TSA Moves Closer To Rejecting Some State Driver's Licenses For Airline Travel (nytimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Jad Mouawad writes at the NYT that a driver's license may no longer be enough for airline passengers to clear security in some states, if the Department of Homeland Security has its way the Department of Transportation will start enforcing the Real ID Act, which was enacted by Congress in 2005 following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Homeland Security officials insist there will be no more delays. In recent months, federal officials have visited Minnesota and other states to stress that the clock was ticking. The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply. "The federal government has quietly gone around and clubbed states into submission," says Warren Limmer, a state senator in Minnesota and one of the authors of a 2009 state law that prohibits local officials from complying with the federal law. "That's a pretty heavy club."

Privacy experts, civil liberty organizations and libertarian groups fear the law would create something like a national identification card. Presently twenty-nine states are not in compliance with the act and more than a dozen have passed laws barring their motor vehicle departments from complying with the law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The new standards require more stringent proof of identity and will eventually allow users' information to be shared more easily in a national database. Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,says he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable and notes that the recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government's ability to maintain secure databases. "You create more risk when you connect databases,"says Rotenberg. "One vulnerability becomes multiple vulnerabilities."

Comments

Voluntary?

[NoKaOi]

The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

Re:Voluntary?

[lambsonic]

We all know that one thing the federal government doesn't have is a dictionary. Those things are like kryptonite to governments.

Re:Voluntary?

[davester666]

They have dictionaries, only the definitions in them are completely different than the ones you and I get to use.

Re:Voluntary?

[swillden]

They have dictionaries, only the definitions in them are completely different than the ones you and I get to use.

"Humpty Dumpty dictionaries": the words mean exactly what the user wants them to mean, neither more nor less.

Re: Voluntary?

[timrod]

It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states. The "mandatory" part is that the federal government will deny highway funding to any state with a drinking age under 21, which is why every state has 21 as the drinking age. While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.

Re:Voluntary?

[MachineShedFred]

I like to refer to that as being 'voluntold' to do something.

Re:Voluntary?

[grcumb]

The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

Er, I think the concept you need to consider here is opportunity cost. If failing to participate in a purely voluntary practice closes the door to important benefits, then that decision can absolutely have undesirable consequences.

This is a pretty standard tactic when national governments try to influence policies that are, strictly speaking, the purview of sub-national entities. Health and education, for example, are provincial responsibilities in Canada, but funding mechanisms, subsidies and tax breaks make it possible for the federal government to set minimum standards nationwide without explicitly overstepping its mandate.

Re: Voluntary?

[AthanasiusKircher]

It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states.

Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.

I mean, if you want to go down the road to that sort of argument, you have to start with the question of whether the federal government has the right to regulate air travel at all. It certainly isn't mentioned in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the 1910s and 1920s, there was much debate over whether a Constitutional amendment was necessary for Congress to regulate anything other than basic interstate commerce issues. With the Air Commerce Act of 1926, the federal government formalized its role in regulating some safety measures, only for commercial flights, and rather limited. (It's important to remember this was still in the middle of the Lochner era, when the Supreme Court routinely struck down any statute that seemed like government interfering with economic liberty.)

Of course, everything changed after the FDR court-packing threat and the Switch in Time that Saved Nine in 1937, followed by sweeping federal government expansion in 1937-42, effectively culminating in the end of federalism. (Standard example: Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment before this time; marijuana prohibition did not, since it occurred at/after this time.) Federalism still nominally exists, but not really. Wherever the feds want states to do something, they tie up huge funding issues with it, as you say, so the feds bully the states into it.... and if they deem it even more important (e.g., TERRORISM!! AHHH!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!), then they'll just magically make it a federal power by fiat.

While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.

This statement is skimming over HUGE leaps in Constitutional law that have been changed by fiat just in the past few decades. After the terrorist threats in the 1970s, security screening was instituted with metal detectors and such at airports, but it was run by airports/airlines, NOT the feds, mostly because of Fourth Amendment concerns which would clearly prohibit such blanket searching (at least for the first 200 years of the Constitution or so). Prior to 2001, you submitted to voluntary security screening as a condition of the commercial contract you entered into with the airline.

Of course, after 2001 this whole 4th amendment concern was swept under the rug, and the crucial distinction between private voluntary search in a commercial transaction and government agents performing mandatory searches (which you could not just exit from -- now you could be detained by police even if you decided to leave after entering the security area).

But to get back to the real issue here -- you have to deal with the right to free travel within the U.S., which the TSA has arguably been disrupting since 2001. But the feds hesitated at first to stretch the Constitution that far. So -- while it was not widely known -- you could still travel domestically without ID for about a decade after 2001, as long as you made it clear to the TSA that you knew your rights and insisted.

But then the TSA closed that "loophole" (which used to be a g

Re: Voluntary?

[lpevey]

Most informative Slashdot comment I've ever read. And I've been reading for a long time.

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most informative Slashdot comment I've ever read.

A post that starts out the cross-eyed, drooling Libertarian nonsense that the feds have no business regulating air travel is "most informative"???? Commerce Clause has used for dubious to laughable purposes, but keeping planes from Texas from flying straight into planes from Wisconsin aint one of them.

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd say it's pretty obvious that modern air travel is considered interstate commerce. Now, you can argue that non-commercial flight (general aviation) should be covered (it isn't) and that airlines that only operate within a single state shouldn't be covered (this is probably only an issue in Hawaii and Alaska).

But otherwise, you can't really argue that any interstate carrier you buy a ticket from isn't participating in interstate commerce and thus subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

Now, does the TSA have the power to only accept approved drivers licenses? Sure. But that doesn't mean they can impose that rule on other (private) security screeners. They still may be able to legally require non-TSA screeners to only accept approved IDs, but I don't think so. Of course the private security firms may still use the TSA policies anyway.

Re: Voluntary?

[BigZee]

May be I have misunderstood (I'm not an American), but surely the issue regarding ID is that being able to provide one helps to determine if you have the right to free travel? If I was in the USA on vacation, would I not be expected to show my ID for all internal travel?

Re: Voluntary?

[rally2xs]

Search and seizure before boarding an airplane with no probably cause for believing there has been wrongdoing on the part of the specific person to be searched, and therefore without a court order to do so, is in direct violation of the 5th Amendment. The _government_ is not permitted to do that. The airlines can get together and hire _private_ security to do that, but the gov't is prohibited from doing it.

Of course, the gov't routinely ignores the constitution nowdays, so I guess they can do anything they want - come into your house and search it any time they feel like it (while killing your dog, of course), take your guns, anything they want - the constitution no longer applies... because they said so...

Re: Voluntary?

[KGIII]

Only if you go by means other than an automobile or foot or horse or something. You can still drive all around and only show ID if you're stopped for something. I don't know but I think they require it for long-distance bus travel now (they didn't used to) and I think you need it for long-distance rail travel (they didn't used to) and you need it if you're going to take a commercial flight (I don't think that was required when I was younger).

I haven't taken rail or bus in a very long time so I'm not entirely sure. I imagine they're required. You wouldn't need them on a local bus, subway, etc.... At least not yet. If it's in-country then I tend to drive or charter and simply avoid the hassle. I don't really have anything to hide, I just don't feel like dealing with the absurdity that is the TSA.

Re: Voluntary?

[sumdumass]

No..

In the US, you only need ID to travel on certain infrastructures. Air travel until recently didn't require an id inside the US unless you needed to pick up tickets at the gate. Now it is mandatory for most all if not all commercial air travel.

But outside of a drivers license to operate a car or something, you do not need ID to travel. If you are a passenger in a car, you can go across the country with no ID. Now if somehow you end up dealing with the cops, you will have to identify yourself but that can be done with a social security number and by other means (it might become a hassle without ID ).

Re: Voluntary?

[Registered Coward v2]

Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.

I would hazard a guess that the "promote the general welfare" clause, if interpreted broadly, would give the Federal government broad powers to trump state law. Clearly the founders desired to avoid a replay of the Articles of Confederation and the associated problems it caused, but just how far they intended to allow Federal supremacy is open to debate.

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every decision has consequences...even voluntary ones.

In economics it's called opportunity cost.

Re: Voluntary?

[Coren22]

The Fifth Amendment eh?

No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

Did you perhaps mean the Fourth Amendment?

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.

But, the real question is, is this search unreasonable, the courts have held that it is reasonable to search people before flights due to the danger that weapons pose on flights.

Re:Voluntary?

[DewDude]

It's like Home Owners Associations. You can't be forced to join and comply; except for the fact it's written right in to your deed and local governments will work to enforce HOA rules as law.

"You are free do do exactly as we tell you."

Re: Voluntary?

[AvitarX]

In addition, it is not what you or I find reasonable. The Constitution spells out that it is what the court decides those words mean.

The fact that this has been looked at and decided by the courts makes it constitutional.

Re: Voluntary?

[KenHansen]

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

No, it's not. Brushing your teeth is completely voluntary, but failure to do so will likely result in serious dental problems. Obtaining 'adequate' healthcare coverage in the US is voluntary, for those that choose not to there are financial penalties, but it is still voluntary. Voluntary doesn't mean 'without penalty'.

Re: Voluntary?

[Red Flayer]

the problem is that both wings of SCOTUS have now accepted the "living Constitution" model where its meaning changes continuously, even if folks like Scalia deny it.

But that's not what a "living constitution" is. We have a "living" constitution because it can be changed. Not because we choose to interpret it differently.

Re: Voluntary?

[nehumanuscrede]

This is why it's so important for States to be self sufficient and not suckle on the teat of Federal Funding.

You get to make the rules as intended instead of giving the Federal Government the ability to dictate them to you.

States who always operate in the Red are easy to control.

Re: Voluntary?

[orgelspieler]

I think that most air travel is interstate commerce, since you're probably not landing in the same state you left from (except Texas and California). So that would clearly be covered by the Constitution.

As for your Fourth Amendment concerns, I have an interesting story. After getting detained by the TSA for "aggressively grabbing" my carry on, I was told it was illegal to verbally abuse federal agents. I looked at the TSA guy and said, "Wait, you guys are federal agents? So the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution would apply to your searches, right?" At which point he just stammered and walked away. Totally worth missing my flight to see the look on that asshole's face.

Re:Voluntary?

[gzuckier]

The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

Everything has consequences. Such is the nature of cause and effect. Saying "there will be consequences", however, is momspeak for "i will punish you" while trying to avoid saying "I will punish you"

Re:Voluntary?

[gzuckier]

We all know that one thing the federal government doesn't have is a dictionary. Those things are like kryptonite to governments.

Well, no. whatever online dictionary i just looked at defines consequences as "the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier" which does fit the use; what it is, however, is useless and meaningless. There's a connotation to consequences which they are leaning on while trying to keep deniability.

Re: Voluntary?

[gzuckier]

It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states.

Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.

I mean, if you want to go down the road to that sort of argument, you have to start with the question of whether the federal government has the right to regulate air travel at all. It certainly isn't mentioned in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the 1910s and 1920s, there was much debate over whether a Constitutional amendment was necessary for Congress to regulate anything other than basic interstate commerce issues. With the Air Commerce Act of 1926, the federal government formalized its role in regulating some safety measures, only for commercial flights, and rather limited. (It's important to remember this was still in the middle of the Lochner era, when the Supreme Court routinely struck down any statute that seemed like government interfering with economic liberty.)

Of course, everything changed after the FDR court-packing threat and the Switch in Time that Saved Nine in 1937, followed by sweeping federal government expansion in 1937-42, effectively culminating in the end of federalism. (Standard example: Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment before this time; marijuana prohibition did not, since it occurred at/after this time.) Federalism still nominally exists, but not really. Wherever the feds want states to do something, they tie up huge funding issues with it, as you say, so the feds bully the states into it.... and if they deem it even more important (e.g., TERRORISM!! AHHH!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!), then they'll just magically make it a federal power by fiat.

While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.

This statement is skimming over HUGE leaps in Constitutional law that have been changed by fiat just in the past few decades. After the terrorist threats in the 1970s, security screening was instituted with metal detectors and such at airports, but it was run by airports/airlines, NOT the feds, mostly because of Fourth Amendment concerns which would clearly prohibit such blanket searching (at least for the first 200 years of the Constitution or so). Prior to 2001, you submitted to voluntary security screening as a condition of the commercial contract you entered into with the airline.

Of course, after 2001 this whole 4th amendment concern was swept under the rug, and the crucial distinction between private voluntary search in a commercial transaction and government agents performing mandatory searches (which you could not just exit from -- now you could be detained by police even if you decided to leave after entering the security area).

But to get back to the real issue here -- you have to deal with the right to free travel within the U.S., which the TSA has arguably been disrupting since 2001. But the feds hesitated at first to stretch the Constitution that far. So -- while it was not widely known -- you could still travel domestically without ID for about a decade after 2001, as long as you made it clear to the TSA that you knew your rights and insisted.

But then the TSA closed that "loophole"

Re:Voluntary?

[gzuckier]

I like to refer to that as being 'voluntold' to do something.

"We require a volunteer to infiltrate enemy lines. Private Smith, step forward...."

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deserves higher mod. Comment of the year.

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, if I hold a gun to your head to compel you to do something distasteful, the fact that you did it was completely voluntary.

Re: Voluntary?

[richpoore]

It appears to me that the warrant system was to allow a judge to determine specific place and person to be searched or seized.

Re: Voluntary?

[hackwrench]

According to Wikipedia, living constitution means that the constituton's meaning changes according to how meanings change in the United States.

Re:Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is voluntary, the state doesn't have to do it. The consequences are that if you are from that state and you choose to fly (voluntary) you will have to use another form of I.D.

Re: Voluntary?

[beastofburdon]

By law, all you have to give police to identify yourself is your name and address. No ID of any kind is required. That is not to say this is how it works in reality though.

Re: Voluntary?

[beastofburdon]

Which is why our economy is based on debt instead of produced products.

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there you have it - an article at Wikipedia regarding politics...no way that has been manipulated.

Re: Voluntary?

[hackwrench]

You were free to find your own counterexample, but failed to do so.

Re: Voluntary?

[stoatwblr]

"the courts have held that it is reasonable to search people before flights due to the danger that weapons pose on flights."

1: In every single attempted hijacking since 9/11, passengers have overcome the would-be hijackers long before they got close to succeeding.

1a: Even before that time it was happening in some areas. I can recall a 1986 case where an enraged chinese businessman battered a would-be hijacker to death using his mobile phone as a club.

2: All the security theatre in the world is of no use whatsoever if your ground staff can slip a bomb into the cargo hold during loadout. Even bombproof cargo containers are no use if it's dropped between them and the pressure hull (which is apparently what happened in Egypt a while back)

2a: Ditto if you can subvert the in-flight catering companies. This is one aspect of aircraft loadout which is almost never inspected or the staff heavily security vetted.

3: Making a "binary bomb" is difficult under controlled laboratory conditions. Making one inflight using improvised equipment is virtually impossible. You'd have better luck trying to use thermite - and good luck getting that past a metal detector.

3a: See above for bombs in your shoes (although a few drops of putrescene on the socks might have a debilitating effect on everyone when you take the shoes off)
3b: Ditto for items in your panties.

Re: Voluntary?

[stoatwblr]

WRT: 2a - if things can be stolen from airside baggage handling, then things can be smuggled in. Don't blame 3rd world security for this.

Re: Voluntary?

[stoatwblr]

In many/most countries you are not required to identify yourself to the police if not under arrest unless you are the driver of a car which has been stopped, or in a wharf area (ports in general, which has been extended to airports and border crossings)

Being arrested for failing to identify outside the above requirements has resulted in successful claims against police in a number of jurisdictions.

It may seem odd to americans but personal privacy and liberty is more highly valued in Germany than the USA at individual and govt levels. This has a lot to do with having lived through the end game that started with all citizens having to carry identity papers - and they've stuck to those values despite enduring terrorist excesses far more outrageous than anything the USA has seen.

Re: Voluntary?

[david_thornley]

Sure. Any search is reasonable with a warrant, that's what they're for, and the Fourth has restrictions on them. However, there are reasonable searches that don't require a warrant. When arresting someone, a police officer can search the person for weapons, because that's reasonable. Personally, I think the definition of "reasonable" should be stricter, but that's me.

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

By law you don't have to speak to the police at all. If the police are giving you a hard time you shouldn't say anything more than "I want a lawyer" if you do choose to say anything at all.

Re: Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obtaining 'adequate' healthcare coverage in the US is voluntary, for those that choose not to there are financial penalties, but it is still voluntary.

Sounds like extortion.

Re: Voluntary?

[redlemming]

In addition, it is not what you or I find reasonable. The Constitution spells out that it is what the court decides those words mean.

A common misconception.

We find in Article III Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Also, we find in Article VI that they are required to swear oaths upholding the Constitution: "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".

Thus, there are limits on the ability of the court to decide what "those words mean". If in so deciding, they are either engaging a behavior that is not good, or in violation of the "Oath or Affirmation", then they are in fact not acting within their legal authority.

As the Bill of Rights provides for unspecified rights "retained by the people" (9th Amendment), and "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment), it follows that the people have a say in determining whether either of these conditions has been met.

Further, the mere existence of unspecified rights "retained by the people" inherently places limits on the authority of the Supreme Court. If the judges were to decide to ignore the 9th Amendment, then there would be no rights retained by the people. But that's a contradiction, and creating contradictions in the legal system is unethical practice of law, and certainly a violation of a fundamental and universal right in any society based on the rule of law. Think of this as the legal equivalent of a proof by contradiction, as you might find in Euclid.

This also follows from the early history of the Bill of Rights: if people were prepared to trust the entities defined by the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, then there wouldn't be a need for a Bill of Rights. But the Supreme Court is one of those pre-Bill of Rights entities, and hence the Bill of Rights - by it's mere existence - must be viewed as also placing limits on the Supreme Court. They may be the Supreme Court, but they are not the Supreme Law of the Land.

For example of the "good behavior issue", if the way a law is implemented involves ethical conflict of interest with respect to the legal profession (this is true for many laws in existence today), and reasonable alternatives exist, then we can assert that allowing such a law to be implemented and enforced is unethical practice of law on the part of the legal professionals in federal office. Clearly unethical practice of law is not good behavior.

In the current political and legal climate, where most politicians are lawyers, most lobbyists are lawyers, and a lot of money is received by politicians from various organizations of lawyers in the form of campaign contributions, that creates an especially great burden on those persons selected for judicial office (by those same politicians) to recognize the importance of not allowing laws involving ethical conflicts of interest that work to the benefit of the legal profession.

The fact that this has been looked at and decided by the courts makes it constitutional.

Not true. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that were not valid. Some of these have been reversed. Others have not.

Classic historical examples such as the decisions that upheld slavery, and the Jim Crow Laws. Even at the time of the Constitutional Convention, everybody with a functioning brain knew that slavery was wrong (just go look at the speech by Morris of NY). So certainly the Supreme Court decisions that permitted slavery to continue were invalid.

Another thing to consider is the Nuremberg Precedent, which basically says that government officials have a responsibility to do the right thing in spite of what the law or their hierarchy says. Certainly a right to expect this can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, and as such, this creates an individual responsibility to do the right thing even when the judici

Re: Voluntary?

[rally2xs]

Yeah, 4th Amendment. My brain fart. Anyway, the courts will probably someday say that the gov't can collect up all the guns, too. They will be wrong then, as they are wrong now with this. A right is a right, and its not subject to being abridged because someone is afraid. Note that the 4th doesn't say that people can't be screened before getting on an airplane, it just says that the gov't can't be doing it.

Re:Voluntary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't anyone thought of tattoos on, say, everyone's forearm? Ought to work, right?

Re:Voluntary?

[kmoser]

The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

You don't have to believe in God. You'll just burn in Hell if you don't.

Re:Voluntary?

[lambsonic]

Clearly, the entry in the dictionary is the legal definition of voluntary:

(Law) Free; without compulsion; according to the will,
consent, or agreement, of a party; without consideration;
gratuitous; without valuable consideration.

Certainly, consequences are valuable consideration, especially by the fact the typical form of compulsion in a legal system is the potential for legal consequence.

Re: Voluntary?

[AK Marc]

You are not required to have or show ID to travel. Even after 2001, it was possible to fly without ID. You are required by law to identify yourself only if suspected of being involved in a crime (including witnessing). You aren't required to identify yourself if driving, but you must prevent a valid license, which is ID, so it's the same effect as requiring you identify yourself.

The US has prided itself on not being "papers please".

Re: Voluntary?

[Agripa]

It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states.

That would be a power not not a right and insofar as a nexus may be created by including in the law "drinking while driving a vehicle that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce", it is within the power of the federal government thanks to the courts. What is there that has not "moved in or otherwise affected interstate or foreign commerce"?

Anonymous travel

[mi]

Why can't I travel anonymously? In addition to airlines, Amtrak already requires ID as well. Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?). Hitchhiking is illegal, while driving is a personal car requires a registered vehicle with license-plate scanners keeping records.

Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

Re: Anonymous travel

[Z00L00K]

Welcome to Nazi Germany.

Re:Anonymous travel

[davester666]

You are a terrorist. We need to track where you go and who you see and communicate with.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you travel anonymously, how is the gestapo supposed to find you and beat you for your dissenting opinion?

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really care that much about travelling anonymously, there's always walking...

Re:Anonymous travel

[swb]

If the Wikipedia article on Freedom of Movement under US law is to believed, we have broad rights to go where we please. Then how did driving get turned into a privilege? Was riding a horse someplace considered a privilege? Why does flying require so much identification? If you travel on a private plane, does somebody check your ID (and I'm thinking let's say I know some rich guy with a plane, not some NetJets flunky making sure I'm not trying to glom a free ride)?

