able to hide from $2 parking tickets and library fines,

El Rojo...chill

I was shooting for irony. They must not have irony in Cali.
My point is a simple one. While this "thing" is being sold as a way of establishing stands of DLs, making in safer for us all in a World full of jet flying BGs bla bla...etc, etc...what on Earth makes >you< think the government will stop at that level or resolution or at that minimized functionality.

I have a SS#, DL #, all of my gun transactions go through the PRK DOJ, I have a Costco card, Albertson's card, and we have biometrics to clock in and out at work already.

And that is all tied into what db???? hmmmm? What exactly is it .gov can can track thru (in your mind) what appears to be that pretty sophisticated ID matrix? The answer is nada. Not Jack---t. If you will think about it you're not asked for your Cosco card when you hop a flight and there is a reason for that. It's not an ID.

Actually .fedgov isn't even satisfied with you Cali DL anymore. They want something much more capable and they will sure have it in this new item. It's not about 2$ parking tickets it's about adding another layer of control over the average citizen(s) and I'm unconvinced where the end use of that technolgy will be.

It's all about the tools, their power and how they are used. This new system and the db it ties too could be used to cause you and I some genuine discomfort. Come to think about it, there would be nothing to keep the powers that be from drawing funds from or even closing your checking account over a 2$ parking ticket if they get everything lined up correctly. They can't do that now because the system is comprised of many parts and each has it's own margin for error. I can't help but think the fewer dbs the feds have the better off society is.

BTW...isn't Cali one of the states considering putting people in the DNA database for being arrested, not convicted, but simply arrested?

S-
 
Sorry Coolhand, didn't mean to imply you support gulags! I meant to illustrate how the logic that something isn't bad, because it is similar to something we already have, how that logic can (and will) be pushed further and further.

How about this then - Since no-one in their right mind would admit to being a liberal, let's assume everyone here is conservative. Does that not apply to the most important aspect of conservatism, fiscal conservatism? HOW many BILLIONS will this new piece of plastic cost?! BILLIONS! HOW is it justified when there isn't enough money to pay for granny's medicine or even her rent? When there isn't enough money to up-armor all the hmmwvs, when there isn't enough money to cut back on the deficit spending? It seems that with money in such short supply, someone must REALLY want to ID everyone in America for some reason, I mean the Really want to do this. That alone is worth suspicion.

Then how about this - do you like junk-mail? NO? Then why would you want even more of it? Government information is often sold to demographic plotters, who perform services for commercial enterprises (Where is a good place to open a jewelry store? Ok thx.) Perfectly legit. But now when you start centralizing all your info into billion dollar databases, which NEED to make money, they'll be selling your COSTCO information to SAFEWAY, and so on. Maybe it'll be a good thing, the government will be able to track the eating habits of Americans to better combat obesity. Look at all the good uses, all the good that can be done. Look at how much more efficient businesses will be as they further direct their advertising to those most effected by it - that means lower costs for them, and thus you. Good good good.

Uh oh, I just thought of one little problem, you're going to need this super-card for voting. Uh-oh, I just remembered the new voting systems are also being digitized, so it'll probably be pretty easy to tell who voted for what. (8:15 Joe Blow used his card to activate booth 17. 8:18 booth 17 registers a vote for Senator Smuckberger, and a yes to this and a no vote to that. Hmm, maybe unscrupulous people looking over this information later might connect that Joe Blow, who was in booth 17 voted for Smuckberger.

And I'm not a genius, if you have a genius and another geniuses thinking of these things, and helping to draft the legislations that are passed, and working in the companies with voting machines, then they can really come up with good stuff.

Uh oh, yea someone just mentioned that this new super-ID card will be used to identify and highlight and track all firearm owners. Maybe that's a good thing, because you never know when one of these guys is going to flip out in a McDonalds. As a bonus you know to keep an eye out for them, in case they break some technical safety rule. Like when those vans with cameras on their roofs (that everyone here thought were A-OK) that the police have, when those camera vans see your license plate and it registers to you, and your name flashes brightly as a firearm owner - when the guy gets out of the van and performs a visual inspection just to see if you have an unsecured firearm visible, or paraphanalia. What's to worry about? And those vans everyone here thought were A-OK that have microphones and monitor the conversations of people walking down the street, when they park outside of the range and record people's conversations, no-one here has every said anything at all, even in bad humor, that could cause the listening officers to put a red X beside your name, already highlighted for firearms ownership.

Nope, no potential to drastically alter the shape of society, none at all. And it's definately NOT like each new invasive technology will compile upon the rest to create a mechanism greater than the sum of its parts. Not a chance. It's just mandatory ID, a van with cameras that tracks and records license plates, and hidden microphone public surveillance cars. That's all.

What you are worried? THEN PAY THE DAMN $2 LIBRARY FINE! JESUS if you just don't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about! God damn paranoid bastards, with tin-foil hats, all worried just because social-security numebrs are used on national-IDs and there are vans monitoring people's vehicles and hidden microphones when you walk down the street. Paranoid bastards.
 
Wow, is this thing a beaut!

From the bill that passed;

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.


So long to the out-dated concept of "separation of powers".


"The advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy"
--Issac Azimov, Foundation's Edge
 
If ones race and the cultural stereotype implications cannot be asked, let alone recorded, as a potential source of discrimination, officially considered irrelevant, then I would propose that gun ownership not be recorded either. Any need to know is based upon a belief that a citizen, heretofore innocent of any wrongdoing, is a potential criminal. Meanwhile criminals simply don't volunteer that they have a gun or 5 or 10.

I just think the government can't have it both ways when it comes to discrimination, whether race, gender, age, religion, or whatever source of discrimination. There should be a true need to know, and there should be questions that are politically incorrect to ask, if not constitutionally prohibited outright. Sometimes it takes a law change to ensure that one can freely withhold information.

It's all still a question of where the line in the sand might be or even if there is one.

This all becomes a more urgent concern given the potential of searches on comprehensive databases. To me, if they can't ask about race or religion, etc., they can't ask about gun ownership. I wouldn't care to be discriminated against until I have done something wrong. I wouldn't want a record of gun ownership to increase the chances of getting shot by some trigger happy traffic cop with a bad attitude. Until I become a criminal, I don't want to be treated like one.

Yes, I know that SC police are aware that I have a CWP or can readily make the connection with driver ID, but I don't think they need that information or that having it solves anything.
 
Well said, El Rojo.

I recall a few years back reading a very interesting article regarding the inevitable increase in the ability of the government to track citizens. Unfortunately, I don't remember who wrote it, just that it was linked to from slashdot (ringing endorsement, I know). In any event, the point of the article was that there is no point trying to fight it. Technology will continue to improve, and there's no practical way to prevent the government from having it and using it.

What we should be focused on doing is keeping the process transparent, so we can at least monitor what the government's doing with the information, and call them on abuses. Frankly, the TSA and its practices don't bother me anywhere near as much as the fact that we don't get to know what those practices are, or the policies under which they operate.

Fighting technology is banging your head against the wall. Fighting to keep the technology used in an inoffensive manner might be effective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top