I guess you can always walk where you want to go, although it has certain limits on its practicality.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

I will ask you nicely one more time. Step out of your Volkswagen and show me your papers or you will be sent to SS enhanced interrogation!

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

I travelled a bit in Chile earlier this year. From what I've seen, it's so that in case of an accident, family can be immediately notified and first responders know how many people they're looking for.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be done. Pretty easily actually.

Re:Anonymous travel

[mi]

Then how did driving get turned into a privilege? Was riding a horse someplace considered a privilege?

The boiled frogs weren't paying attention — that's how. Smooth-talking lawmakers were introducing these "common sense" laws, while the objections from the disheveled principled ones were dismissed as "extreme" and "partisan".

The official right to keep and bear arms is another — and even more painful — example. You don't need a Wikipedia article — it is right there in the Bill of Rights. And yet, even the most liberal parts of the country consider it a mere privilege...

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars are a lot more dangerous to others than riding a horse.

Private planes don't require ID. Neither do buses, bicycles, or riding in a car with someone.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Your PRIVILEGE to drive a car is that you have shown the state that you are minimally competent to do so, and have not been caught breaking the rules put in place for MY safety.
 

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if you took an honest poll you'd find the answer to be that we don't want you to. Anonymous drivers might be repeated drunk drivers. Anonymous flyers might be known terrorists. Etc.

Re:Anonymous travel

[chipschap]

I guess you can always walk where you want to go, although it has certain limits on its practicality.

Definitely has limitations when you live in Hawai`i as I do.

Re:Anonymous travel

[fustakrakich]

How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

By voting for party authoritarians, democrat and republican. The voters are to blame for their own situation. If they want it to change, they have to do it their own damn selves. Will this be an election issue? Doubtful. So don't blame the system for something of our own making. It is a system that you yourself shows support for. So, I don't know why you are complaining now. Did you say anything back in 2005? Did your vote indicate any objection in the elections since then? If not, then what's your beef?

Re:Anonymous travel

[swillden]

I guess you can always walk where you want to go, although it has certain limits on its practicality.

Definitely has limitations when you live in Hawai`i as I do.

Only if you're lazy. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Re:Anonymous travel

[currently_awake]

it's ok, tracking is just meta-data, and meta-data isn't bad.

Re:Anonymous travel

[vel-ex-tech]

Here's my suggestion. Perhaps we should create a service that's kind of like Uber but completely different. Call it a car-swapping service. Set up a designated time of the week to swap cars. We'd probably need some kind of meta-insurance to cover the deductible if there's a collision, but I haven't thought about this in detail so feel free to poke all kinds of holes in this idea.

The (apping) app would arrange random car swaps once per week or more or less frequently depending on user preference. I'm sure there are all kinds of considerations that we would need heuristics for such as swapping at a remote location unlikely to be monitored by bears/pigs at an odd hour. We'd also need to consider how to defeat a perfect surveillance apparatus such as license plate scanners at every intersection. It'd be trivial for the spooks to create a heuristic that two cars headed for the same destination are going to swap. So maybe the app could do a 50/50 coin flip, and if it's tails then no swap occurs, the drivers just go to the same destination and leave without swapping cars.

But yeah, I'm with the other folks who responded to you to the effect of "Welcome to NAZI Germany." Papers, please? I actually don't have a problem with a national ID. I seem to already have one that has a 9 digit ID printed on it that the financial sector has decided to co-op as a password when it's really a username (handily separated into 3 digits, then 2 digits, then 4 digits).

All though, my ideal national ID would be a crypto dongle that has 4 or so operations: encrypt, sign, output public key, and revoke old key and generate new key (both steps part of the same operation). It would be a democratized system that depends on a web of trust to establish identity, much like it used to be in small towns. Think of the town portrayed in the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Everybody knows everybody else. I used to think that the level of familiarity that the protagonist has with everyone else in the town was weird, but I also realized that's an important plot point. It's also an important way that the crypto dongle I'm suggesting could be used to enable a way to detect when somebody applying for a loan is actually an identity-snatcher.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that my proposed crypto dongle isn't really much of a national ID at all. I take back my earlier support for a national ID. National ID is a single point of failure. The dongle I'm proposing is a community ID. It's a democratized ID.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

By voting for party candidates, democrat and republican.
There, I fixed that for you.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that knowing who you are, your address, height, weight, eye color and assigning you a unique ID number has nothing to do with proving how safe you are at driving. A simple certificate and confiscating your car if you cause a wreck would do that just as well, and arrest if you do something really bad. Instead we have convoluted systems of ID requirements, no fault insurance, points, etc. I was once threatened with arrest, my crime? I was driving 10 MPH UNDER the speed limit, with my seat-belt, in a straight line without my all important ID a couple miles to the local gas station to grab a couple 2 liters of pop.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

By handing out government freebies. You need a big government to take someone's money and give it to you or spend it on things you value. You can't have both your freedom and the ability to spend your neighbor's money -- unless you are a government insider.

Re:Anonymous travel

[MachineShedFred]

You are free to walk state to state, anonymously.

Is it convenient? Absolutely not. But it is also not restricted.

Re:Anonymous travel

[c-A-d]

Just remember not to walk on freeways and some highways. That's illegal

Re:Anonymous travel

[davester666]

exactly. having a transcription of your conversations is only meta-data, until they link the words to a dictionary to give them meaning. that sort of thing.

Re:Anonymous travel

[simishag]

Commercial aircraft operators (and possibly other common carriers) are required to keep a passenger (pax) manifest, for notification purposes in case of an accident or an incident involving a passenger. I think this was first required by the Warsaw Convention (now Montreal Convention). In theory it applies only to international air travel, but many nations have applied it to domestic air travel as well, because what is or is not "international air travel" under the Convention is a convoluted definition. Easier just to have everyone keep a manifest.

Re:Anonymous travel

[grcumb]

Set up a designated time of the week to swap cars.

Share? You want me to share?!?

Communist!

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? WHY?! I'll tell you why.... it's because you SAT ON YOUR LAZY ASS instead of trucking your ass down to their office and holding a SIT-IN in protest of all this CRAP ... BEFORE it even became a BILL to be signed into LAW.

YOU'RE ALL FUCKING SHEEP.
And until YOU change YOUR ways and start STICKING UP for yourselves...
YOU'RE going to keep getting that BIG FAT DICK of YOUR RUNAWAY SELF-AWARE GOVERNMENT that you LOVE so much .... RAMMED UP YOUR ASS.

Got it?
It's pretty simple really.

Re:Anonymous travel

[tepples]

The photo, height, weight, and eye color are there to make it harder to get away with fraudulently driving on someone else's "simple certificate".

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly?

Are you too lazy to walk?

Re:Anonymous travel

[CanadianMacFan]

Well, you probably could ride a horse without identification as long as you stuck to the back roads since you would be a safety hazard on the highways.

Re:Anonymous travel

[CanadianMacFan]

There's lots of ways. Just be creative.
- Ride a horse.
- Find a ride to share online.
- Canoe and portage between bodies of water.
- Walk.
- Ride a bike.
- Could try a cargo ship. They take passengers but I don't know if they check for ID.
- See if a trucker would like some company
- Hop in an empty boxcar

Re:Anonymous travel

[FrozenGeek]

You can. Buy a car. In the past 5 years, I've managed to fly only twice - once for work, once for a vacation that I simply could not accomplish via car. All other trips have been in my car. If enough of us reject air travel, the air lines will notice

Re: Anonymous travel

[TheReaperD]

You want to post? Papers please.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just offensive.
The 3rd Reich was NEVER that bad.

Nazis would not have crossed so many moral and ethical lies.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you travel anonymously, how is the gestapo supposed to find you and beat you for your dissenting opinion?

This is a primary example of why I wish I was wealthy enough to never have to work and I could use cash for every transaction. I could travel anonymously up to a point that license plate scanners capture the plates as I drive, unless of course I cover the plates with a clear yet non-camera-friendly coating or casing.

Re:Anonymous travel

[drsmithy]

Why can't I travel anonymously?

You can. Walk.

How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

Because most people aren't extremists and understand that laws are always a compromise.

Re: Anonymous travel

[schnell]

Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

Welcome to Nazi Germany.

Oh fucking PLEASE. Godwin-ing this does nothing to improve the quality of discourse.

Look, I am no fan of the TSA and the Security Theater bullshit apparatus they have set up. But it's not unreasonable to understand that your ability to travel anonymously is correlated to the vehicle you are traveling on and its ability to be hijacked and used as a weapon.

You want to walk or bicycle, coast to coast, anonymously? Fine. Go right ahead.

You want to drive a car? I think most of us can agree that you can do enough damage to lives and property with two+ tons of vehicle that the government should be able to 1.) minimally verify that you know how to drive one; 2.) know who you are in case you break the rules and need to be fined or punished; and 3.) have that driver's license revoked if you show you can't operate that vehicle responsibly. But if you want to drive coast to coast anonymously, you can do that. Stay within the speed limit and don't have any malfunctioning vehicle parts, and you have given no one Probable Cause to see you and your license. Avoid those particular toll roads where your license plate is photographed for billing purposes. (You may run into DUI checkpoints, which I think are of dubious constitutionality, but those are comparatively rare.) You can easily go anywhere in the US without anyone knowing who you are, where you're going or why.

You want to travel by train or aircraft? Okay, nobody has hijacked a train in the US (AFAIK) in many decades, but at least for airplanes I think there's a generally understood common good in preventing those people who may pose a risk to a flying WMD from getting on board the aircraft. Is that really hard to understand? It's unlikely but not totally beyond the pale either that a train hijacking could kill everyone on board the train, let alone any bystanders. (Positive Train Control, which could avoid this, has yet to be implemented on Amtrak, sadly.)

Long story short, the US Security Theater apparatus is bloated, inefficient, ineffective and overly intrusive. But to suggest that either 1.) it is impossible to travel across the US anonymously, or that 2.) the government doesn't have a reasonable right to know who is traveling on certain conveyances, is doctrinaire and unrealistic.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

When those same people that can't travel because it might be used as a weapon are also barred from buying firearms, come back and talk. While they can still get weapons without any paperwork, your argument is, how shall I say, bullshit.

Re:Anonymous travel

[toddestan]

The Amish already do that. Same with a bicycle. You can legally ride just about anywhere except for limited-access freeways (interstates), though it may not always be wise to ride on some roads.

Re:Anonymous travel

[flopsquad]

thanks for the misinformation, you retarded Canadian sack of shit

Cinnamon and gravy! I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but damn that was just needlessly harsh, AC.

Especially when there are lots of websites dedicated to hitching rides on cargo ships.

Re:Anonymous travel

[kheldan]

30 seconds of Google shows me that it's not illegal to get rides, it's illegal to stand in the middle of the traffic lane for the purpose of trying to get a ride. If you're on the shoulder you're fine. Also you can ride a bicycle, rollerskate, or hike on foot all you want. You can ask people at places they stop off the road for a ride. All I had to do is read them to see these so-called 'anti-hitchhiking' laws you're concerned with are what I'd refer to as 'nuisance laws', or laws that are not usually enforced, unless someone is creating a nuisance by doing it (like standing in the middle of the road, creating a traffic hazard). Travel anonymously all you want, friend, nobody is going to stop you. Not that I personally think hitchhiking as a regular practice is terribly smart, but if it's an emergency then you do what you have to do and take your chances.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Will_Malverson]

But if you want to drive coast to coast anonymously, you can do that. Stay within the speed limit and don't have any malfunctioning vehicle parts, and you have given no one Probable Cause to see you and your license. Avoid those particular toll roads where your license plate is photographed for billing purposes.

License plate scanners are everywhere.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument is bullshit anyway. It relies on the idea that ANY theoretical way to travel which does not require government harassment, no matter how impractical, excuses the harassment in the other methods.

That's crap and always will be. It's justification for statism and totalitarianism, and comparisons to Nazi Germany are entirely appropriate in this context, Godwin's Law be damned.

I'm sad to live in a real id compliant state and I seriously hope that the majority of states which are not call the TSA's bluff here and do nothing to comply.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

So, explain why license plates are required. You've done an adequate job regarding licenses (for most people, though not myself, but I'm not one to split hairs). When necessary, cars can be uniquely identified up close by the VIN. The only arguments I can think of are stolen cars or chases.

However, neither of those make much sense to me. After all, a safely driven stolen car is not a threat to life and typically ends up in a chop shop where the plates are discarded anyways. A car being chased that's hidden well enough the cops gave up can have plates swapped easily, and if it suddenly starts driving well enough the cops can't figure out which one it is, again, it is being driven safely and no longer has the excuse of protecting lives.

Though that's my argument for requiring licenses as well, as in if you're driving safely there's no need for one. And if you aren't, the license should only allow you the opportunity to immediate bail and a later trial (The government wouldn't even need to run it, organizations the government trusts like AAA would, hell, they kind of already do that as Canadians can get US bail cards for non-compact states from CAA). Whereas no license would have you put in local jail until you get a trial or you choose to pay the fine (or get a trial if whatever you've done was so heinous). Safe streets and anonymous travel! Hooray!

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

You can travel anonymously if you walk, bike, ride public transit or hire a cab. I'm not certain, but I am pretty sure that you can also ride a long distance bus, such as Greyhound, without ID.

I primarily get around on bicycle. It's anonymous, quick, inexpensive (after the initial cost of the bike, which can be pricey), great exercise and environmentally responsible.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think there's a generally understood common good in preventing those people who may pose a risk to a flying WMD from getting on board the aircraft."

Thing is, if someone has the motivation and the means to create a "flying WMD", they should be under active investigation and probably in jail.

The no-fly/boat/train list is a list of people who are "too dangerous to travel on public long-range mass transit" but not so dangerous that they should be detained (or -indeed- a target of an active investigation). This is nuts.

Don't forget how all this surveillance and subsequent curtailment of liberties failed to stop the Boston Bombings.

Protect people with good old-fashioned police work. Not modern precrime mechanisms.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You cannot hitchhike on the side of an interstate. You certainly can truck stop to truck stop or something.

Heck, many cities have special hitch-hiker centers so people can carpool to downtown and use the High-Occupancy lane.

Re:Anonymous travel

[dbIII]

Well, you probably could ride a horse without identification

It felt good to be out of the rain.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you. There is no such thing as a government granted 'privilege' in the Constitution. People like you continue to let control freaks get away with that talk to the detriment of all of us.

There's nothing wrong with restricting driving to people who prove they can drive, so don't worry, I'm not after the safety you obviously value more than your freedom.

But accepting the stupid 'privilege' argument means accepting disallowing driving for things OTHER THAN ability to drive. Like in my pathetic state where it's legal to quit school at 16 but if you do you can't drive and, you know, get yourself to a job. Or child support, which is a civil matter between two parties that the government has made itself a collection agent for. (College graduate here, no kids. I have no personal grudge here except a deep respect for the rights of others you sadly lack)

When you accept the privilege argument you accept anything the government wants to do for whatever reason. I don't. I'm glad a lot of others here don't either.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Without your name, address, height, weight, eye color, etc. how would you prove you are the person who is referenced on your driver's license?

I was once threatened with arrest, my crime? I was driving 10 MPH UNDER the speed limit, with my seat-belt, in a straight line without my all important ID a couple miles to the local gas station to grab a couple 2 liters of pop.

No, your crime was operating a motor vehicle without being able to provide license to do so. That was your own fault. Cops also don't generally arrest people for something like that unless you were being belligerent. If you'd be cooperative as you should have been (after all, leaving your license behind was entirely your own fault), the WORST they could have done was give you a ticket and impound your car.

And if it was only a couple of miles, why didn't you just walk? Oh wait you were going for soda pop, that says all I need to know. Never mind.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Metadata and telemetry are totally legit and are in no way sleazy, substitute weasel words for spying. Even Microsoft says it's OK.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't do that even if it were legal.

Re:Anonymous travel

[eth1]

Then how did driving get turned into a privilege?

It didn't.

You're perfectly welcome to legally drive an unregistered, uninsured vehicle from coast to coast without a license. Just stay on private property.

Oh, that's too much trouble? Well, there are public roads, but driving on them IS a privilege - and always has been, and for the safety of everyone else using them with you, there are a few conditions you need to meet before you can use them.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

The kinetic energy of a galloping horse greatly exceeds that of even a 50 caliber rifle round. If riding a horse doesn't require a license for public safety...

Re:Anonymous travel

[Mitreya]

Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?)

Concord trailways certainly does check for ID, requiring it for the person traveling. At least on the routes involving Logan airport, Boston South Station and Portland, Maine. They have been doing this for a few years, and I am yet to figure out why (is there a law?)

Re: Anonymous travel

[schnell]

So, explain why license plates are required ... The only arguments I can think of are stolen cars or chases.

Fair enough question. License plates serve several purposes:

1. Indirectly (but probably most importantly) through vehicle license tabs as a way of ensuring cars are up to date for emissions, etc. and extracting money directly from automobile users on a per-vehicle basis for road upkeep. And being able to identify (through expired tags) which should not be on the road.
2. Identifying stolen cars on the road before they get to a chop shop, or even for those which are just being taken for "joyrides"
3. Visually identifying cars that are the subject of Amber Alerts or other vehicle APBs
4. Assessing tolls for photo-based/"toll booth-less" toll roads, or for "red light cameras."
5. Identifying (through security cameras) "drive offs" at gas stations, getaway cars from crimes, etc.
6. Being able to pull over a driver who has (or claims) to have no ID for a DUI, etc. and identify them based on to whom the vehicle is registered so you know if they are wanted on other charges (or to flag them for a stolen car).

You may or may not agree with the validity of all these uses, but none of these things can effectively be done at the range required to recognize a unique VIN.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you walk onto a busy street at exactly the right time you can make a truck driver lose control of his vehicle and crash into a $TARGET, that's called a force multiplication effect.

According to you that justifies everyone who walks in the street being required to carry ID, simply because they're potentially dangerous.

Go back to your crappy country and leave us freedom loving people alone.

Re:Anonymous travel

[John.Banister]

If someone is driving to where you want to go and you arrange with them to ride along, (not hitch hiking, something arranged in advance of their trip) there's no legal requirement for that person to check your ID. With 350 million Americans, there's bound to be someone willing to trust a stranger (eg, all the people that used to pick up hitch hikers).

Re:Anonymous travel

[John.Banister]

You don't need a license from the government if you're driving on private property with permission of the owner. It's just that private property owners have never banded together to build and maintain their own alternate set of highways. You need a license from the government to use their roads, because it's their roads - built and maintained by them on land they have acquired. You could campaign for a ballot initiative to eliminate the need for driver's licenses. Note, however, that whereas airlines don't own airports, the railroads do own their own property, and Amtrak has thrown the TSA off it in the past.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

And also the possibility to identify a car involved in a hit and run?

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO LAW, ANYWHERE, requiring ANY of THIS we need id SHIT.
Even if there was a law, it would be unconstitutional.

They want POWER and CONTROL over you,
over your ACTIONS, over WHERE you can and CANNOT go,
over what you DO, what you SAY, WHERE you can say it,
who you can say IT TO and who can HEAR you,
over your LIFE, your CHILDREN, your GRANDPARENTS,
they want to know WHO you FUCK, what you're EATING,
how much MONEY you have and where you KEEP it and just
how much of it they can TAKE to fill their coffers before you revolt, ...

Are you beginning to get the PICTURE BRUH????
You're getting GANG RAPED and are just laying there and taking it.
FIGHT BACK YOU PUSSIES.
Or die of AIDS, your choice.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

- Find a ride to share online.

While you don't have to show ID it is probably easier to ride a bike coast to coast if you want to be anonymous.
Even if you use an OS that doesn't report what you do and even if you use an anonymizer like Tor you still have to communicate with someone.
If you use any public forum or if the person you communicate with doesn't care about privacy that means that authorities will have the information you gave that person. That is likely to include how to identify you and from where to where you are going.

You could exchange phone numbers and resolve the details by voice. That makes the information less searchable but still available to authorities.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough of us reject air travel, the air lines will notice

The problem with "voting with our wallet" is that the cause will not be apparent to the company.
Look at the record industry as an example. Any failure to achieve projected growth will be blamed on the big boogeyman, piracy, regardless of what the real cause is. (For example that something can't grow indefinitely.)

There are still cases where voting with your wallet works, and that is when you can take your business elsewhere, to the competition. The failing company might not figure out why the customers go elsewhere, but if they don't change they disappear.
So if you go to the airline that doesn't require you to show ID then it might work. If you can't do that then the airline will just be bailed out.

Re:Anonymous travel

[fph il quozientatore]

Was riding a horse someplace considered a privilege?

Technically, yes. Horses weren't cheap back in the day.Especially if you had to resort to a change station because you had to travel farther than a single horse could take you. That is why in the movies you see knights on horses and peasants walking on their feet.

Yes, I'm fun at parties, why, thank you.

Re: Anonymous travel

[hvdh]

Actually, in Germany you can travel anonymously on all trains and buses.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Z00L00K]

These days you can, but not around 1940.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Z00L00K]

Even then the similarities with how it was in Germany around 1940 is "interesting".

Like the article Fascist America, in 10 easy steps:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy ([Radical] Islam)
2. Create a gulag (Guantanamo)
3. Develop a thug caste (DHS/TSA)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Realize that even though the linked article is a bit aged nothing has really changed, the only true difference is that there's no figurehead in the current situation, just a collection of faceless three letter agencies. The true leaders are hiding in the background making it harder to see the team that's really in control. Tracking the lobbyists may reveal some of the fringe influences, but the core don't need lobbyists.

Re:Anonymous travel

[CanadianMacFan]

The problem was how to avoid showing government issued ID when travelling longer distances, not how to travel completely anonymously. I was thinking of using Kijiji or Craigslist to look up someone who was going to where you were going, or at least part ways there. You wouldn't have to show your passport or drivers license in that case. It avoids the problem of hitchhiking being illegal that was brought up.

Biking cross country isn't going to be completely anonymous either unless you have a way to get cash along the way. Assuming that you do the trip during the nice weather you can camp but you still have to buy provisions and the only way to do that without a trace is cash.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

you can travel anonymously.

oh, you want to enter into contract with someone to provide you with travel? well, by your free market worship you shouldn't be complaining, because you are the one responsible for entering into the contract.

whats that? your libertarian principles are clashing with your other libertarian principles?
no one wonder you get mocked for such stupid beliefs.

and -1 for the term 'statists', a word that only indicates lack of intelligence, and conveys no other useful meaning.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

more libertarian genius on display.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it is no longer NAZI Germany and the world babysits them to ensure they remain that way. They've demonstrated they can't be trusted and so we keep an eye on them to make sure that they do not revert to such status. They're already walking a thin line with the way some folks are responding to the refugees. Needless to say, the world is watching their responses carefully.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Talderas]

The person you responded to asked a question about license plates and not whether a vehicle should be licensed and this particular line of conversation is about the ability to travel anonymously. License plates make it far more difficult to travel anonymously thanks to the ubiquity of license plate scanners. Of all the points you brought up the number of which the license plate itself provides the only mechanism for enforcement would be things where the VIN cannot provide the same information or the VIN. The make, model, and color is sufficient probable cause for police officers to conduct a stop both in the case of amber alerts or stolen vehicles. The VIN can then be obtained and the vehicle can be verified if it is clean or not. Likewise, the license plate itself is not required to mark a vehicle as in compliance for emissions or whether it should be on the road. You simply need the visual identifier for the tags to indicate that the vehicle is properly licensed.

The only items you listed that are unique to the license plate and cannot be derived from the VIN are catching violators of automatic toll booths and drive-offs from businesses both of which are questionable if photographic evidence of the vehicle and driver are obtained, which if you can capture the license plate you are in a good position to capture an image of the vehicle and driver.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Coren22]

And having a horse run over you is very likely to kill you just like a car is.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Coren22]

Some states are starting to require a bike license to be able to ride a bike on the road. Bikes are considered by law to be vehicles and must follow the same laws as cars (in most cases).

Though this law always made me chuckle:
http://www.craveonline.com/sit...

#3. In Pennsylvania any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. If the horses appear skittish, the motorist must take his car apart, piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Err... We did just fine without photographic ID as our license to drive. In fact, there was quite an uproar when the rules started changing. There's a history book, or two, that you might want to read. Also, they might have wanted to save time and thus drove to get their soda. Consumption of soda does not automatically make one overweight. I've been known to drink a soda here and there and I'm actually willing to make a blind bet that I'm in better health than you are - and I'm willing to bet that I'm older than you are but still in better health. Moderation is key. Presumptions, ignorance, biases, and stupidity says all I need to know. Never mind.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

I cede your point (I'm not that AC) but I'd recommend a history book. It has not always been a privilege that required licensing. Once upon a time...

Re: Anonymous travel

[KenHansen]

License plate scanners are everywhere.

So what? Plate scanners only document where you have been, not where you are going.

Re: Anonymous travel

[KenHansen]

Then how did driving get turned into a privilege?

Which came first, driver's licenses or paved/municipally-funded roads? You don't need a license to operate a motor vehicle on private property, veer out onto public roads and the people that fund them want to make sure you know the rules of the road.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Coren22]

I missed you at the last protest. Did you forget your Fawkes mask?

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Wikipedia article on Freedom of Movement under US law is to believed, we have broad rights to go where we please. Then how did driving get turned into a privilege? Was riding a horse someplace considered a privilege?

You can drive without a license on private property all you want, it's when you use a public resource (roads) that restrictions may apply. No where in any constitution is operating a motor vehicle enumerated as a right. Now walking is not restricted on public ways because walking is innate to humans, and so is the de facto way to be mobile.

This use of a public resource is also why in many jurisdictions police can ask bicyclists for ID: you're operating a vehicle and thus subject to various highway/road/traffic statues.

Why does flying require so much identification? If you travel on a private plane, does somebody check your ID (and I'm thinking let's say I know some rich guy with a plane, not some NetJets flunky making sure I'm not trying to glom a free ride)?

Generally, no. If you have a private pilot's license (PPL) and you get into a plane you can go anywhere you want with-in the restrictions of air space and orders fro air traffic control (ATC). Perhaps you're too young to remember, but no IDs used to be needed. You could buy a ticket and if something happened that you couldn't go, sell it to anyone else. Back several decades, if someone was leaving on a trip, their family could join them, waiting on the plane, right until a few minutes before the closed the plane's door.

If you want anonymous travel walk, take the train, or a bus. As long as you're not crossing international borders (and thus interacting with immigration folks) then you're generally good.

Of course if you have a cell phone in your pocket you're being tracked anyway, so the first step would be to lose that.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi? Uber? Carpool? Bicycle?

Re:Anonymous travel

[KGIII]

It's not important so I'll post this as an AC. See the "Golden Road" in Maine. It's private property but, for part of the year, open to the public. There is on such example, though it does nothing to disprove your point. I'm only mentioning it because of the curious nature and to demonstrate that, while unrealistic, it is possible. I wonder, if on a large scale, if the government would try to intercede? I imagine they would attempt to regulate it 'in the name of public safety.'

Here's a link, if you're curious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It is almost 100 miles and I haven't a clue why the Wikipedia article indicates it is past tense. It is still very much available to drive on. I used to have a rally-equipped Saab 900S Turbo, with giant studs, and would take that road multiple times in the spring and winter. I was last on it in this past summer and the gate was open. In fact, I've never found the gate to be closed. They've held a rally race on it, aired on television even - I didn't watch it but I'm told it was on ESPN, a few times.

There was a motorcycle rally that traveled across it in 2009 (I think) which is later than their 2007 date. The NEFR has raced on it as recently as 2012 (and it was awesome). I am no longer partaking because I've yet to have my engine rebuilt and I've not yet found quite the right vehicle to replace it. I am not so much interested in winning as I am in pushing a particular vehicle to its limits and seeing how well I perform against much better vehicles. I could, I suppose, just buy a nice Subaru and probably take the field because I can afford to throw more money at it - that defeats the point, in my view. (Yes, I guess someone could find out who I am by looking at past results for some of the NEFR events but that's okay - in another thread I invited people to my house on NYE.)

So, I'm thinking something like a slightly modified Audi Quatro (or VW Quantum) from the late 1980s or, maybe, an Eagle from AMC might be fun to put through their paces. I've just not found one and then had the work done on it. I can do a lot of the work but I'm not going to. I hate smacking my knuckles with a wrench so I pay a local mechanic's shop and he sends one of his employees in to work on my stuff, pretty much every Saturday when I'm home - even if I've nothing specific for him to do. I'd pay the person directly but this way ensures there's always someone there when I need them, I don't need to deal with the hassle, and he has always sent very qualified people. I've a lift and a selection of tools so they needn't bring much of anything. Body work is sent out to a shop way down in Wilton but it's well worth the distance and price.

Anyhow, there's an example of a road, why I know it's there, how it is used, and some of the history. This doesn't negate a damned thing you said, it just shows that it is possible, albeit unrealistic. My property is covered with "tote roads." Tote roads are roads used by the logging companies. They're unimproved roads and don't always go anywhere you want to go but others and myself make good use of them - especially during the spring but they're often traveled during the summer and fall - the foliage is beautiful. If you've got the appropriate vehicle (you can do it in a car on some hills) you can get to the top of the mountain and see all the way to Mt. Washington from there.

Again, doesn't negate your point one bit but there are exceptions to the rule and privately owned and maintained roads do exist and some allow for public travel. It's possible, for example, to drive from my house to Canada but you should let them know that you intend to come in that way or they're REALLY going to be kind of pissed. There's no fence, border patrol, or even a sign. The first time I did it, well, it was kind of surprising. However, people do that and similar on a snowmobile during the winter - it's not even remotely uncommon. My land is almost all posted with custom signs that say "Publ

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever said anything that had a positive moderation? 'Snot that I always disagree with you but you usually say things in a disagreeable fashion. I can only imagine that you're rather limited in the number of posts you make and, while I've never experienced it, I'm guessing you might even be started with a negative post moderation.

Re:Anonymous travel

[KGIII]

As a lark, someone should start the American Authoritarian Party. "We know what's best for you, citizen. Do not raise alarm and be prepared to submit." We could then run parody caricatures who both look similar and can mimic candidates from the two major parties. I would actually donate to that party. It might be jarring enough to get noticed.

Re:Anonymous travel

[fustakrakich]

You mean like Trump?

Re:Anonymous travel

[KGIII]

Did they actually make those official? I was recommending that back in the 1990s. It's a great way to reduce congestion and to save on pollutants. They can even work it out among themselves. "Hey, I'll give you $20 a week to help with gas if you pick me up at my house instead of my needing to walk down here." The goal being that people would ultimately figure it out for themselves and the hub would be a starting point - not a finishing point. They could either centralize or not.

What I do see, as a compromise, is the Park and Rides but those aren't quite what I was envisioning. I was seeing something a bit more ubiquitous and formal. I'd noticed the trend in Atlanta but it was entirely informal and it had somehow worked itself out just fine. I thought that making it formal, perhaps with a hut of some type to keep the elements away, would be a worthy investment. Sadly, I got absolutely zero implemented - ever. (Err... I worked in traffic modeling, consulting, engineer, etc.)

I've been retired since 2007 (2008 technically but I stopped working in 2007 during the sale process) and, at that time, I'd managed to convince absolutely zero municipalities to do so. I did get several to do the Park and Ride thing near popular ingress and egress points with closed access highways or a few other areas but never anything quite like what I'd envisioned and what you appear to be describing. We found a few, informal things, that had sprung up in various areas but Atlanta was the first time we found it in our initial research and data collection stage.

That is awesome and more municipalities should do it - and they should encourage it. I have zero data to *prove* it will help but I can model it and show that, with a reasonable adoption rate, it *can* help - and then I can likely justify the expense. Sadly, when you give them a list of a few hundred suggested improvements, you'll be lucky to see an 80% action rate - and not always the least expensive improvements are taken. Often the extras amount to a rounding error.

Re:Anonymous travel

[KGIII]

I thought they might, I mentioned earlier that I wasn't sure. I'm quite a ways up from there (when I'm home) and I don't take the bus but I have some older friends who drive down to Portland and bus into the Boston to catch a game, go to Logan, etc.... I'm not entirely positive about the following: I am pretty sure that someone mentioned (maybe the PPH or LSJ or just a conversation) that the train down to Boston now requires ID from the person buying the ticket.

Ah, a quick look at the mighty Google finds this:
http://www.amtrakdowneaster.co...

Salient points quoted:

Photo Identification: Downeaster passengers, 16 and older, must present a valid photo ID when purchasing tickets and have the photo ID available onboard the train. Passengers under 18 who do not have a photo ID must have an adult, 18 or over, with a valid photo ID purchase tickets for them.

I don't think I could pass for being under the age of 18. I have considered taking the train down and spending some time down there with friends and family. Mostly just to take the train and to see the family and friends and because I am kind of tired of Boston's traffic. I'm retired to NW Maine some years ago and, while I love to drive, I've realized how much I hate Boston's traffic. I spent a lot of time there in my youth and then working in the area before moving the business to NC. I did, on the other hand, do a lot of work there still until... Well, that's a topic for another day. Let's just say the municipality is less than ethical and I can not, in good conscious, work for them - no matter how well they pay. (See "The Big Dig" for more information.)

Re:Anonymous travel

[gzuckier]

Why can't I travel anonymously? In addition to airlines, Amtrak already requires ID as well. Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?). Hitchhiking is illegal, while driving is a personal car requires a registered vehicle with license-plate scanners keeping records.

Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

How you gonna get rid o them Meskin illegals if you don't got no citizen ID?
time was when conservatives would point to the requirement to carry an internal passport as the hallmark of a tyranny. "May we see your papers, please?" Now with few exceptions, to whom proper respect, it's acceptable as long as we can catch Pedro the dishwasher at the diner and send him back home.

Re:Anonymous travel

[gzuckier]

Well, you probably could ride a horse without identification

It felt good to be out of the rain.

mod up! mod up!

Re:Anonymous travel

[gzuckier]

You are free to walk state to state, anonymously.

Is it convenient? Absolutely not. But it is also not restricted.

Not to hawaii. and to alaska only with the cooperation of the Canadian tyranny.

Re:Anonymous travel

[laurencetux]

"unless of course I cover the plates with a clear yet non-camera-friendly coating or casing".

and intelligent States will of course word the laws in question to make "any type of coating or covering that limits viewing or photographing the attached plate" illegal

and all it would take is an officer to FIND a reason to pull you over and then use his billy club in the right spot to create a ticket.

Re:Anonymous travel

[gzuckier]

- Could try a cargo ship. They take passengers

Actually, very few cargo ships will take passengers.

Bu thanks for the misinformation, you retarded Canadian sack of shit.

As always, by their anonymous vituperation shalt thou know their reliability "Cargo Ship Travel Cargo Ship Cruise Convoy Cargo ships often act as passenger ships and offer real travel alternatives under the banner of freighter cruises, however travel by cargo ship is often more expensive than you might expect, regularly costing about the same as a cruise ship! So you might wonder why you would want to travel on a cargo ship as a passenger in this way. There are several good reasons; Cargo ships often cover less touristy parts of the world which are not serviced by cruise ships Not only is it real travel but it's one of the greenest forms of travel as you form a very small part of the container ships total cargo Cargo ships travel throughout the year unlike cruise ships which are influenced by passenger demand, this means that cruise ships often only sail in the high season (usually the summer) When you are a passenger on a cargo ship you usually get to dine with the captain of the ship and his officers The standard of passenger accommodation is generally very good with most cargo ship passenger cabins having their own toilet and shower (you don't have to sleep in a container!) Cargo ships usually accommodated just 12 or fewer passengers (a doctor is required for more than this), so the cargo ship is not going to be over crowded with other passengers There are quite a few websites out there which specifically focus on alternative travel by cargo ship, we have listed all the sites that we are aware of. To save you time trawling through all the websites below, email us at cargoship@flightlesstravel.com and we will forward your query to select agents who can help you book your freighter trip, if the route you want to do is possible. Although the sites below offer some very useful information we would also recommend phoning the harbour master for your preferred passenger departure point. They will often provide you with local contacts and up to date and local information. Useful Websites US agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: freightercruises.com & travltips.com UK agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: Cargo Ship Voyages, Strand Travel, The Cruise People Ltd, Pathfinder & Sea Travel Ltd Other agencies booking passenger travel on cargo ships are: cross-ocean.com, freightertravel.co.nz/ & cargoshipcruises.nl CMA CGM is a French cargo transportation and shipping company and is the third largest cargo shipping company in the world. - www.cma-cgm.com, you can book direct or via several of the agents listed above German freighters, Hamburh SED, have a useful website that details numerous routes and prices for cargo ship travel around the globe. - www.hamburgsued-frachtschiffreisen.de Italian freighter company, Grimaldi Line - covers routes to and from Europe to South America and Africa. www.grimaldi.co.uk/, Pathfinder (www.safemariner.co.uk) and Cruise Cyprus (www.cruisecyprus.com) act as agents for Grimaldi Line German freighter company, Rickmers-Linie with cargo ship travel routes around the world. - www.rickmers-linie.de Another German freighter company, Deutsche Afrika Linien (DAL) (www.dal.biz/) have a cargo ship (Kalahari) that sails between Bremerhaven and Cape Town, again Pathfinder (www.safemariner.co.uk) act as agents Neptune Orient Lines (NOL), global cargo transportation company centred in Singapore. - www.nol.com.sg FAQ's & general information on passenger travel by cargo ship: Gonomad.com, Seaplus.com, A la Carte Freighter Travel & Freightertrips.com" http://www.flightlesstravel.co...

Re:Anonymous travel

[gzuckier]

Many of the means of travel involve transfer of funds to a corporate entity, often via some sort of credit, it's hard to imagine any system which would demand that such must be allowed to be done anonymously.
Driving a personal vehicle involves taxes and fees which enable things like roads which are required to make your travel by personal vehicle possible, and identification of those who have paid said taxes and fees would seem to be required as part of the system.
getting a ride, your self-identification is entirely a matter for you and your ride source to determine. AFAIK, there is not a government rideshare/hitchhike ID requirement.
In any event, the rapidity of your travel is not a matter for constitutional rights. In 1776 you could walk from state to state, there was no constitutional right to ride a horse or wagon, let alone a car or airplane. The next step would be to complain that driving a car from new york to california is so onerous, that there should be a constitutional right to fly by airline anonymously.

Re:Anonymous travel

[gzuckier]

The photo, height, weight, and eye color are there to make it harder to get away with fraudulently driving on someone else's "simple certificate".

if "they" were serious about requiring a drivers license, "they" would have a slot on the dash where you would insert the license and either require it for the vehicle to move, or else have a display on the exterior of the car which affirmed that a valid license was present. ain't gonna happen.

Re: Anonymous travel

[gzuckier]

Welcome to Nazi Germany.

Dial it back to 11, Ms. Frank.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

What's more important is why you think you have some sort of right to travel anonymously? You don't, never have and never will. Deal with it.

Re:Anonymous travel

[kheldan]

Did you go to the link? The one with the actual text of the laws regarding hitchhiking in various states? If you're on the shoulder and not in the actual traffic lane you're not in violation of the law. I suggest you go actually read it since you apparently did not.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, I didn't have any coffee in my mouth.

Re:Anonymous travel

[tepples]

Legally, the license is to move the vehicle on a public road. No license is required for operation on private property. So the vehicle would need some way to detect when it is on a public road.

Re: Anonymous travel

[stoatwblr]

I've always wondered what would happen if fake (identically numbered) plates were attached to a number of different cars without the owners being aware of it. Most wouldn't notice for a while, if at all.

(This is known to happen in England, especially London - in order to avoid congestion charges. The fake plates used are those of a known-good vehicle, in order to fool ANPR systems)

Re: Anonymous travel

[stoatwblr]

"Realize that even though the linked article is a bit aged nothing has really changed"

Except that the Snowden revelations underscored it's already happening.

Re: Anonymous travel

[david_thornley]

I got a call once from a police department, apparently since a suspect vehicle was reported with my plate number. I offered to check to see if the plates were still on my car, and the person on the other end accepted my offer.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

We did just fine without photographic ID as our license to drive.

Nice strawman. You build that yourself or did mommy and daddy help you?

I've been known to drink a soda here and there and I'm actually willing to make a blind bet that I'm in better health than you are

I seriously doubt that. The fact that you drink soda tells me that your diet is crap and I bet you don't exercise much if at all.

and I'm willing to bet that I'm older than you are but still in better health.

I'm 40 years old, 5'10", 155lbs with an athletic build. I run 10-15 miles every morning, I can do a hundred push-ups in under three minutes and I do two hundred sit-ups every other day. What about you?

Presumptions, ignorance, biases, and stupidity says all I need to know.

I'm happy to see that you recognise your weaknesses. Now work on them.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can. Ever use a subway? In DC, the Metro doesn't require any kind of ID, although now you're required to use a SmartTrip card, but still you can pay for everything in cash.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Actually, I do RTFA]

First, you didn't actually provide a link.

Second, the first site I visited (http://hitchwiki.org/en/United_States_of_America) backs up my memory. Your source?

Re:Anonymous travel

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I was thinking of the park and rides. Isn't that the better than what you're suggesting? After all, it's more important to find someone going to the same location intown than close to your home, and a high density of travellers should make it easier to find someone.

Re:Anonymous travel

[KGIII]

Ah no. I should have been more articulate. The Park and Ride's are fine but not very efficient uses of space in congested areas. I was thinking you were referencing something else which I've worked at getting implemented in the past.

Imagine, if you will, a spot, like a bus stop, in a city only not quite as frequent but still in easy walking distance. Not quite heavy, down-town, city but somewhere between there and suburbia. Now, like a bus stop, put something to protect people from the elements and encourage people to pick up passengers, wait for rides, and make use of that as a centralized spot for a specific area.

Those seeking rides can congregate there and those offering them (perhaps in return for financial assistance) can seek passengers there. A benefit might be use of the car pooling lane or even fewer fares. Even without benefits there are benefits to getting someone to help pay for gas, parking, and things of that nature.

Not only could they use them as centralized locations, they could use them as hubs to make connections with people and arrange for closer pickup (if needed) or even something like alternating the responsible driver. Given some advertisement, and being done well, this could reduce congestion greatly.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

That should say "tolls" and not "fares." Kids and g/f are attacking me. :/

Re:Anonymous travel

[John.Banister]

Yeah, I grew up in rural WV, mostly. There's lots of logging roads on private property, and my understanding was and is that unless someone else owns a right of way, the owner of the property can deny access to other vehicles, and that people too young to have a driver's license (or otherwise not in possession of one) can drive (usually farm tractors and little ATVs) on these roads with the owner's permission, whereas it's illegal (although some people in WV would say "technically illegal" and try to do so anyways) for those people to be driving anything on public roads.

Thanks for telling me about the Golden Road. That was new to me, and I'm glad to hear of it. I take it that no one gets tickets for impromptu races on that road, even as there's no trouble with the planned events. My dad once told me that California has a law against maintaining a feature on your property that makes it attractive for people to behave in a hazardous fashion, but I don't know that Maine has any similar sort of law.

I have to agree with you that hiring work done by auto mechanics is often worthwhile, but I think you'd agree, that understanding what's going on well enough to do some basic rudimentary quality control can often be beneficial. Having done a fair amount of mechanical work in the past, I do feel obliged to mention that if you're regularly smacking your knuckles, you want different wrenches, although, certainly the different wrenches being ones in someone else's hand does the job just fine.

Re:Anonymous travel

[KGIII]

No, no tickets on the Golden Road but your presence implies you've accepted the agreement (unless otherwise granted for a race or something) that logging vehicles have the right of way - bar none. If your car is where a logging truck is then you are in the wrong. I know of no suits or anything from this.

Here, there's some leeway. Kids can drive tractors beyond a certain age and with a familial relationship (I believe) as long as they don't exceed a certain speed and distance. They also, obviously, can't access limited-access highways.

Oh, I can fix all my vehicles with most any problem they might have. I'm just not going to. I do go out and work with the mechanic, from time to time, and sometimes I'll turn my own wrenches on a project car. I've a whole, for lack of a better word, stable of vehicles. Literally, an obscene number and they're all in fine physical and mechanical shape.

To explain, I'm a an automobile aficionado. I don't own a single trailer queen - every vehicle gets driven once in a while, even if just to take it to a show. Nothing rides in on a trailer and nothing is too good to not drive it. I own very specific model years that may seem of slight value to others but, given what I've spent doing restorations and/or upgrades, I'll never recoup my investment nor do I want to.

A good example might be that I've a fully restored (and then modified) Volvo 245 from 1982. I have a Honda Accord LX that is from 1986 and I sent it to Japan for restoration. I have a factory Porsche 911 that was factory restored. I have a 1973 Jeep, Grand Wagoneer, that has the original Borg transmission with the PTO. Things like that - very specific and purchased for very exacting reasons - each one is pushed to the limits of its design potential. It'd not be uncommon for you to find me putting a 2WD vehicle on the top of a mountain in the spring. Hell, I own the Volvo specifically because it's a tank, RWD, and more fun in snow than almost anything else I own - because I can push it to the limits (in a reasonably safe manner).

So, I said that just to add this: Yeah, I can turn a wrench. I can do drum brakes, I can swap an engine, I can weld an exhaust, I can swap out a clutch on a front-wheel drive, I can change shocks and struts, etc... I just don't. Well, not normally. I hate smashing my fingers with a wrench.

Re:Anonymous travel

[John.Banister]

I've only ever owned 5 vehicles. I still have #1, #3, & #5. I bought #2 for $200 as a way to get from point A to point B after I fell asleep & rolled #1, and I sold it a few years later for that same price to someone with a similar need. #4 was just a mistake. I need to build myself a house (that has a garage) before I even consider becoming anything like an auto aficionado.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent

Re: Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to post? Papers please.

Thats called a Facebook account.

Re:Anonymous travel

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 40 years old, 5'10", 155lbs with an athletic build. I run 10-15 miles every morning, I can do a hundred push-ups in under three minutes and I do two hundred sit-ups every other day. What about you?

well, I am 143 years old, 4'3", 56lbs with a super muscular build. I run 20 miles a day on my tip-toes and can do 500 handstand push-ups in one minute, with 352 sit-ups every hour. What about you?

Note, my above statement is just as ridiculous and unproveable as yours is

If you aren't on the no-fly-list by now

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you are definitely doing something wrong as a participant in this great experiment that is coming to a close.

This brings us one step closer to many things

[burtosis]

We already have national identification cards - they are called passports. You can even use a card version. What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies if you opt into the keep living plan.

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[Anonymous Coward]

What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies

Does it really? Really? The number of paranoid nutcases who frequent slashdot is staggering...

Re: This brings us one step closer to many things

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure people said that when we said nsa is collecting all of our info. Pretty sure we said that when we warned of 1984 occurring.

Do we have to be right again ?

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[Moof123]

Passports are rather expensive and can take months to get. I don't have much of an objection to using my passport to travel, but they need to be issued for a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. I hide my passport until I need to go international because the darn thing cost almost $200 in total to get and took a month with the expediting charges.

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[Anonymous Coward]

You only need a passport for international travel. If you want to go from state to state, or even county/province to county/province within the same country you hold a citizenship in that is a different matter.

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[MachineShedFred]

True, but the passport is a very quick way to get past the jack-booted thug^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H TSA screener before you go into the porn imager^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H back-scatter X-ray machine. I've seen them eyeball my drivers license for an obscene amount of time, where a US passport only gets a few seconds of glance before they let me pass.

Re: This brings us one step closer to many things

[magamiako1]

Here's a fun fact:

Anyone who knows anything about datacenters knew what they would be collecting when they built the Utah datacenter. its building wasn't a secret.

You want to know who else has datacenters that size? Facebook and Google.

What the fuck did you think the NSA was going to do with a datacenter in Utah that rivaled a Facebook datacenter?

https://defensesystems.com/Articles/2011/01/07/NSA-spy-cyber-intelligence-data-center-Utah.aspx

This shit was common knowledge. Here's an article about it a full 2.5 years before Mr. Idiot leaked information.

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[schnell]

We already have national identification cards - they are called passports.

Except, that, you know, passports are optional. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. If you never want to leave the US, you don't have to get one. I know plenty of people who never have. And in what way are passports even a bad idea? All countries have an interest in knowing who is coming into their own country, and if they have permission to be there (or should be denied such). You strike me as the sort of person who probably doesn't want Syrian immigrants coming into the US - without passports, how would you know that, and if the immigrant in question is a risk to US security? Other countries have the same rights regarding US citizens traveling to their countries.

I'm actually surprised that you didn't cite what is actually far closer to a "national ID" - your Social Security card. But as long as you don't plan on participating in the US economy in such a way that you involves taxable transactions, you technically don't need one of those either. Get born, grow up and live on a farm where you are self-sufficient and don't make monetary transactions which are subject to Federal taxation, and you can skip that too. Good luck with that, but there are plenty of US citizens in Alaska, Idaho and elsewhere (not to mention millions of illegal immigrants) who do just fine without SSNs.

What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies if you opt into the keep living plan.

Oh, FFS. That's like saying that because the vast majority of US residents have cellphones, that brings us closer to all having SIM cards implanted at birth. Your tinfoil hat is probably uncomfortable; you may wish to take it off from time to time for the benefit of your hair follicles. Unless you plan to blame your hair loss on "chemtrails."

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[burtosis]

Well air travel is quite optional. Passports should be made free and then there would be no need for all this extra nonsense.

Also yes cellphones do bring us closer to having the communication technology implanted directly into you, hopefully this is optional as well.

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[gzuckier]

Passports are rather expensive and can take months to get. I don't have much of an objection to using my passport to travel, but they need to be issued for a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. I hide my passport until I need to go international because the darn thing cost almost $200 in total to get and took a month with the expediting charges.

well that leads to rightwing logic: the government is slow and inefficient, therefore we must cut their funding and staffing to improve it.

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[gzuckier]

We already have national identification cards - they are called passports.

Except, that, you know, passports are optional. O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L. If you never want to leave the US, you don't have to get one. I know plenty of people who never have. And in what way are passports even a bad idea? All countries have an interest in knowing who is coming into their own country, and if they have permission to be there (or should be denied such). You strike me as the sort of person who probably doesn't want Syrian immigrants coming into the US - without passports, how would you know that, and if the immigrant in question is a risk to US security? Other countries have the same rights regarding US citizens traveling to their countries.

I'm actually surprised that you didn't cite what is actually far closer to a "national ID" - your Social Security card. But as long as you don't plan on participating in the US economy in such a way that you involves taxable transactions, you technically don't need one of those either. Get born, grow up and live on a farm where you are self-sufficient and don't make monetary transactions which are subject to Federal taxation, and you can skip that too. Good luck with that, but there are plenty of US citizens in Alaska, Idaho and elsewhere (not to mention millions of illegal immigrants) who do just fine without SSNs.

What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies if you opt into the keep living plan.

Oh, FFS. That's like saying that because the vast majority of US residents have cellphones, that brings us closer to all having SIM cards implanted at birth. Your tinfoil hat is probably uncomfortable; you may wish to take it off from time to time for the benefit of your hair follicles. Unless you plan to blame your hair loss on "chemtrails."

if this keeps up, newborn babies will be required have some sort of individual identifier on their body, like a set of individually differentiated ridges on the skin of their fingertips, or a unique pattern of blood vessels on their retinas, or a unique sequence of base pairs in their DNA or something.

Re: This brings us one step closer to many things

[gzuckier]

Here's a fun fact: Anyone who knows anything about datacenters knew what they would be collecting when they built the Utah datacenter. its building wasn't a secret. You want to know who else has datacenters that size? Facebook and Google. What the fuck did you think the NSA was going to do with a datacenter in Utah that rivaled a Facebook datacenter? https://defensesystems.com/Art... This shit was common knowledge. Here's an article about it a full 2.5 years before Mr. Idiot leaked information.

like a decade ago, i heard a radio program discussing how cell phone providers were providing metadata to the government, and how for some it was a substantial profit maker. And that was on NPR, ironically for all the rightwingers in the group.

Re:This brings us one step closer to many things

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I got mine about 8 yrs ago, it took 3 weeks. A friend got one for him, his wife, and his son, all were done within a month. None of these took expediting to get done quickly. Maybe our records were a little more clear or easier to verify, or, maybe we just got lucky ...

Not gonna happen.

[pla]

Dear TSA: I can't wait to have you deny me, as an American citizen, my equal protection rights under the 14th amendment.

Bring it.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Moof123]

Flying has long been in a different category. Special rules have long applied including searching you with metal detectors, screening your bags (or just stealing all the good stuff out), and you lose a lot of rights while in the air. While regrettable, this is just an incremental change, albeit for the worse.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[fustakrakich]

Oh jeeze! Another armchair Rambo...

Re:Not gonna happen.

[fahrbot-bot]

Dear TSA: I can't wait to have you deny me, as an American citizen, my equal protection rights under the 14th amendment.
Bring it.

Test your rights now; refuse to take off your shoes for scanning. Let us know how far onto the plane you get.
We'll wait for your report.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bubba - your new boyfriend - can't wait to see you. I hope you like anal rape.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[squiggleslash]

Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation. Only the No-Fly list does that, and it's of dubious constitutionality.

The Federal Government refusing to allow people from certain States to board airliners because those States don't use an ID system (itself a dubious restriction) the Feds approve of is going to result in some serious legal and political challenges, that I'd expect the Feds to ultimately lose, perhaps even with an affirmative right of free passage written into the law and possibly even the constitution. I actually hope they try.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's outright denial and then there's intimidation.

It's not necessary to deny people their rights as long as you make enough of them afraid to use them.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they can simply claim that they aren't denying any of those states citizens the right to fly since they can simply use their federally issued passport.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[CanadianMacFan]

When does the right of free passage equate to the right to taking a plane? If the government refused you to leave an area or to go into another one then I could see your rights being denied. But if you can't take a plane there are alternative methods for you to travel. It's the right to free passage, not the right to the fastest method of free passage.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[pla]

I can choose to take off my shoes or not. I can't choose whether or not I come from a noncompliant state and can't afford to move.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[pla]

Flying has long been in a different category.

The TSA doesn't only exercise their power over flying. They also search trains, buses, and have even tried to set up CBP-style random stop-and-search stations on interstate highways.

When you, with an Idaho license, get stopped in Idaho and detained because the TSA refuses to recognize your license as valid - Do you consider that just an "incremental change", or do you consider that a fundamental violation of your right to equal protection under the law as a US citizen?

Whether or not you respond to me, decide your answer now, because I haven't asked you a hypothetical question.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[zippthorne]

It doesn't have to say it anywhere. The extraordinary position is that a right to travel is limited to only some specific subset of all methods of travel that the traveler can afford.

In the US, non-enumerated rights are explicitly recognized to exist.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[dbIII]

They'll have you by the balls. A few years ago that would sound like an analogy, but these days they actually are grabbing stuff.
They should be shut down and replaced with professional law enforcement. The sort that know there are lines you don't cross without a warrant and who actually answer to a boss that cares about the law - professional.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[jbmartin6]

I don't recall the article mentioning denying people entrance to planes due to their state ID standard. I am too lazy to go back and re-read it though. I had the impression the consequences threatened were various games with federal funding to the state.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a passport, tough guy. Passports are compliant. The TSA just won't allow you to get onto the plane. Bring it.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Yunzil]

I love it when people pull out 14th Amendment arguments like they know what they're talking about.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[gzuckier]

Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation. Only the No-Fly list does that, and it's of dubious constitutionality.

The Federal Government refusing to allow people from certain States to board airliners because those States don't use an ID system (itself a dubious restriction) the Feds approve of is going to result in some serious legal and political challenges, that I'd expect the Feds to ultimately lose, perhaps even with an affirmative right of free passage written into the law and possibly even the constitution. I actually hope they try.

just my guess, but the availability of TSA prescreening programs would probably be viewed by the court as making the question of using state IDs moot. Just a hunch from what I've seen to previous court rulings.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[gzuckier]

It doesn't have to say it anywhere. The extraordinary position is that a right to travel is limited to only some specific subset of all methods of travel that the traveler can afford.

In the US, non-enumerated rights are explicitly recognized to exist.

The precedent being the Great Depression, when you were allowed to travel as long as 1) it wasn't by boxcar and/or you weren't caught and 2) you didn't actually stop traveling anywhere, just kept moving.

Yeah they dont dare...

[Lumpy]

If an entire state tells the feds to "fuck you" they wont dare block an entire states residents from flying. whatever sitting president will shit bricks the moment they try as the screaming will start from all the rich people first...

You know the ones that buy our government officials... yeah they wont tolerate being inconvenienced.

Re:Yeah they dont dare...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even post something that goes against the opinions of those who run this site. It goes much beyond even what you realize. I doubt I can even post this. Just got shut down for telling someone what I thought of them for suggesting that voting would change anything.

Re:Yeah they dont dare...

[Anonymous Coward]

The wealthy (and others) will have a passport and use that.
The really wealthy will have their own plane and not be subject to the same screening.

so, the next issue is how do you prove you are an american citizen..... because you say so ?, your mum gave you a note ?

And there is all sorts of federal funding that could be delayed to states that go fuck you. How many states would be financially harmed if they simply closed military bases in those states ?

Re:Yeah they dont dare...

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't flow in the past 5 years have you? You can already pay more for a privileged security line where there isn't as much hassle.

Re:Yeah they dont dare...

[demonlapin]

Well, pay more, and get fingerprinted and background-checked. I signed up because I figured, why not? I'm already in the fingerprint database for working in healthcare, so I might as well enjoy the benefits of it. Got a concealed carry license, too. Don't carry concealed much, but it lets me keep a gun in the car if I'm traveling in sketchy areas.

Re:Yeah they dont dare...

[Lumpy]

The concealed carry permit also protects you from the police. Cops that hate armed citizens can slap you with a felony for carrying firearms that are unloaded and locked in your vehicle if you dont have that concealed carry permit.

Why? because 90% of cars today do not have a trunk, so the firearms are "within reach" even in the back hatch area. Yes cops really do think this way. your permit protects you from the cops harassing you.

And yes, a LOT of cops utterly hate legally armed responsible citizens.

Re:Yeah they dont dare...

[Lumpy]

Herp derp much? I fly WEEKLY. and yes you can pay for it and I do, but you still show your license.

Let me guess, you are one of those that has never even looked up that info and think that everyone gleefully skips on through. I have never EVER seen even billionaires carry a passport as ID for that line. every one of them has their Drivers license.

Oh and that special line, we get cookies and free beer as well as get to look at the naked scan pictures of you plebes that have to go through the regular line.

Amerika: Arbeit Macht Frei

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Nazi Germany.

so sorry but we must report this sort of verpönte verhalten, Herr Straftäter.

I'm sure you understand.

sincerely, your watchful Neighbor.

Seig Heil!

'Murica

[p0p0]

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Z00L00K]

And what's wrong with a nationally recognized ID?

It seems to me that the US really don't have any idea about who's a citizen or not, and to vote a registration is needed. If the government knew who's a citizen or not and a nationally recognized ID was in place it would make voter fraud a lot harder. And if the US don't have a clue about who's a citizen or not, then the security measures likenthe 'do not fly' list is useless. All those actions at immigration like fingerprint reading is useless. It only serves to annoy people and makes the US look like a police state.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it wouldn't do a thing about voter fraud, most of which is actually perpetuated by the elections officials, not the imaginary boogeyman of fraudulent voter registrations.

Re: National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not know much about muraca. Here voting is a fraud.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering that as well. I mean if you have a passport that's part of an even bigger database than what a national database would be.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is plenty of voter fraud. For example, in my home state (which has mail-in voting with no ID check instead of polling places), a civic group hired some stoners for a voter registration drive. From the Seattle Times:

To boost their output, the defendants allegedly went to the downtown Seattle Public Library, where they filled out voter-registration forms using names they made up or found in phone books, newspapers and baby-naming books.

One defendant “said it was hard work making up all those cards,” and another “said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards,” according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff’s Detective Christopher Johnson.

Prosecutors in King and Pierce counties filed felony charges Thursday against seven employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claiming they turned in more than 1,800 phony voter-registration forms, including an estimated 55 in Pierce County.

It happens, but groups that support voting without identification willfully ignore instances that are reported.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[stomv]

It's one thing for Mickey Mouse to be registered. That action has no specific, direct outcome on an election. It's quite another for Mickey Mouse to vote.

You've presented examples of voter registration fraud, not voter fraud.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious reasons; some people's religions do not permit photographs.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[currently_awake]

If the federal gov wants a national ID, then let them pay for it. None of this pigybacking on the state drivers license.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[techno-vampire]

Every state already has the machinery in place to issue driver's licenses, or non-driver's ID cards. Modifying those ID cards to make them acceptable will cost far less than starting up and maintaining a new federal bureaucracy to issue yet another ID card that just takes up more space in people's wallets and isn't even needed on a day to day basis by most people. And, if we do create a National ID card, you can bet that more and more agencies and private companies will insist on you having one and using it, just because it's there. Remember, by law, your Social Security Number isn't supposed to be used for anything else, but all sorts of companies are now using it to identify you. How many sets of papers do you really want to be carrying with you every day?

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Sarten-X]

And like every other religious person that objects to America's laws, they have the right to sue, and if it is determined that their rights are being impacted, a suitable arrangement can be made. It's happened before (notably, with the Mennonites and Social Security) and it will surely happen again. It's not really a big deal.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[sjames]

If only. It's not just the look of the card, they have to add extra procedure for verifying your ID as well before issuing the card, even if you've had a license for decades.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[techno-vampire]

Well, if they're going to be using it for things like Airport Security, I can see where they'd want to take extra precautions. (That is, they're not only checking to see if Jack Dodger has a record, they want to make sure that I'm really Jack Dodger.) Yes, it's going to cost more, but you already have to pay to get a driver's license, and that cost can just be added in. If you make it a Federally issued ID, you not only have the cost of paperwork, you have the cost of making them, whereas that cost is already taken care of with a driver's license. And, when push comes to shove, do you want everybody to be in one big database, or in one of fifty different databases?

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[sjames]

I want them to be in 50 different databases please. Ideally with no electronic linking so that if the authorities of one state need info they need to convince the authorities of another state that it is necessary and proper AND create a paper trail. And I don't care to pay extra since we've done just fine with what we have now.

Meanwhile, those extra checks will make un-people. That is, people who don't happen to have any bills addressed to them at their current address and who don't have their SS card (perhaps due to a fire).

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[will_die]

Or just go to all the various liberal websites that deal with politics and you can find articles of them talking about voter fraud with Bush. Since Democrats are claiming voter fraud resulted in a fraudulent presidential election then it is something that should be stopped.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not VOTER fraud, ELECTION fraud, wherein votes magically turn up out of nowhere in the middle of the night, or where election results (often for just one spot on a ticket) mysteriously deviate hugely from poll results - even exit poll results. Flipping an election with VOTER fraud is hard; flipping an election where none of the results can be verified (electronic voting machines with no hard copy audit trail) has been demonstrated by numerous hackers to be quite doable.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would the point be to register them if they weren't going to vote?

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[painandgreed]

And what's wrong with a nationally recognized ID?

It seems to me that the US really don't have any idea about who's a citizen or not, and to vote a registration is needed.

Understand there is no nationally needed registration to vote. Who gets to vote is left up to the individual states. There are constitutional rules on why states cannot deny people a vote, but the individual states could let anybody, including foreign nationals who just happen to be in the state on vacation vote if they wanted. All elections, except the one held by the Electors of the President, are state affairs, not national ones.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[gzuckier]

And what's wrong with a nationally recognized ID?

It seems to me that the US really don't have any idea about who's a citizen or not, and to vote a registration is needed. If the government knew who's a citizen or not and a nationally recognized ID was in place it would make voter fraud a lot harder. And if the US don't have a clue about who's a citizen or not, then the security measures likenthe 'do not fly' list is useless. All those actions at immigration like fingerprint reading is useless. It only serves to annoy people and makes the US look like a police state.

that's been an issue of debate for a long time now, although all the noise goes to the second amendment. but it's at least equally true that every citizen's right to vote shall not be abridged, and that requiring identification to do so intrinsically does involve some abridgement; those who haven't the time or ability to travel to a site where it can be done, never mind paying for whatever will be charged, are under a disadvantage.
the onus is apparently on the government to ensure ineligible voters are prevented without interfering with eligible voters, much as second amendment types believe the onus is on the government to prevent criminals etc. from acquiring armaments without interfering with those eligible to own firearms.
ironic that those who believe in one of these principles tend to be opposed to the other and vice versa.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[gzuckier]

I want them to be in 50 different databases please. Ideally with no electronic linking so that if the authorities of one state need info they need to convince the authorities of another state that it is necessary and proper AND create a paper trail. And I don't care to pay extra since we've done just fine with what we have now.

Meanwhile, those extra checks will make un-people. That is, people who don't happen to have any bills addressed to them at their current address and who don't have their SS card (perhaps due to a fire).

There are plenty of unpeople already, I've met adults, born in the US from parents born in the US, who were getting their first job where the boss was actually going to withhold taxes, pay SS and Medicare, etc. (and had never had a doctor visit in their life), and these folks had no idea of what a SS number was and how you would go about getting one.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[gzuckier]

Actually, there is plenty of voter fraud. For example, in my home state (which has mail-in voting with no ID check instead of polling places), a civic group hired some stoners for a voter registration drive. From the Seattle Times:

To boost their output, the defendants allegedly went to the downtown Seattle Public Library, where they filled out voter-registration forms using names they made up or found in phone books, newspapers and baby-naming books.

One defendant “said it was hard work making up all those cards,” and another “said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards,” according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff’s Detective Christopher Johnson.

Prosecutors in King and Pierce counties filed felony charges Thursday against seven employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claiming they turned in more than 1,800 phony voter-registration forms, including an estimated 55 in Pierce County.

It happens, but groups that support voting without identification willfully ignore instances that are reported.

from the linked article:
"None of the phony registrations led to illegal voting.
“This is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this,” state Secretary of State Sam Reed said"
there is a difference between voter fraud where an ineligible person actually gets a vote, and where somebody just puts "I. P. Freely" on the voter rolls without an ineligible voter waiting to use it.
also, from the article it doesn't sound so much as the perps were stoners as they were homeless people and folks with violent criminal histories... i'd prefer stoners.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[gzuckier]

Religious reasons; some people's religions do not permit photographs.

and all the fuss in various countries over whether women of sects who keep their face covered can do various things.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Z00L00K]

The voter registration process is a much greater limitation to voting that what a nationally recognized ID is. I find it close to amusing that people can get around without any decent ID at all.

Compliance less than 50%?

[Dereck1701]

There are 29 states not in compliance and 12 more who have outright rejected it? That is pretty good evidence that there is something wrong with the law even for the most educationally challenged individual.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[fustakrakich]

You know, if the states are so against it, they should demand that their reps in DC vote it down or repeal it. But, they don't. The "outrage" is a political facade to win statewide elections. They will comply, while weakly grumbling to the press.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[fahrbot-bot]

There are 29 states not in compliance and 12 more who have outright rejected it? That is pretty good evidence that there is something wrong with the law even for the most educationally challenged individual.

From a few articles I've read, some states see the law as an unfunded mandate and don't want to pony up the cash themselves to implement it. Others mention privacy concerns, but I'm not sure that's valid - from the States' perspective.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[demonlapin]

The states have no influence over their DC representation and haven't since the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment. In the original design of the Constitution, the people were represented by the House, and the states by the Senate, but an obsession with tearing down a reasonably well-designed republic (not that it was perfect, but a remarkably good outcome given the real-world constraints they had to work with) in the name of greater democracy killed that.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[MachineShedFred]

Far easier for the States to remain in status quo, and if people can't fly through their airports on some arbitrary date, then it becomes a massive fuck you to the Federal government.

No way the TSA ever completely shuts down a major airport over an ID pissing match with a state, much less 29 of them. There would be an executive order issued to "extend" the deadline well before that's allowed to happen.

This is an inter-governmental pissing match, and the States will win, because if the Feds had the balls to enforce it, the airlines and the port authorities would be bankrupted overnight from lost business and gate fees.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[fustakrakich]

The states have no influence over their DC representation and haven't since the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.

That is total nonsense. The DC reps just need to know they won't win their next election if they don't conform to voter demands, but the voters aren't demanding anything except some fat federal contract or other handout. They have abdicated their power for convenience and expediency to the financial industry that the politicians respond to. The 17th Amendment didn't change anything except procedure. It didn't make the government any more or less corrupt.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[Anonymous Coward]

Senators are no longer beholden to State Legislatures. This was a massive change and effectively killed federalism.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[fustakrakich]

They can be made beholden to the voters. Man! I just cannot believe how people like to pass the blame. That is the primary problem here.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know why things like "21 to drink or no more monies for your roads" work ? Because the States lost their Congressional Representatives. Before the 17th, if a suggestion like that was made, the Senate would kill it immediately or the Senator that suggested might just lose their seat.

While it's not the ONLY thing wrong, it certainly made things a lot easier to ram through without regard to the impact on the individual states.

If that's not a clear enough explanation, try this, go to your boss and tell him he's going to do what you say or you're going to withhold a portion of his funds do you. Go on, I'll wait...

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[fustakrakich]

If that's not a clear enough explanation, try this, go to your boss and tell him he's going to do what you say or you're going to withhold a portion of his funds do you. Go on, I'll wait...

Well see? You got it backwards. We are their boss. We have the power to fire them (vote them off the island). We only need to use it to send a message. At this point in the game it is we who reward their corruption. This democracy stuff is high maintenance. You gotta work it during the "off" season too. If you are only going to show up once every two years expecting miracles, you are in for a big disappointment.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[Anonymous Coward]

By current rules, yes, we are their boss, but prior to the 17th, Senate answered to state congress and the House answered to the people. That made it significantly easier to keep up with what your elected representatives (President, House) were doing. It also made it far more likely that a law was beneficial to the people and the states. This is also part of the reason the Senate confirms the Supreme Court Justices, as it allowed the states to ensure the Federal government wasn't putting someone in that would screw over the states. The State Congress having appointed the Senate, had an interest in ensuring their constituents weren't negatively affected by the appointment since it could cost them their position. After all it is far easier to "donate" to 535 people than 435 + the majority of the States Congress members (bribing Federal Senators could cost them their appointment after all) as would have been necessary prior to the passage of the 17th.

I have frequently written to both my House and Senate representatives, even called a few times. I can tell you they have far more often sent me replies telling me how they "know better" and they "appreciate my feed back, but please fuck off" (paraphrasing). I am one of those people that don't vote for them afterwards, but, I live in an area with ~1million voters deciding an election. While I will happily explain the issues to people that listen, most people won't. I understand it's generally not for lack of interest, but, when you work 40hours+ a week, have to pick the kid from day care or pay $1/minute late charges (per kid!), get dinner on the table, get baths, get some sleep, wake up the next day and do it all again, time is a luxury. Write or wrong most people vote for the name they recognize, like they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[fustakrakich]

Write or wrong most people vote for the name they recognize...

Yes, it's a personal choice for all 1 million of them, but regardless, the responsibility is still on them. Don't blame the politician or his moneyman for his success. Everybody needs to acknowledge their own complicity. When they reelect a corrupt politician, it's because they are looking for something for themselves, a piece of the action.

disband the TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

and execute everyone in charge of it for treason.

Re: disband the TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanders? Is that you?

Hah, funny coincidence

[Pluvius]

This was posted right after an article about 191M voters having their information exposed on a single database. But no, I'm sure requiring everyone to have their identifying information on a national database won't lead to any problems...

Rob

Re:Hah, funny coincidence

[MachineShedFred]

The good news is that voter registration is public information, so that article was a story about public information being made public.

Oh noes!

The end of freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it. The end. First the illusion of being able to defend against a government, "allowing" citizens to own tiny firearms while the government buys tanks and bombs that you could never defend yourself against. Then moving border checks in-land. Stopping people while driving and checking with no just cause. Now the checking of papers. There's no point trying to defend freedom or declaring that America is free any more. It isn't. Hasn't been for a long while. The damage has been done.

There's hope, but not in the U.S.A.

Organise your visas, update your passport and travel elsewhere. While you're away, a wall will be built, either physically or virtually. Either the U.S.A will divide itself from the world, or the world will reject the U.S.A.

I doesn't matter who builds the wall. Just make sure you're on the outside when it happens.

Use a passport

[Anonymous Coward]

If your state is not compliant, then you can use your US passport.

Oh, and the IRS now has the power to revoke your passport if you are behind on your taxes, no judge required.

Re: Use a passport

[sglewis100]

So if you owe large sums of money they don't want you fleeing the country? Yeah. I'm ok with that.

Re: Use a passport

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok with no due process, no warrant, no judge - just poof, your passport is gone?

Re:Use a passport

[jvp]

If your state is not compliant, then you can use your US passport.

What if you don't have a passport?

Re:Use a passport

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because the TSA is going to shut down 29 states worth of airports on some arbitrary date, if the states go to the brink on this.

Never going to happen, and the states know it. You thought the last government shutdown made Congress look stupid? That would look like a minor traffic jam in the middle of nowhere because of a few idiot rubbernecks in comparison. Not accepting 29 states worth of drivers' licenses would leave millions stranded, and result in untold number of cancelled airline tickets and billions in tourist revenue lost.

Never going to happen.

Re:Use a passport

[Anonymous Coward]

How can one not have a passport?

Re:Use a passport

[Cramer]

Simple: They have ZERO need for the headache and expense of getting one. You do realize there are MILLIONS of people who never leave the country?

Well, use a passport. Unless the IRS takes it.

[dfenstrate]

If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.

Re:Well, use a passport. Unless the IRS takes it.

[gzuckier]

If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.' We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.

if you're a suspect in a crime in general, your mobility is extensively restrained. "don't leave town!" "OK sheriff"

Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the same states that are screaming about drivers id requirements are the same ones that require a drivers id to vote.

I've never been sure why people hate it

[Sycraft-fu]

It makes sense to me, and it isn't like the US would be the first or only free country with a national ID. Right now there's a strange situation where the government steadfastly insists that a passport is not for general ID, it is a travel document only, yet it is one of the best forms of ID since it is hard to forge and can identify you as a citizen or national.

To me, it would make sense to have a national ID that is a standard form, and available to all for no cost. This eliminates a lot of trouble with various other IDs. For that matter, it could be the kind of thing that is extensible too. Like instead of carrying a separate driver license, simply make that status an endorsement on the national ID.

Maybe there's something I'm missing as to why it is such a bad idea, but to me it seems like something worth doing.

Re:I've never been sure why people hate it

[fustakrakich]

Why stop there? What's wrong with tattoos and implants then?

Re:I've never been sure why people hate it

[sjames]

I'm soon going to have to renew my driver's license. I've been a licensed driver for decades now and there hasn't been a problem. But now suddenly, they want a bunch of supporting ID to prove that I am me. Not everyone has any of that supporting ID. I happen to still get one paper bill, so I can just manage to get adequate proof, but the only reason I still get that is because I knew I would have to prove I am me. Otherwise, it's all electronic.

I can easily imagine what a nightmare a stolen wallet can become now that they can't just look at me and the picture in the license database and call it good. There will probably be a fair number of un-people as a result of this crap.

OK, Republicans, what happened to the government not hassling me? You've had a lock on Congress long enough to fix it, so why isn't it fixed?

Re:I've never been sure why people hate it

[Sarten-X]

Tattoos or implants cannot be denied. That is an important distinction.

The protected right to anonymity is actually an anonymous use of the First Amendment's right to free expression. Per the SCOTUS, "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority...It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society".

Anonymity as an independent right has never been legally protected. There is no protection against someone trying to discern your identity, no protection against being recognized, and no protection against being asked to provide an identity. For all of those, though, it is legal to take reasonable steps to remain anonymous. You can conceal your trails, disguise yourself, and you can decline to provide your identity, all under the banner of ensuring you aren't persecuted for your opinions.

Once you have no reasonable risk of persecution, however, your right to anonymity ends. You do not have the right to travel widely anonymously, or to engage in business anonymously, simply for the sake of being anonymous. It would be legal for any private business (and most government offices) to require ID for service, so long as what they do with that identification is not discriminatory.

The only solution, then, that permits one to be anonymous as needed, yet authenticated as needed, is an authentication token that can be provided or not at the user's discretion.

Re:I've never been sure why people hate it

[AthanasiusKircher]

Maybe there's something I'm missing as to why it is such a bad idea, but to me it seems like something worth doing.

Yes, there would be many benefits, but they are generally argued against by both liberals and conservatives because "identification papers" were historically the marker of totalitarian regimes.

And, indeed, there is a strong argument that they still could be problematic in exactly that way. Note what has happened in the past 15 years or so in the response to 9/11, and the various rights that have been undermined particularly in air travel. Note the massive government spying efforts which completely skirt the traditional interpretation of the 4th amendment. Etc., etc.

Now -- imagine that everyone was required to have a federally-issued ID card for identification purposes. Then imagine there's a terrorist incident on highways. Suddenly, the TSA can set up roadblocks in the middle of the U.S. and start doing what it does at airports -- except now at regional "checkpoints"... just to make sure you're not on the "do not drive list."

That's just one possible scenario. Without a national ID, it makes it that much harder for the feds to arbitrarily take the next steps toward totalitarian actions, further invasions of privacy and blanket searching, etc. And that's one reason why many states have deliberately passed laws to delay or frustrate the national "Real ID" initiative -- they realize where this consolidation of data on individuals can easily go.

A few decades ago, I probably wouldn't have objected too much to the idea. I agree with you about the potential benefits. But after we've seen what the federal government is willing to do in the past couple decades, no way. We'll probably get there eventually anyway within a few decades -- privacy is effectively dead. But I hope we don't help it along by shooting it, buying the casket, and serving as the pallbearer to its grave.

Re: I've never been sure why people hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix it? They're the ones who PASSED it. Small government? Right. The only parts of government Republicans want to keep small are the parts that actually help people against predatory corporations.

Re:I've never been sure why people hate it

[gzuckier]

Maybe there's something I'm missing as to why it is such a bad idea, but to me it seems like something worth doing.

Yes, there would be many benefits, but they are generally argued against by both liberals and conservatives because "identification papers" were historically the marker of totalitarian regimes.

And, indeed, there is a strong argument that they still could be problematic in exactly that way. Note what has happened in the past 15 years or so in the response to 9/11, and the various rights that have been undermined particularly in air travel. Note the massive government spying efforts which completely skirt the traditional interpretation of the 4th amendment. Etc., etc.

Now -- imagine that everyone was required to have a federally-issued ID card for identification purposes. Then imagine there's a terrorist incident on highways. Suddenly, the TSA can set up roadblocks in the middle of the U.S. and start doing what it does at airports -- except now at regional "checkpoints"... just to make sure you're not on the "do not drive list."

That's just one possible scenario. Without a national ID, it makes it that much harder for the feds to arbitrarily take the next steps toward totalitarian actions, further invasions of privacy and blanket searching, etc. And that's one reason why many states have deliberately passed laws to delay or frustrate the national "Real ID" initiative -- they realize where this consolidation of data on individuals can easily go.

A few decades ago, I probably wouldn't have objected too much to the idea. I agree with you about the potential benefits. But after we've seen what the federal government is willing to do in the past couple decades, no way. We'll probably get there eventually anyway within a few decades -- privacy is effectively dead. But I hope we don't help it along by shooting it, buying the casket, and serving as the pallbearer to its grave.

as a conservative i say the traditional manner of identifying citizens works well enough that we should not change it. i.e., if you look Mexican and have a Spanish name, you're suspicious. Although now we can include Middle Eastern too.

Re:I've never been sure why people hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

Um it violates the 10th Amendment and the fundamental separation of powers....

Oh hell while we are at it - lets just tear down ALL state borders and make one giant country. No states - no need for state laws, we could have just federal laws. And while we are at it have one drivers license - a national drivers license - no need for separate state licenses. Then we could go even father - have just ONE political party - why have a whole bunch, especially since the primary two (democrats and republicans) are just two heads of the same party ANYWAY. Then hell lets just have a King and forget all this nonsense about a president, vice president. And hell lets scrap the whole senate and house of republicans thing too - they just get in the way anyways. Lets just have the king dictate how the single country would be governed. Oh and don't forget - we should also have a 1 child policy - it's working soooo well for China - right?

Just like John Gilmore lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you can't wait?

You're the next John Gilmore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales

Or maybe just too stupid to read up on the fact that someone
- did wait
- was denied
- did sue
- and lost

Re:Just like John Gilmore lol

[pla]

Or maybe just too stupid

Well, one of us, anyway, counts as too stupid to recognize the difference between "willingness" and "ability" to comply.

I fully agree with Gilmore, but understand the grounds on which he lost. Totally different ballpark than having the federal government say "people from Idaho can't fly".

More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[WillAffleckUW]

Yet more security theater from the Gestapo or Stasi like TSA.

We're Americans. Traveling in our own country.

None of your security measures are effective, and you know it.

Stop helping the terrorists by making Americans live in Fear, and stop this farce.

Re:More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

You're NOT Americans.
REAL Americans would have THROWN OUT their government a long time ago.
What you are are lazy, easily controlled, stupid, fat, pussies.
Revolt... I triple dog dare you... pussy.

Re:More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to admit that the government isn't just HELPING the terrorists, the government ARE the terrorists.

Re:More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

You're Allah damned right!!

Thanks,
Achmed

Re:More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[gzuckier]

Yet more security theater from the Gestapo or Stasi like TSA.

We're Americans. Traveling in our own country.

None of your security measures are effective, and you know it.

Stop helping the terrorists by making Americans live in Fear, and stop this farce.

remember, though, making americans live in fear not only helps the terrorists, it helps those who sell anti-terrorist snake oil. one of our growth industries.

Re:More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the Stasi - this is Barney Fife.
Seriously, stop comparing inconveniences with midnight raids to 'disappear' the opposition. Getting you junk groped is a far cry from torture rooms.

Time to

[bobstreo]

Short Airline stock.

REAL ID will be the law

[Anonymous Coward]

KMFDM was right

Fuck the Patriot Act

[AndyKron]

Fuck the Patriot Act. Anyone who flies buys into the bullshit that's killing this country.

Re:Fuck the Patriot Act

[orgelspieler]

Anyone who flies buys into the bullshit that's killing this country.

What?! You want people to fucking drive cross-country instead? WTF?! Planes are a way safer means of travel. Do you like people to die on their way to grandma's house for the holidays or something? Or should we all just stay home?

Re:Fuck the Patriot Act

[david_thornley]

After 9/11, there was a decrease in airline trips and an increase in car trips, which probably killed about as many people as died in or near the World Trade Center that day.

Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[gabrieltss]

The states have a simple solution - KICK the TSA out of the state. 10th Amendment baby! Tell the TSA to allow people on the plane - or LEAVE the state.

Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!! It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution. Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS! And have been FULLY brainwashed by the government!

Just remember the U.S. Government FUNDED and TRAINED Al Qada! Don't believe me - try reading your history! The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen during the 80's to fight Russia in Afganastan. Who was the head of the Mujahideen? Osama Bin Laden! Where di Al Qada come from? The Mujahideen! Oh and while we are at it where did ISIS come from? Al Qada. Who the HELL do you think is behind all the "terrorism"? Your GOVERNMENT of course! Why would they do it? Look at all the TYRANNY that they have put into place in the name of "saving us from terrorists".

Madison's statement IS coming true!
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Areyoukiddingme]

Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!! It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution. Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS! And have been FULLY brainwashed by the government!

I would like to spend a mod point on +1 Paranoid Ranting

Though of course it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, pretty much everything you state (aside from AL Qaeda originating with U.S. funded Mujahedeen) is completely wrong. Including your assertion that ISIS came from Al Qaeda.

Interstate and International air travel has from day one been under the legal authority of the Federal government, and such authority stems not just from the explicitly stated interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, but also has deep roots in English Common Law and Maritime Law traditions that predate the constitution by hundreds of years.

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[gabrieltss]

Really? Ok AC - back it up.

I will backup up my statements - The CFR - the ones who are behind LOTS of things have this to say:
"The self-proclaimed Islamic State is a militant movement that has conquered territory in western Iraq and eastern Syria, where it has made a bid to establish a state in territories that encompass some six and a half million residents. Though spawned by al-Qaedaâ(TM)s Iraq franchise, it split with Osama bin Ladenâ(TM)s organization and evolved to not just employ terrorist and insurgent tactics, but the more conventional ones of an organized militia."

Ref:
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/islami...

Hmmm sounds like my assertion is 100% right on ISIS coming from Al-Qaeda....
Me 1
AC 0

Hmm my assertions about Osama Bin Laden, the Mujahedeen, the CIA - correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were crucial in defeating Soviet forces"

Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Me 2
AC 0

So looks like all my assertions are correct of the trail of Mujahedeen (lead by Osama Bin Laden) --> AL Qaeda (lead by Osama Bin Laden) --> ISIS is correct.

I have a TON of more references to backup my statements.... So AC - what do you have?

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[gabrieltss]

Lets not forget:

Anwar Al-Awlaki - Al Qaeda Leader dining at the Pentagon months after 9/11...

Proof:
Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11
http://www.infowars.com/al-qae...

EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010...

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Anonymous Coward]

The states have a simple solution - KICK the TSA out of the state. 10th Amendment baby! Tell the TSA to allow people on the plane - or LEAVE the state.

Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!! It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution. Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS! And have been FULLY brainwashed by the government!

Just remember the U.S. Government FUNDED and TRAINED Al Qada! Don't believe me - try reading your history! The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen during the 80's to fight Russia in Afganastan. Who was the head of the Mujahideen? Osama Bin Laden! Where di Al Qada come from? The Mujahideen! Oh and while we are at it where did ISIS come from? Al Qada. Who the HELL do you think is behind all the "terrorism"? Your GOVERNMENT of course! Why would they do it? Look at all the TYRANNY that they have put into place in the name of "saving us from terrorists".

Madison's statement IS coming true!
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison

As a patriotic American you and your fellow countrymen should knife any politician in the street. Until their blood flows in the streets you live in a tyrannical nation. The terrorists won because the government created those terrorists when it suited the government's purposes.

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we did that we would immediately be labeled as violent freaks. The media would spout the usual narrative about Americans being uncivilized hicks prone to outbursts of violent behavior. The manufactured story would be used, Rolling Stone style, to enact penalties against groups deemed responsible. We would be worse off than when we started, in all honesty.

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Anonymous Coward]

... Your GOVERNMENT of course!

"Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on."

That quote is, in part, the meme 'outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns'. But it also covers the idea that 'tough on crime' does more harm than good, which no US bureaucrat will admit. But the USA has a special kind of thuggery for international affairs: Steal a car from the neighbours then puncture the fuel tank. This metaphor describes how the USA has behaved in South America, a world war, western Asia and, to a lesser extent, the middle-east.

"... Tyranny and Oppression come to this land ..."

As HL Mencken reveals, "For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning". But stopping the first step seems to be the most difficult one according to Nazi, J Goebbels. He suggests telling the populace that something was a dangerous threat to their liberty and safety, causes the population to demand tyranny and oppression, in the name of their liberty and safety. We all know what B Franklin said about that.

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Yunzil]

Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!!

Why?

It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution.

Under what section?

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[orgelspieler]

Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS!

I agree, but I find it strange that the one thing the base of both parties agree on is that teh terrists are gonna kill us all! Maybe time for a third party with some common sense to rise up.

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[gzuckier]

Lets not forget:

Anwar Al-Awlaki - Al Qaeda Leader dining at the Pentagon months after 9/11...

Proof: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 http://www.infowars.com/al-qae...

EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010...

Well, the classic
" Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983."
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um it violates the 10th Amendment and it violates the fundamental separation of powers principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

And as of January 1, 2016 the TSA will REQUIRE a RealID for all flight check in's. Hmmm sounding like a MANDATORY National ID to me.....

Ref:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8542547&cid=51200445
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21048-january-2016-tsa-will-require-real-id-for-flight-check-in

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Anonymous Coward]

ABOUT 4X AS MANY VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE EACH YEAR THEN WHERE KILLED IN 9/11.

Where is all the outrage at the VA?.. non.. but its ok, lets trample all our rights and become old school communist USSR because.. TERRORISTS!

isn't that the same way Hitler got the Germans all riled up?

Those who refuse to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[stephanruby]

The states have a simple solution - KICK the TSA out of the state.

And then, the FAA grounds all the planes coming from and going into that state.

TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution.

[jcr]

Specifically, the "full faith and credit" clause. They don't have any legal prerogative to declare a state-issued ID invalid or unacceptable.

-jcr

Need a declared war for that.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

disband the TSA ... and execute everyone in charge of it for treason.

Can't convict 'em of treason - you need a declared war for that. (That's why Jane Fonda got to marry Tom Hayden, and later Ted Turner, rather than twist in the wind at the end of a rope. The Vietnam conflict was not a declared war.)

There's lots of other things you CAN hang on them, though.

I'd start with 18 U.S. Code  242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, which seems to be right on the mark.

It's a "wobbler": Misdemeanor (fine and/or no more than a year) if no physical injury, 10 year felony if injury, use or threat of use of weapons, explosives, or fire, up to life or death penalty if death results, an attempt is made to kill, attempted or actual kidnapping, attempted or actual aggravated sexual abuse.

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[MachineShedFred]

A Title 18 suit against the TSA would make me giggle like a little kid, because it's actually rather appropriate.

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU are the treasoner.... YOU let it happen, YOU didn't protest, YOU voted for them, YOU sat at home.
YOU got EXACTLY what YOU wanted.
No one to BLAME but YOURSELF.

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[Areyoukiddingme]

YOU are the treasoner.... YOU let it happen, YOU didn't protest, YOU voted for them, YOU sat at home.

Since he knows about the treason of Jane Fonda, he most likely didn't sit at home. Most likely he's a former Marine. The Marines will never forgive Jane Fonda.

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[dbIII]

Weird because the Marines forgave Oliver North for selling weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they blew up over a hundred Marines.
Or did they? All quiet but did they really forgive that bit of outright treason with a bunch that had deliberately targeted Marines?
Funny how saying something is treason but giving money and guns to declared enemies of the USA is patriotic enough to lead to photoshoots wrapped in a flag while running for office. It's hard to pin this treason thing down isn't it? It's starting to look like crimes against a King instead of against a country that should not have a King.

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[gzuckier]

YOU are the treasoner.... YOU let it happen, YOU didn't protest, YOU voted for them, YOU sat at home.

Since he knows about the treason of Jane Fonda, he most likely didn't sit at home. Most likely he's a former Marine. The Marines will never forgive Jane Fonda.

perfectly happy with those who lied them into harm's way, though.

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[gzuckier]

Weird because the Marines forgave Oliver North for selling weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they blew up over a hundred Marines. Or did they? All quiet but did they really forgive that bit of outright treason with a bunch that had deliberately targeted Marines? Funny how saying something is treason but giving money and guns to declared enemies of the USA is patriotic enough to lead to photoshoots wrapped in a flag while running for office. It's hard to pin this treason thing down isn't it? It's starting to look like crimes against a King instead of against a country that should not have a King.

when somebody says veterans of some force will never forget so and so's treason, they mean "rightwingers have established a phony grassroots group to oppose so and so's political activity"

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[dbIII]

There is that but the mention of treason and marines reacting to it ticked all the boxes to let former candidate and "patriot" Oliver North out of the box to show people what treason really looks like.

Re:Need a declared war for that.

[gzuckier]

There is that but the mention of treason and marines reacting to it ticked all the boxes to let former candidate and "patriot" Oliver North out of the box to show people what treason really looks like.

Oliver North was a magnetic personality, but magnetic north is not true north.

asking nicely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,says he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable and notes that the recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government's ability to maintain secure databases.

Didn't Ed Snowden sort of like, you know, mention problems with this too? Would government employees be happy with the public having databases of government employees' personal information?

Who are the employees and who are the employers?

Jesus knows literally everybody's ID already. All are invited to trust Him.

Re:asking nicely.

[BlueStrat]

Would government employees be happy with the public having databases of government employees' personal information?

Not a bad idea.

A phone app to upload pics/video with location/time data taken of government officials/employees and other state actors wherever/whenever encountered by average people to a database hosted in multiple locations somewhere out of the US government's reach (short of military action, of course) like Ecuador and others, with facial recognition and other sophisticated search/filter algorithms in place.

Turn the machinery of the panopticon back on them.

They shouldn't worry, though. It's only 'metadata' which is meaningless, right?

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

Strat

Re:asking nicely.

[gzuckier]

Would government employees be happy with the public having databases of government employees' personal information?

Not a bad idea.

A phone app to upload pics/video with location/time data taken of government officials/employees and other state actors wherever/whenever encountered by average people to a database hosted in multiple locations somewhere out of the US government's reach (short of military action, of course) like Ecuador and others, with facial recognition and other sophisticated search/filter algorithms in place.

Turn the machinery of the panopticon back on them.

They shouldn't worry, though. It's only 'metadata' which is meaningless, right?

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

Strat

i never metadata i didn't like,

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it? No scope

[Anonymous Coward]

First rule of security is scope. "National ID" has too broad scope and compromises would be hell.

Crossing state lines

[Midnight Thunder]

I imagine that while you are only travelling within your own state, on inner state infrastructure there should be no need to respect these requirements? The issue is when you cross state lines, since you need the other state to trust the credentials of your state. This is where the federal identification comes into play, since instead of having to negotiate with the other states for standards of 'trust', they only need to do so with the federal government, for which this standard has been delegated to.

In the end you are gaining freedom of interstate travel, while forfeiting anonymity in the course of doing so. It is a shame, but with paranoid authorities feeding off recent events, it is not surprising it came to this.

Re:Crossing state lines

[Anonymous Coward]

That's already covered by the comity clause in the constitution. One state cannot refuse official documents from another.

Re:Crossing state lines

[Cramer]

This isn't an issue of state vs. state trust. This is the feds wanting to get their nose in on it. Drivers licenses are a per-state proprietary database -- each state controls their own. The feds want their own database to mismanage.

Re:TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution

[demonlapin]

Full faith and credit applies to one state accepting the judgment of another. California can't reject Nevada marriages or divorces.

But it doesn't apply to the feds, and it doesn't even apply to all state actions. I have a driver's license and a concealed carry permit. By compact, the states all recognize each other's driver licenses. They don't all recognize each other's concealed carry permits, because there is no all-state compact to do so. And within a state, my permit means nothing the moment I walk onto federal property (like the post office), unless the feds have carved out an exception (like they did for, say, the Blue Ridge Parkway - if you can carry a gun in the state in which you're located, it's okay to have one on the BRP, though not necessarily in all associated parks and facilities).

Not Arbitrary

[Etherwalk]

If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.

(1) You can sue them to get such a travel ban lifted. Arbitrary and capricious action is not legally permitted to the IRS and federal judges don't look well on it. (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.

Re:Not Arbitrary

[Anonymous Coward]

> (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.

Sounds more like 1984 to me.

Re:Not Arbitrary

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) You can sue them to get such a travel ban lifted. Arbitrary and capricious action is not legally permitted to the IRS and federal judges don't look well on it. (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.

1) Sure, you can sue. It'll take years and cost many thousands of dollars. Have you ever heard the phrase 'The Process is the punishment?
2) Suing won't stop the practice unless the guilty agents and their managers are personally affected. This is possible, but I'm not so sure it's likely.

Not going to happen until the states are ready...

[gbcox]

This from the conservative Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-am... http://www.cato.org/blog/why-s... Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Under that same logic/clause, once one state legalizes gay marriage, they all should recognize that status, right?
So no retards like that woman in KY that refused to sign marriage certificates, all those GOP blowhards that ACTUALLY wanted to support the law and Constitution should all shut the fuck up... yes?

2 can play at that game-revoke DL of TSA employees

[schwit1]

Any states getting hassled by the DHS/TSA should say that any and all DHS or TSA employees' drivers license are no longer valid in that state, no matter where they were issued.

Not the best examples

[mx b]

The boiled frogs weren't paying attention — that's how. Smooth-talking lawmakers were introducing these "common sense" laws, while the objections from the disheveled principled ones were dismissed as "extreme" and "partisan".

Or, you can cause a lot more damage to people and property with a motorvehicle compared to a bike or a horse, so it needed to be more regulated. People involved in car accidents likely appreciate the fact that cars are registered; remember the license plate and tell the authorities, even if they drive off, and we know who's responsible.

I imagine that trains and planes have more regulation for similar reasons; as we now know, you could potentially cause a plane to crash into a building, for example. A train derailed can hurt lots of people and destroy lots of cargo. There's large responsibility again, so we do extra checks. If something goes wrong, we now have a shortlist of people to investigate.

Not saying the system is perfect. I worry about the surveillance state too, and am not a fan of the TSA's decisions lately. But we must acknowledge that the current system evolved for reasons (like safety and responsibility) that need to be carefully balanced with our liberties. Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as they say. But definitely voice concerns to your congresscritters, and keep it in mind in upcoming elections.

The official right to keep and bear arms is another — and even more painful — example. You don't need a Wikipedia article — it is right there in the Bill of Rights. And yet, even the most liberal parts of the country consider it a mere privilege...

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns. This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing. It is fine to say you have a disagreement with a stance, but let's please not demonize groups of people and pretend that we aren't what we are -- a country with a diverse set of beliefs that really isn't easily categorized.

As an aside, If you want your freedoms and the constitution respected more, vote for Bernie Sanders. He has said no to surveillance state, no to perpetual war, no to corporate control of the economy and elections, and coming from a small state, he is very moderate on gun regulation. Let's all agree to stop voting for the typical establishment candidates and vote for candidates like Bernie if we want to see real results.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.

Jesus Christ, not this line of crap again. "Regulated" in that time meant "functioning". And if there's any question as to what this was all about, take if from one of the writers of that article:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The Federalist Papers make it very clear that the public has an unquestionable right to arms in order to defend themselves from government tyranny.

And you are wrong, there are many people who want to take ALL weapons away from law abiding citizens. Of course their method to do that, ironically, is to use gun-toting cops and military to do it.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be so pedantic as to refer to the actual text of the amendment, let's note that it's specifically the MILITIA that is supposed to be regulated...not the individual firearms.

Re:Not the best examples

[drnb]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.

Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency. Part of that efficiency was to have firearms available to the "militia". "Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age. Although today that definition has been extended to include females who have volunteered for the National Guard.

This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), ...

Wrong. US Federal Law defines the "militia". It has both active components, the National Guard and Naval Militias, that do require training but there is explicitly defined to be an inactive component for "all others". This inactive component includes those who have never enlisted or otherwise signed up and who have no obligation to show up and train in any way. However during a state of emergency these inactive militia members may be called up for service in the Army or Navy. This is part of the legal foundation for conscription, the draft, taking a civilian who is legally part of the federal militia and transferring them to active duty. Now for that 18th century notion of training, not all militia members were required to show up on the town commons and drill. That's for townsfolk. Those living a more rural lifestyle were often considered to be receiving sufficient training from activities such as hunting.

... as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.

While I'm personally all for safety training, safe storage and background checks for criminal and mental problems ... that is *not* what "well regulated" was referring to.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

Actually people tend to not know what the "militia" is nor what "well regulated" means. We merely have the blind leading the blind saying the militia is the National Guard and that well regulated means paperwork and approval were intended for firearms ownership.

Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing ...

In general perhaps but on this topic being "liberal" overwhelmingly involves being particularly misinformed about the 2nd amendment and firearms in general, in embracing placebo "gun bans" and such that like the TSA are security theatre. The left has their dogma that ignores facts and science just like the right, they merely choose different topics where politics trumps reason. And firearms is one such area for the left.

Re:Not the best examples

[Woldscum]

"Regulated" as in well trained. Not as in governed by laws. A "well trained militia".

The 4th definition of "Regulated".
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

"Militia" = All able bodied males 18 to 34 years of age. Which is what makes the Selective Service and Draft legal.

Re:Not the best examples

[AthanasiusKircher]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is. But it's also part of a prefatory phrase separated by a comma, which makes clear **A** reason for the latter part of the sentence, not **THE ONLY** reason for the latter part of the sentence. Notice the separate references to "Militia" and later "the right of THE PEOPLE." There's a reason they changed the wording there.

Anyhow, I don't want to go over all of this again. You can choose your interpretation if you want, and some SCOTUS justices agree with you. After reviewing the actual writings of the Founders from that time and similar passages in state constitutions, as well as the legislative history and debates among the Founders for the 2nd amendment, it seems pretty clear that they were authorizing a broad power for "the people" to "keep and bear arms." The "well-regulated militia" stuff is just ONE reason why it's important to maintain that right... one reason important enough that they felt the need to mention it (even if they didn't mention others).

Or, to use my standard example, suppose you had a text that said:

A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Does that mean the federal government only has to allow registered voters to have books? Or might it just be saying, "the people have a broad right to own books, and here's one good reason -- though perhaps not the only reason -- why."

I can't say for certain what the 2nd amendment meant, but I think in historical context it makes more sense to read it as a broad-based right, with the Militia stuff as a prefatory clause, and it's perfectly rational to do so (even if you disagree).

The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.

I ABSOLUTELY agree! I think firearms should be much more regulated than they are, and I wholeheartedly endorse introducing mandatory safety, training, and licensing measures, as we already require for similarly dangerous things like cars and heavy equipment. Whether the federal government could mandate that without a Constitutional amendment is an open question, but I would support an amendment to make it possible.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

I don't forget it at all -- it's essential to the text and had an important impact, particularly in the early Republic (before a standing army existed for the federal government). I just think you're potentially reading it completely wrong.

More importantly, I'd rather live in a somewhat antiquated world that actually respects its Founding laws and works to change or clarify them as necessary, rather than one in which those laws can be arbitrarily rejected on a whim (as they basically have been for the past 75 years or so). The danger in allowing the Constitution to just mean whatever you want because it would allow the sort of changes or regulation you want is -- what happens when the feds want to break other laws you care about? I'm glad women have a "right" to an abortion, but I also think the Constitutional basis of the "right to privacy" is rather flimsy, and I think it's rather dangerous that such things depend on the whims of 9 people in black robes, rather than something more explicitly articulated. Any "right" that is found or modified through textual "interpretation" that disagrees with previous interpretation could always be reversed by judicial fiat.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past)

Background checks do nothing to check if a person has appropriate training or discipline. You might be confusing that with the state's requirements for a CCW. In my state (VA) the questionnaire is basically:

Are you a citizen? Yes

Have you ever been judged mentally incompetent? No

Have you been convicted (maybe charged, I don't remember, it's been a few years since I bought my last gun) of domestic battery? No

Are you a fugitive from justice? No

Have you been convicted of a felony? No

Do you use illegal drugs? No

Are you over 18? Yes, you can buy a rifle or shotgun

Are you over 21? Yes, you can buy a handgun

They call the FBI to verify your criminal background.

Re:Not the best examples

[dbIII]

Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age

So if you are the right age why aren't you in Iraq?
See what happens when you try to put a meaning on something other than what it actually has?
A "well regulated Militia" is what it says and not some silly bullshit about who could join up to a Militia and fight for their country if they had the courage to do so, but do not.

This silly sports club definition of a "Militia" being everyone has only stood up so far because they have been donating to the people that should be calling them out on the bullshit.

Re: Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

No dude, that is the definition of militia. When the amendments were written, the US didn't have standing military - the concept of militia was it. Everyone that could participate in war was a member of the militia, like it or not. There's a lot more case-law now, but the fundamentals are still there.

And that's why we weren't all in Iraq. The standing military, composed of real volenteers which we pay for via taxes, fought instead. If the Iraqi's had brought the war to our shores (and we chose not to turn them to glass first), then the militia would have been called up.

At which point, the gun banning whack-jobs would have been begging for one of my rifles to defend their homes and loved ones. And I would have offered it to my fellow countryman and provided him training. But after the war was over, if he still acted like a gun-pussy, I think he'd be in the minority for the next 200 years.

This is how human history really works. It always boils down to force. Going all English-peasent because a certain segment of our minority population can't be responsible with their rights is playing into the hands of the ruling-class as evidenced by thousands of years of history.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age

So if you are the right age why aren't you in Iraq?
See what happens when you try to put a meaning on something other than what it actually has?
A "well regulated Militia" is what it says and not some silly bullshit about who could join up to a Militia and fight for their country if they had the courage to do so, but do not.

This silly sports club definition of a "Militia" being everyone has only stood up so far because they have been donating to the people that should be calling them out on the bullshit.

They are right. This isn't some "silly sports club definition", it's the literal law of the land in the US. 10 USC S113:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.

Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency.

If we decide to use the 18th century definition of "regulated", shouldn't we also use the 18th century definition of "Arms"?

Re:Not the best examples

[xaxa]

You could argue that commercial plane passengers deserve some kind of check (there have been hijackings etc), but for a train? They already know who the driver is, why does it matter who the passengers are?

I'm amazed that travelling by Amtrak requires id. That's like China, the only other place I've been where I had to show id to buy a non-local train ticket — and I've been to a few former-Soviet or communist states.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

the militia existed because there was no standing army, not as we know it today.
that army meager army was not well armed, and certainly did not have enough arms to actually equip the militiamen if they were called up.
hence militia needed their own arms.

we now however have a large standing army. well equipped.
and a large militia, the NG, also well equipped, and without every man needing to supply his own weapon.

this is basic constitutional scholar knowledge.
not that that will matter to you.

Re:Not the best examples

[BitZtream]

Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing. It is fine to say you have a disagreement with a stance, but let's please not demonize groups of people and pretend that we aren't what we are -- a country with a diverse set of beliefs that really isn't easily categorized.

Anyone who calls themselves a 'liberal' is a problem. Just like people who call themselves 'conservatives' are a problem.

You SHOULD be a free thinking citizen of the United States of America who chooses the best politicians and policies for the country (in your opinion of course) and does so regardless of what some blue or red team is doing.

People who call themselves 'liberal' or 'conservative' and take offense when people refer to them that way ARE THE PROBLEM WITH OUR POLITICIANS.

You're so concerned with what team you're on and how other people talk about your team that you're not focused on what actually matters. Who the fuck cares what someone calls you, does that REALLY have any effect on you or what the TSA does? No, you only care because you are more concerned with peoples impression of your team then what your team actually does.

So go ahead, get offended, for those of us with half a brain or more, it just makes you look like an ignorant douche who's been brainwashed by politicians.

So lets all agree to stop being pussies and worry about who calls each other what and actually vote on what matters instead of this two year old bullshit, can we? Can we grow up and focus on the actual issues and not that your team mascot is a jackass? hmm? Can we please?

Fucking childish bullshit.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the intent was for the US not to have a standing army, and the Militia was intended to be our sole defense. Standing armies were seen to be a threat to liberty (which is true, and in our age of global militarism, it is a global threat). This is also why military appropriation cannot be made for a period longer than two years (the only such limit in the Constitution). This was probably a spectacularly stupid idea, but if you don't happen to agree, then you should be arguing to disband the Military and return to the country that the Founders intended. Alternately you should be arguing for a realistic gun policy, which hopefully recognizes that random unorganized civilians with only small arms are about as threatening to a modern army as toddlers with whiffle bats.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the entire gun control debate to be evidence that people in general don't understand the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own or carry a gun. It guarantees the right to own or carry arms.

Swords, knives, bows/arrows, and other "old school" weapons of war are all "arms" protected under the 2nd amendment. But I never hear anyone wanting to apply federal regulations to swords or bows. These arms can still kill you, but they're less scary to dumb people because they don't go "bang".

Meanwhile, the signs on the bank door say "no firearms allowed", which allows anyone to just walk in wearing a sword. A bank is a relatively enclosed space. You don't want to meet a crazy man with a cutlass in there any more than one with a gun.

Re:Not the best examples

[Coren22]

The militia clause could be dropped entirely from the amendment without changing the amendment in any appreciable way. It was a reason for everyone to be allowed to own arms, not the right, the right is to bear arms.

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 second comma there is dividing the reason for the right from the actual right, it does not modify the right in any way.

Re:Not the best examples

[Coren22]

45 not 34:

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

Re:Not the best examples

[twotacocombo]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns. This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past).

The 2nd amendment exists to ensure that the people can protect themselves from a tyrannical government, especially after our experiences under English rule. Where in that amendment, or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights, does it mention that the government has any place sticking it's dick in the works? The whole idea was to state the people had certain rights the government absolutely could not touch, as they were God-given and as part of human existence as eating and shitting. Where in the 2nd amendment do you see it granting us the right to bear arms, pending federal regulation, training requirements, background checks, specific makes and models of firearms, magazine capacity limits, gun free safe zones, etc? Nowhere. Because as soon as you let them take an inch, they take a mile, and that Right becomes a "right", and then is gutted completely. The 2nd amendment is what truly keeps us free. As soon as it goes, there is nothing keeping the government from throwing the rest right out the window with it.

Re:Not the best examples

[gzuckier]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.

Jesus Christ, not this line of crap again. "Regulated" in that time meant "functioning". And if there's any question as to what this was all about, take if from one of the writers of that article:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The Federalist Papers make it very clear that the public has an unquestionable right to arms in order to defend themselves from government tyranny.

And you are wrong, there are many people who want to take ALL weapons away from law abiding citizens. Of course their method to do that, ironically, is to use gun-toting cops and military to do it.

well regulated is clearly meant in reference to bowel function. Nobody wants to see a constipated man with a firearm..

Re:Not the best examples

[gzuckier]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

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.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is. But it's also part of a prefatory phrase separated by a comma, which makes clear **A** reason for the latter part of the sentence, not **THE ONLY** reason for the latter part of the sentence. Notice the separate references to "Militia" and later "the right of THE PEOPLE." There's a reason they changed the wording there.

Anyhow, I don't want to go over all of this again. You can choose your interpretation if you want, and some SCOTUS justices agree with you. After reviewing the actual writings of the Founders from that time and similar passages in state constitutions, as well as the legislative history and debates among the Founders for the 2nd amendment, it seems pretty clear that they were authorizing a broad power for "the people" to "keep and bear arms." The "well-regulated militia" stuff is just ONE reason why it's important to maintain that right... one reason important enough that they felt the need to mention it (even if they didn't mention others).

Or, to use my standard example, suppose you had a text that said:

A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Does that mean the federal government only has to allow registered voters to have books? Or might it just be saying, "the people have a broad right to own books, and here's one good reason -- though perhaps not the only reason -- why."

I can't say for certain what the 2nd amendment meant, but I think in historical context it makes more sense to read it as a broad-based right, with the Militia stuff as a prefatory clause, and it's perfectly rational to do so (even if you disagree).

The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.

I ABSOLUTELY agree! I think firearms should be much more regulated than they are, and I wholeheartedly endorse introducing mandatory safety, training, and licensing measures, as we already require for similarly dangerous things like cars and heavy equipment. Whether the federal government could mandate that without a Constitutional amendment is an open question, but I would support an amendment to make it possible.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

I don't forget it at all -- it's essential to the text and had an important impact, particularly in the early Republic (before a standing army existed for the federal government). I just think you're potentially reading it completely wrong.

More importantly, I'd rather live in a somewhat antiquated world that actually respects its Founding laws and works to change or clarify them as necessary, rather than one in which those laws can be arbitrarily rejected on a whim (as they basically have been for the past 75 years or so). The danger in allowing the Constitution to just mean whatever you want because it would allow the sort of changes or regulation you want is -- what happens when the feds want to break other laws you care about? I'm glad women have a "right" to an abortion, but I also think the Constitutional basis of the "right to privacy" is rather flimsy, and I think it's rather dangerous that such things depend on the whims of 9 people in black robes, rather than something more explicitly articulated. Any "right" that is found or modified through textual "interpretation" that disagrees with previous interpretation could always be reversed by judicial

Re:Not the best examples

[currently_awake]

Apparently you can take guns away from convicted criminals. So they just have to convict everyone of something, and the 2nd amendment is gone.

Re:Not the best examples

[twotacocombo]

Apparently you can take guns away from convicted criminals.

No you can't. They find convicts with firearms all the time :)

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually blades are restricted to 3 inches in many jurisdiction when in public.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

What is that gun show loophole again? That's right -- a talking point that the ignorant nod at and assume there must be something there.

Sales at gun shows are exactly the same as sales anywhere else. There is no loophole.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

You completely missed the larger issue of the second amendment. While you are correct in the use of the word regulated, you left out basic English grammar. The first portion of the amendment is a preamble. As such, it contains no enforceable language whatsoever. Regardless of any interpretation of the preamble, until the amendment has been changed (through the amendment process), the only enforceable language is this: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear.

Coming on the tails of "We, the people...." it's also very clear who "the people" are.

Re:Not the best examples

[david_thornley]

It would take a long time to describe all my political views and beliefs. If I tell you I'm a liberal or a leftist, you get an idea of my political positions that's more right than wrong. I'm not on a "team", but there's one party that almost always produces candidates more in line with my politics than another party, and so I rarely vote for that other party.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

That only applies to concealed knives. There is no length limit if you open carry.

Re:Not the best examples

[cwsumner]

The phrase "Well Regulated", at the time of the Constitution, did not have anything to do with laws or limitations. It refers to Consistency in training, supplies and ammunition. This is needed so that the Militia units can work together to form an army when necessary, without having disasterous problems thith a million types of supplies and ammunition. And so when one unit does a "column left", the ones next to it can do the same without colliding!

It also means that the people must be able to own military weapons of the same type as the army.

The phrase comes from "Regular", as in all the same. The extra, modern, meanings come from assuming that laws are required to achive that. Language drift... 8-)

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Re:Not the best examples

[dgatwood]

I imagine that trains and planes have more regulation for similar reasons; as we now know, you could potentially cause a plane to crash into a building, for example. A train derailed can hurt lots of people and destroy lots of cargo.

It isn't possible to derail a train by being on the train, because it is not physically possible to get from the inside of a passenger train into the engine while it is in motion. You have to walk across the ground. So that argument makes little sense.

Re:Not the best examples

[AK Marc]

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.

A capable militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, must have access to weapons of war; the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Given that at the time the "military" was nearly 100% militia, in the US and other places, the Amendment is archaic. With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void.

Really, the discussion breaks down into a discussion of whether one should keep arms to overthrow their government or not. Is that one of the functions of the militia? If so, the NRA is a bunch of fascist hypocrites, selling "self defense" and "hunting" as the reasons for keeping an Amendment with the sole present function of protecting military arms to use against the government. They are too pansy to read the 2nd Amendment in any reasonable manner, and pretend the first clause doesn't exist, because it doesn't fit their narrative. Those anti-Constitution fascists need to either read the Constitution, or stop pretending they speak for it.

Re:Not the best examples

[drnb]

Given that at the time the "military" was nearly 100% militia, in the US and other places, the Amendment is archaic. With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void.

Wrong. Today the US Army considers it useful for civilians, essentially the "unorganized" part of the federal militia, to have experience with target shooting. To this end they sponsor tournaments and matches, host them, and even sell rifles (WW2 M1 Garand) to interested participants (after an FBI background check). The stated motivation is "to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

... read the 2nd Amendment in any reasonable manner, and pretend the first clause doesn't exist ...

"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 unorganized part of the militia is essentially the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government and have no need for this right. Only the unorganized need this right.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Sanders is a self-hating Jew who, if he somehow manages to make it into the US Presidency, will do more to destroy Israel than any other President in history, including the well-known anti-Semite Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. He says pretty much this on his website at http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-israel-and-the-palestinians/

Re:Not the best examples

[AK Marc]

Wrong.

Then you talk about a program that isn't run by the military, formed at a time when there was not a large standing army, and has no relation to the point you are disagreeing with. Next time read your cite. Just providing a cite doesn't contradict the point. With a standing army, there's no need for the civilian population to be well armed or trained. When the civilians are called into service, there's a need for them to be trained, and in 1903 when that program was started, there were frequent call-ups, and stand-downs, so the ready population being ready for the draft made it easier training people as they were drafted. As the draft was (permenantly?) ended, the need for such a program ended, and so has the military's participation in it.

Only the unorganized need this right.

And only needed it when there was a draft. Without a draft, you only hire regulars, and give them a full training before any deployment. Only in case of WWIII and a sudden draft of everyone would there be any use in a civilian being militarily ready.

You seem to be agreeing with me in the most disagreeable way possible.

Re:Not the best examples

[drnb]

Wrong.

Then you talk about a program that isn't run by the military, ...

The paperwork for the rifle goes to the Army. The rifle ships from the Army to the civilian. The matches, at least for the higher level rounds of the tournament system, often occur on military bases.

... formed at a time when there was not a large standing army, ...

We had a standing Army in 1903 when this program started, it may have been small by post WW2 standards but it was unthinkably large by founding father standards. It was started because of disappointing marksmanship skills of those who participated in the Spanish American war. It was started to directly benefit the Army: "provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military"

... and has no relation to the point you are disagreeing with ...

The point I was disagreeing with was your: "With a standing army, the only listed reason for the right to bear arms is void." This program shows that is clearly not true. The program's goal clearly states improving civilian marksmanship so as to improve military marksmanship.

Plus there is the legal fact that US military is composed of (on the Army branch) the regular Army, active reserve Army, inactive reserve Army, the National Guard (aka organized militia) and the reserve militia (aka unorganized militia). The later roughly being male civilians of military age with no connection to the military. To this day, by federal law updated in 1970s, both the standing army and the unorganized militia exist. The 2nd amendment is not void.

When the civilians are called into service, there's a need for them to be trained, and in 1903 when that program was started, there were frequent call-ups, and stand-downs, so the ready population being ready for the draft made it easier training people as they were drafted. As the draft was (permenantly?) ended, the need for such a program ended, and so has the military's participation in it.

The draft, conscription, has not been abolished. It is merely inactive. That can be changed with a presidential request and an act of congress. Young men are technically still required to register for the draft. However no one is prosecuted for failing to do so. Some states will not issue a drivers license, a personal may be ineligible for federal jobs and some student loans.

Recruits who excel in marksmanship training often had prior experience. These higher performing recruits help coach lower performing recruits. To this day civilian experience benefits the US military. Plus military training is sometimes abbreviated during the height of a war. You are assuming contemporary style wars where a reserve or national guard unit can get activated well in advance of an overseas deployment and have an extended refresher training period. There is no guarantee that we will not see another war where troops go from civilian to the front lines in 90 or even 60 days. A family member fought at Bastogne, he was an extremely well trained paratrooper. While manning the defensive positions around Bastogne the paratroopers were spread very thin. They were reinforced with anyone available in an act of desperation. The man he shared his fighting position with was a truck driver only in the Army for 6 months and who had not fired a weapon since basic training. Many of the actual combat troops fresh from the US and defending the Ardennes section at the start of this battle had very minimal abbreviated training. History shows you can not assume troops in front line combat are "properly" trained. Even if properly trained prior experience can manifest in an individual being even more capable. Marksmanship is not a pass/fail skill, it is a range of pe

Rule of Law

[Anonymous Coward]

With the TSA I feel like moving to China for some freedom.

Get rid of the drivers license!

[blindseer]

Well, a state doesn't have to get rid of the license completely, just don't require it for travel within the state. Get other states to go along with it so people can drive state to state. We've been seeing "mission creep" on the drivers license for a long time. Even people that can't drive, or don't want to drive, still get to experience the DMV to get an ID to vote, get a bank account, or any of a number of things. This DMV issued, non-driver, ID is increasingly needed to travel by bus, plane, boat, or train. It's not a drivers license any more, its an internal passport.

The federal government can only push the states around as long as the states allow them to. Case in point, marijuana possession is illegal but yet no federal agency will even dare prosecute for this in those states that legalized it. The states have considerable power over the federal government, they can tell them where to go if they only grew a backbone.

Perhaps getting rid of the drivers license is too much just because the TSA wants to use it as an internal passport. What this is though is just one of many reasons on how what is supposed to be a record that one can pilot an automobile safely has gone well beyond this and has become a means by which the federal government can impose itself upon us.

Also, what few people will tell you is that it is perfectly legal to travel by commercial aircraft without government ID. You don't need an ID to fly, but everyone will tell you that you do. You might get hassled, delayed, and searched thoroughly but it's not illegal to travel without ID. As of yet we don't have a requirement to carry ID to travel, but the powers that be are working to change that.

Re:Get rid of the drivers license!

[Yunzil]

Case in point, marijuana possession is illegal but yet no federal agency will even dare prosecute for this in those states that legalized it.

It's not a question of daring. It's just not worth the effort.

The states have considerable power over the federal government, they can tell them where to go if they only grew a backbone.

In practical terms the states have next to no power over the federal government. Which is good.

Re:TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution

[jcr]

The carry permit means nothing, per the constitution. There is no legitimate authority for any state to issue a permit for a fundamental right.

-jcr

Identifying oneself

[spaceyhackerlady]

I reuse to use my passport as ID for any national activity. International, sure. That's what it's for. But I do not, repeat, do not need a passport to travel within my own country, or from one location to another in the U.S.A.

I usually use my pilot's license as ID when I check in. Canadian ones look like passports and have many of the same security features. Fine. Or so I thought once when a glubeshnik at Oakland International Airport started blankly and called his supervisor. Rather than argue I showed him my driver's license instead.

...laura

Re:2 can play at that game-revoke DL of TSA employ

[dknj]

not constitutional (discrimination)

Re:2 can play at that game-revoke DL of TSA employ

[Anonymous Coward]

there is likely some other interstate commerce bullshit legislation that requires states to recognize as valid, unexpired licenses in good standing issued by other states, but it is not unconstitutional 'discrimination' to tell someone to 'fuck off' based solely on their public (i.e. government) employment.

Creating more problems than it'll likely solve

[kheldan]

Sure thing, let's put all our eggs in one data-basket and make it easier for the identity thieves and fake ID creators to do their thing, and when some hackers break into the National database for it and come away with 300M citizen ID records, then it'll be worse than useless.

The reason they have been moving slowly is

[Anonymous Coward]

That they know that the lawsuit resulting from their first attempt at enforcement will bring the whole thing tumbling down. Better to try for grumbling compliance from veiled threats and administrative grit in the workings until an overwhelming fraction of the proles have given in out of exhaustion. Then they will continue with the old 'no standing to sue because you are not a state' subterfuge. And meanwhile the rest of us will drive our cars.

Frog boiling

[wonkavader]

The frog boiling thing is a myth. If you put frogs in cold water and heat the water, when it gets sufficiently hot they jump out. It's been tested, and it's been known to be false for at least 150 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Find another metaphor.

Re:Frog boiling

[Anonymous Coward]

On the article you linked, click on the "anecdote" link as well.

Why would people find another metahor when this one works and has been around for a long time?

Re:Frog boiling

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it doesn't work as it is not true and the people who parrot it only indicate their ignorance by doing so. Next question? I'll be here all day to help you find the answers to the simple questions in life. Wait, no I won't. I might check back to see if you learned something new today and are able to admit it or if you'll try to defend your stance for my amusement.

Re:Frog boiling

[gzuckier]

The frog boiling thing is a myth. If you put frogs in cold water and heat the water, when it gets sufficiently hot they jump out. It's been tested, and it's been known to be false for at least 150 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Find another metaphor.

The trick is, you have to get them to vote for the boiling water.

shows the importance of air travel

[Anonymous Coward]

This just shows the importance of air travel. There are all sorts of ways to travel, but air travel is so important, that all the other methods are used as a backup.

As for why air travel, a coke can sized explosive took out a Russian airplane a couple of months ago with 200 people on it. That is why the US govt is paranoid around airplanes. An explosive like that, on a subway might kill 10 people. The 2004 Madrid bombings, there were 10 different bombs on 4 different trains, and that killed 191 people..... I guess you could lobby for high speed rail.

Re:TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution

[dbIII]

The right to hide a gun?
Drawing a bit of a long bow from the "militia" mention it appears.

Re:2 can play at that game-revoke DL of TSA employ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well, we crossed that bridge a long time ago, didn't we? It's time.

From your quote:

[dbIII]

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

So there's your "well regulated Militia" instead of the stupid sporting club definition of everybody and their dog that does not have the courage to join up.
Or are you going to pretend to be stupid and say that that "unorganized" is equal to "well regulated"?

Sorry kid, your shell game distraction backfire.

Re:From your quote:

[drnb]

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So there's your "well regulated Militia" instead of the stupid sporting club definition of everybody and their dog that does not have the courage to join up. Or are you going to pretend to be stupid and say that that "unorganized" is equal to "well regulated"? Sorry kid, your shell game distraction backfire.

You are quite desperate in your denial of facts. The 2nd amendment refers to the militia, not the subset of the organized militia. Furthermore the 2nd amendment refers specifically to the people, which would refer to the unorganized part. The organized part being supplied weapons by the government when on duty wouldn't need a 2nd amendment.

Re:From your quote:

[dbIII]

My denial? For daring to question redefinition of a sporting club into a military that are too cowardly to defend their country? If you are going to spread ridiculous bullshit you have to be prepared to defend that even if you are too cowardly to defend you country but want to pretend you are a soldier just the same.
All this shit about the dictionary being different in the old days or the founding fathers being stupid or whatever other shit thrown on the flag excuse you want to make up is just getting a bit old.
Meanwhile people are dying because the pretend "well regulated Militia" does not have it's shit together enough to think of the basic gun safety I learnt at the age of nine.

Re:From your quote:

[drnb]

My denial? For daring to question redefinition of a sporting club into a military ...

No. Your denial that (1) all able bodied male US citizens are part of the federal militia as defined in federal law (US. 10 USC S113), see earlier link to Cornell University Law School and (2) that the National Guard is only part of the federal militia, the organized part, and that there is an unorganized part that all others belong to and these folks have no obligation to train or even own a firearm. So your sporting club argument is doubly ignorant when you consider that pesky little detail.

Meanwhile people are dying because the pretend "well regulated Militia" does not have it's shit together enough to think of the basic gun safety I learnt at the age of nine.

It seems your ignorance extends to firearms owners too. Most US firearms owners think firearms safety instruction is a good thing. Most gun violence in the US is a result of the narcotics industry, which is a different group of people.

Re:From your quote:

[KGIII]

It's curious that you think you're smarter than they, the scholars, and the courts. Don't you find it remarkable that your presumptions are incorrect?

Allow me, if you will, to give a bit of anecdotal evidence. I am a firearm aficionado. I've slaughtered countless innocent bits of paper who have done nothing to harm anyone - and I'll do it again. I spent a total of eight years enlisted in the Marines, had the misfortune of seeing combat, and would hate to harm anyone and would only use violence as a last resort and, even then, would only apply enough force to immediately stop the threat. (Or, at least, make them think twice about continuing to act in a life-threatening manner - I carry .22 LR for a reason.)

The vast majority of people that I know, who are also firearm owners and/or aficionados, are very similar in many ways - including serving in one branch or another. No, I know there are some really stupid people who own firearms. I know that violence with firearms will happen. You're given a choice, false security or greater liberties. Which do you prefer?

Your fear is not significant motivation to take my liberties and, honestly, the vast majority of scholar, experts, court findings, readings, and interpretations all support my right to own firearms and you've provided no compelling evidence to take that liberty away. Even if you cite the violence, the deaths, the injuries, and all that - you've still not provided sufficient motivation to take my liberty. Your fear and cowardice is not reason enough to take away my liberties.

People, right now, are scared and trying to take away encryption based on their fear. People can literally be aided in their attempt to harm others with the use of encryption. I'm reasonably certain that, at this very moment in time, someone is planning on causing harm and using encryption to keep those plans secret. I'm okay with that. I'm okay that there's a minuscule chance of harm coming to me, my loved ones, or to innocents by means of firearm violence. I accept those risks because liberty is essential and maintaining the maximum rights realistically possible is vital to our survival as free people.

"Oh but look at all these other nations that restrict them!" Yes, look at them. Who do you think will be called upon to help save them when their governments are too restrictive and become abusive? Even if that's *not* what will happen (and it likely will - as is evidenced by many other instances and assuming they've got a few resources that we want to protect/purloin) there's no justification to use your cowardice to strip away my liberties. Piss yourself quietly in the corner, thanks. The rest of us can have a reasonable discussion about resolving the issues with violence, notice that it is trending down and has been for years, and work to find reasonable solutions without being distracted by your nonsense.

It's fortunate that you're wrong and that the vast majority of study concurs with my view and interpretation. You will need to amend the Constitution in order to make changes to that view. That is not going to happen without violence, that choice is not yours to make. No, it is not me threatening violence, it is me telling you what it will take to get that amendment changed. I can tell you, quite certainly, that the military is not going to simply obey orders and disarm the population nor are they going to follow orders to attack the civilians. How do I know? Well, long nights standing watch and lonely nights stuck in the barracks. We've discussed this and, as far as I can tell, very few people would consider those to be lawful orders and would not follow them. Are you going to wield the firearm required to take away theirs? Do you expect the police, many are also veterans, to do so on your behalf? Good luck with that.

Your proposals will result in a civil war. Are you prepared for that? This is not a gung-ho threat, this is an observation. Good luck with that. Fortunately, nobody is going to give you the power to enact such ch

Re:From your quote:

[beastofburdon]

I see you continue to have the reading comprehension of a toddler. Either that or your religious belief in gun control prevents you from understanding plain English.
There is one simple fact you need to understand. Governments do not enforce gun control to protect citizens from each other, they use gun control to protect themselves from the citizens. They have nothing to fear from an unarmed populace, and they know they can do anything they want to a disarmed populace. They also know they have a great deal to fear from armed citizens if they try to abuse them too much.

Re:From your quote:

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the gun violence in the US is due to suicide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0

Re:From your quote:

[david_thornley]

The Second Amendment says "well regulated militia", and I assure you the unorganized militia is not well regulated by any definition.

Re:From your quote:

[david_thornley]

Do you really think individual armed citizens can stand against the US Army? We know from WWII history that an unorganized force of high-morale people with personal arms will lose to badly trained, badly led, and badly equipped regulars. The only hope of such a rebellion is that parts or all of the US Armed Forces sides with it.

Re:From your quote:

[dbIII]

You are depending on both the drafters of the constitution being stupid and the readers of your arguments about everyone being an actual soldier instead of a potential one as stupid. It's very insulting both ways.

Re:From your quote:

[dbIII]

It's curious that you think you're smarter than they, the scholars, and the courts

The arguments almost exclusively are not directly supported by either the scholars or the courts because they rely on twisting meanings - such as the utter classic of pretending that anyone eligible to be in a Militia already is one. They then build on that false premise and call on the authority as if that assumption or similar made sense.
Shell game.
A distraction to hide that the original premise does not exist.
I'm all for responsible gun ownership but not big on liars who want to pretend to be soldiers without actually having the courage to sign up.
Those liars want to fool you too so that they can appear to be "mainstream" instead of a radical political power block based around a sporting club.

Your proposals will result in a civil war

I have not made any.
Thus very unlikely.
I suggest you take it up with whoever actually made them instead of inflicting their baggage on me.

Re:From your quote:

[KGIII]

You appear to be advocating the re-interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution. I dare that that is proposing something. And no, they're not fooling me. I don't *like* them but i support their right to bear arms so long as they do so in a safe and lawful manner.

Me? I came from a family of Marines and Navy (said that way on purpose). I spent eight years serving to demonstrate my willingness to put my life on the line in the name of freedom, for myself or for others. Just because they didn't serve doesn't mean they don't get those rights. In fact, I served so that they don't have to.

What next? Freedom of the press for only those who served in a government printing office? No, people have provided you link after link after link. This has been covered, gone over many times, and hashed out by people who are far better versed in the subject than you (or I). However, nothing indicates that it is the singular reason and the courts have determined this to be true.

Advocating a re-interpretation is, indeed, a proposition. Doing so, the act itself, will result in a civil war. There is no maybe about it. It's not like I'm going to start it but it's going to be started. It's going to be bloody and may not end the way you want. It's very tough to fight an insurgency or guerrilla warfare. More problematic will be that the enlisted people will not follow an unlawful order along those lines. GI Joe's not going to kill his wife's uncle, brother, mother, or children.

In short, through no fault of mine and I wish you no ill will, this sort of stuff is the stuff that will likely get someone killed if they start running around and perverting justice. That will be the straw that breaks the camel's back - for many, many people. I am not prepared to deal with that and I don't think you are either.

At any rate, I didn't serve for a set of rights. I already have those. I served because I was willing to ensure you also had those rights - without needing to serve. No amount of trying to hand wave it away, no ignoring the links you've been fed, and no attempt to re-interpret the Constitution (which is rather clear in a plain English reading - it lists a single, solitary, reason but does not make it the exclusive reason, it cites it as an example) is going to change that.

If it had said something along the lines of: "in order to ensure discourse between the government in the people, the government shall make no law that infringes on the right to speech, blah blah blah" then what would you think? How about privacy? It's not mentioned at all, by name, and yet we've interpreted it as being in there by inference from other documents and multiple parts. Not only are you selectively reading this one with a bunch of biases, you're also not interpreting it correctly - as is evidenced by the many links you've been given but declined to read.

It doesn't read like you think it does, no matter how you read it. That also includes their not needing to serve in order to have those rights. Those rights are, well, held to be self evident.

Re:From your quote:

[dbIII]

You appear to be advocating the re-interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution

No I'm advocating reading it the old way not the slimy NRA new way that depends on pretending everyone is already a soldier - they are not only lying but spitting in the face of people like you who have served..
You sound like a good person. If you tracked down the people who killed over a hundred US Marines with a bomb I don't think you'd do a deal and sell them more weapons - but that's exactly what one of the NRA board members that is attempting to con you did (Oliver North). This bullshit you have been fed is not about "freedom", it's about getting people angry and assembling a powerful voting block.

Re:From your quote:

[drnb]

The Second Amendment says "well regulated militia", and I assure you the unorganized militia is not well regulated by any definition.

Try reading the entire amendment: "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 unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government.

It parallels the 18th century practice of townsfolk having an armory and periodically drilling while folks in a more rural setting owned their own firearms and were considered familiar and practiced enough through their normal activities such as hunting. "Well regulated" meaning operating at an expected level of performance, not seeking government permission to own firearms. Also this is a current definition, not just an 18th century one. For example see devices that regulate the flow of a gas, named regulators. The deliver a gas at a certain desired pressure or pressure range.

Re:From your quote:

[beastofburdon]

Yes, I do think they can, we outnumber and out-gun them by an overwhelming majority.
Who do you think the original American revolutionaries were? They were not part of the army, they were regular citizens.

Re:From your quote:

[david_thornley]

The original American revolutionaries were incapable of stopping the British more than temporarily. That changed when the Continental Army got some training on how to fight as an army by a German officer.

In the meantime, the difference between a trained soldier and an enthusiastic civilian has become greater.

Re:From your quote:

[david_thornley]

I'm not disagreeing with what you said. I'm saying that the unorganized militia was not, for practical purposes, a militia. It was a legal status. As a member, I was not required to do any specific training, and was never required to be anywhere in particular.

Re:From your quote:

[drnb]

I'm not disagreeing with what you said. I'm saying that the unorganized militia was not, for practical purposes, a militia. It was a legal status. As a member, I was not required to do any specific training, and was never required to be anywhere in particular.

That is the definition of "unorganized" isn't it. Also note that when one complete's military service there is often a time period where one is classified as "inactive reserve" and is not required to train or be anywhere, yet they may immediately be recalled to the military in an emergency. And in an even greater emergency the unorganized militia can be activated and ordered into federal service, in other words conscripted, drafted.

Also unorganized is not merely a legal status. Today the US Army considers it useful for civilians, essentially the unorganized part of the federal militia, to have experience with target shooting. To this end they sponsor tournaments and matches, host them, and even sell rifles (WW2 M1 Garand) to interested participants (after an FBI background check). The stated motivation is "to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[drnb]

Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age

A "well regulated Militia" is what it says and not some silly bullshit about who could join up to a Militia and fight for their country if they had the courage to do so, but do not. This silly sports club definition of a "Militia" being everyone has only stood up so far because they have been donating to the people that should be calling them out on the bullshit.

You are exceptionally ignorant. Did you fail to note I was citing the legal definition of the militia according to federal law?

"10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Re:The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[dbIII]

Yes, I know that, but it only tells half the story doesn't it? If I actually was ignorant I probably would not see that spamming me with this is more fluff and smokescreen to avoid having to answer to the "well regulated" bit.
I probably got sick of this lie before you were born since I'm beyond the cutoff age.

Re:The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[drnb]

Yes, I know that, but it only tells half the story doesn't it? If I actually was ignorant I probably would not see that spamming me with this is more fluff and smokescreen to avoid having to answer to the "well regulated" bit.

Actually if anyone is telling only a fragment of the "story" it is you. Lets examine the entire amendment: "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 unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government and have no need for this right. Only the unorganized need this right.

Re:The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[dbIII]

Why pretend that the OPINION "The unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves" is in there when it is not?
Your interpretation is so utterly stupid that it implies that felons in prison should have the right to be armed.
I really don't get why you kids swallow such shit that is sent in your direction by a very political gun owners union that grew out of a sporting club. Will you be taking lessons from the Teamsters next?
Gun ownership is a responsibility, treating it otherwise is irresponsible.

Re:The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[drnb]

Actually its not me, its the US Army saying that ordinary civilians, the "unorganized militia" in other words, being familiar with target shooting is of value to the military. Hence the US Army's support of a national tournament system. This support not only includes hosting matches on military bases, open military rifles ranges to local shooters to practice occasionally, it also includes selling interested shooters who pass an FBI background check a WWII era rifle, an M-1 Garand. These matches are heavily influenced by basic military marksmanship training, 100 and 300 yard courses of fire in standing, sitting/kneeling and prone positions and using only iron sights (no scopes).

"The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearm safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. Any U.S. citizen who is not legally prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase a military surplus rifle from the CMP, provided they are a member of a CMP affiliated club The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop avoiding the question - it's not about people knowing how to shoot but a well organized group and you know it.

Re:The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop avoiding the question - it's not about people knowing how to shoot but a well organized group and you know it.

Actually no. "Well regulated" as used in the amendment does include how well people shoot, as well as having immediate access to a firearm.

Re:The militia is all abled bodied males ...

[dbIII]

This is the sort of game that really pisses me off about the issue - you keep on pretending to be stupid enough to think that a "well regulated militia" is about individuals learning to shoot. The "I'm too dumb to chew gum" distraction trick may work for cocaine ravaged ex-DJs or at school debates but the level of discussion here is supposed to be beyond that and less heavy on distractions to hide holes in dogma.

Unorganized militia is called up - the draft

[drnb]

then the militia would have been called up

They were, the National Guard did their bit.

The National Guard is only part of the militia, the "organized" part. The "unorganized" part is all able bodied males not in the military, and they have been called up as recently as Vietnam, Korea before that, World War II before that, World War I before that, the Civil War before that. Its called the draft, conscription. The federal militia is part of the legal foundation for conscription.

See other post with Cornell Law School citation regarding the definition of the federal militia.

Re:Unorganized militia is called up - the draft

[dbIII]

So the "unorganized" part is "well regulated"?
How fucking stupid do you think the readers of this site are?
A counter-intuitive argument that relies on being swallowed without question is not only weak, it's incredibly insulting.

Re:Unorganized militia is called up - the draft

[drnb]

So the "unorganized" part is "well regulated"?

Try reading the entire amendment: "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 unorganized part is the people, and being that they are unorganized and not provided with firearms by the government they have the right to keep and bear firearms themselves. The organized part of the militia, the National Guard and Naval Militia are equipped by the government.

It parallels the 18th century practice of townsfolk having an armory and periodically drilling while folks in a more rural setting owned their own firearms and were considered familiar and practiced enough through their normal activities such as hunting. "Well regulated" meaning operating at an expected level of performance, not seeking government permission to own firearms. Also this is a current definition, not just an 18th century one. For example see devices that regulate the flow of a gas, named regulators. The deliver a gas at a certain desired pressure or pressure range.

Re:Unorganized militia is called up - the draft

[dbIII]

meaning operating at an expected level of performance

Thus something as well put together as the National Guard and not a bunch of losers that fail at even promoting basic gun safety like the NRA.

Re:Unorganized militia is called up - the draft

[drnb]

meaning operating at an expected level of performance

Thus something as well put together as the National Guard and not a bunch of losers that fail at even promoting basic gun safety like the NRA.

Wow, your ignorance seems to be boundless. The NRA is the premier organization in the US promoting firearms safety training. That is their primary goal. The political advocacy is a secondary thing they feel forced upon them by those wishing to ban firearms.

Regarding expected level of performance, no one is expecting fully trained soldiers. That is just your straw man. What was expected in the 18th century was someone who was familiar and proficient with their rifle. And to this day such personal experience still benefits the military. Those who excel in marksmanship training often had prior experience before joining the military, these more capable trainees help coach the less capable during basic training. So the 2nd amendment right to personal firearms benefits the military to this day.

Re:Unorganized militia is called up - the draft

[dbIII]

The NRA is the premier organization in the US promoting firearms safety

So they fail on a large scale then while a tinpot town's pistol club may actually succeed for their members.

The political advocacy is a secondary thing

Seriously? You really don't think much of the intelligence of the readers on this site if you are pushing that line. Are you so stupid and ignorant that you believe that yourself? Take a look at the list of board members - it's all about political contacts and PR experience. Their line of thinking is "Why have a skilled marine drill instructor when an actor who played one is available". It acts just like those unions that became politically powerful and gave unions a bad name, although I've never heard of a union that had a traitor that sold weapons to Hezbolla just after they had blown up a hundred marines on the board.

Re:Unorganized militia is called up - the draft

[drnb]

The NRA feels forced into political advocacy because they fear private ownership of firearms will be banned to some large degree without such advocacy. That is not an unfounded fear. If there was no need for such advocacy they would continue on with safety training, tournament organization, etc. Don't confuse being extremely successful at their advocacy with wanting to perform that task in the first place. The NRA's power is derived from its membership, people willing to show up on election day and vote single issue. These members are overwhelmingly motivated to be a part of the NRA to prevent banning of firearms to some degree. Without the fear of such bans NRA members would drop to a very small fraction of what it is today. Its members would be mostly those participating in matches and tournaments and other activities where NRA membership is necessary. There would be no large mass of single issue voters and the NRA's influence would evaporate, they would useless at political advocacy.

I doubt a state could do it,

[John.Banister]

but if a well funded group of Native Americans took no money from the Federal government and wanted to build and maintain an airport on their land, they could probably tell the TSA to take a flying fuck. In fact, if an airplane departing from their airport spent some time flying over international waters, they might be able to charge members of the TSA for having just that experience.

Comrade! You don't know how lucky you are!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember those old 80's movies when the soviet defector would come to the US and comment how great it was that you could travel throughout the USA without travel documents. That was so cute wasn't it. Ahh the good old days of the cold war when the world was still sane.

So I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

... new standards require more stringent proof of identity ...

So I'm guessing, this law demands a federal identity be used to get a state identity. Even if I'm wrong, those states can just tell their citizens to get a passport: It's all about a traceable federal identity anyway. So let's just sidestep clubbing the "states into submission" and go straight to 'Papers please, comrade'. I know some posters have already complained about this law enforcing a de facto passport but it's been on the books for 10 years. That's plenty of time for people to demand its repeal, or to complain about it's illegality. No bureaucrat at the state level has attempted to protect the very citizens that pay their wages.

... start enforcing the Real ID Act ...

Instead of demanding airports accept only federal identity documents, they create a law to secretly make the states issue federal-level identity documents. The fact the US government has "clubbed states into submission", over an unnecessary law, shows its intentions are far from honest. Once again, no-one has complained for 10 years.

More JEWISH nation-wrecking

[Anonymous Coward]

"a national identification card."

Gee... who could possibly want that? Not our Jewish 'masters', surely? It's not as if they have taken over your country and are telling you what to do, which is the exact reverse of what a government is suppose to do in a so-called 'democracy', isn't it?

Private citizens had superior rifles to soldiers

[drnb]

Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency.

If we decide to use the 18th century definition of "regulated", shouldn't we also use the 18th century definition of "Arms"?

We do, a personal firearm. And before you try to make an ill conceived technological argument consider that ordinary citizens in US colonial days actually had firearms of a superior technology than that issued to soldiers by the government. Soldiers were armed with low tech smooth bore muskets. It was militia members that showed up with Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles, firearms that had rifled barrels enabling much greater range and lethality than the government issued weapons. And then in he US Civil War there were regiments that equipped themselves with superior civilian firearms, various incarnations of breach loading or magazine fed repeating rifles, as compared to the muzzle loaders issued by the government. As recently as Vietnam the military had to acquire civilian hunting rifles in order to equip some US snipers. The military failed to develop sniper rifles in that era and the sniper variants of WW1 and WW2 military rifles were obsolete or too few in number or underperformed the hunting rifles of the civilian market.

Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who even flies commercial anymore? With the long queues and delays, unless you're a Richie-rich flying half a continent away or more it's a time loser. Quicker to drive (especially now that speed limits are climbing).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution

[BitZtream]

No.

You need to go take some American History classes or something.

At no point does the constitution say you have to blindly do what someone says. The constitution applies the first round of limits, it doesn't prevent citizens from additional limitations on the government, it does exactly the opposite.

The constitution was written at a time when every single person involved KNEW what a shitty government (a lot like our current one actually) was like and their entire intention of the constitution was to form a government that COULDN'T run all over peoples lives.

And blindly supporting the law makes you retarded, but that seems right up your ally by the way you're talking.

Re:Private citizens had superior rifles to soldier

[Coren22]

Heck, most of the cannon used were privately owned. Cannons on ships were mostly privately owned unless it was a government owned ship.

Also, they had things that were more akin to mortars than rockets that were described in the Star Spangled Banner.

Re:Private citizens had superior rifles to soldier

[KGIII]

It is also of value to note that the Amendment does not specify that the militia is the exclusive reason, it's just a singular enumerated reason - it is justification for the amendment as a specific and not exclusive of other reasons. This has been rather clearly decided on. I own, properly taxed and licensed, two firearms that are capable of burst and fully automatic firing. (One an M-14 and the other an AK-47 which is technically an M22 from China.)

At risk of sounding like I'm trolling (I'm not - I'm completely serious) my reading indicates that the Supremes did not, in fact, follow the letter of the law when challenged. We should be able to own most anything that is not a WMD (I can see a reasonable restriction at that point) so long as we are not a felon. No, I have no problem with someone owning a Browning 30 cal or even Ma Deuce. Yes, I think such should be legal for private ownership. Yes, I think a true reading of the Constitution affords us such liberties. No, I am not worried about the safety implications - damned things are expensive.

And yes, I typed all of that with a straight face. I do understand that I'm in the minority and that the Supremes do not agree with me. I find it unfortunate but there's little I can do about it. I can, technically, own both of those firearms but they must have been made before the ban, they're expensive as hell, and reproductions are not legal. I also can not find anyone willing to sell an M-202 at a reasonable price but I did hear about one coming up at auction at Rock Island in April (I think) of 2016. I'm not sure if I'll bid or not.

That said, I own a couple of firearms that I feel are far better than what I was issued or what /most/ had access to. Of course, this is depending on the job at hand. I have a variety of sidearms that I feel are better than what I was issued when I was an escort/chaser. I have rifles that are probably equal to or better than what is issued in some countries. An example might be, I have a (again, fully legal) Barret, chambered in .50 cal, that was expensive but not prohibitively so - it has decent optics and, with some practice, I'm quite certain I can be quite accurate with it at great distances. I used to have a suppressed .22, custom drilled, from Ruger (Mark II - Target, fluted) but it is expressly forbidden by Maine law so I no longer own such.

Perhaps it is unfortunate but, well, I have a friend who is an avid trader/collector and is also a licensed dealer. I have given that man far more money than I probably should have. In my basement, I have a room that is concrete on all sides and has a steel door that has its frame embedded into the concrete. Inside that are a bunch of safes and boxes and boxes of ammunition. (I am not home to find them again but I posted pics not too long ago - probably within the past year.)

Hell... Back in 2010, or so, I ended up sending someone on /. a few boxes of .22 LR (and some 9 mm, as I recall) because they were unable to find any and wanted to go shooting with their son. It might have been +/- a year? My memory isn't that great. I'd have done so more recently, for a different poster, but it was not long after I left Maine to go on my current wanderlust. I'm that much an aficionado and believer in the right to own firearms - to the point where I'll help others exercise their rights.

By the way, I didn't do the clear out the shelves/hoard thing, I've just been buying boxes of both for years out of habit. I have friends over and we go through a whole lot of ammunition in a single go. Our preparations for hunting season are quite an event and generally, literally, turn into an event with many people showing up - the "event" generally lasts for a weekend or two. We have a semi-private "machine gun shoot" where the proceeds go to DAV. That doesn't take place on my property but I'd hold it here if it had to be. I have one neighbor who can hear loud reports but they don't mind and we've di

Re:National ID - how to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon, since I moderated this thread

I fully endorse other suggestions NOT to use driver licenses for global identification, aside from traffic violations.

Even though the Social Security number wasn't designed that way, it already constitutes a de-facto national ID. Yeah, you don't legally have to reveal it in most places, but that just makes your job harder. So why not make the Social Security card a plastic biometric card with an embedded smart card, and include things like one's photo, one's finger prints, one's retina scans or whatever into that card. As opposed to the paper card with a 'Do not laminate' directive on it? In case of immigrants, also encode their visa status/green card status, as well as marital status (for purposes of H4/J2/L2/K1 visas) in the smart card. That way, the DHS and feds get what they need for security background checks - the fingerprints, background info and so on. ICE can use it to determine whether someone is still LEGAL in the country. As a safeguard, entitle someone to have up to 5 cards, so that they can use one if the other is misplaced.

The above also neatly solves the issue of some states wanting to issue Driver Licenses to illegals. Right now, that is blocked by the basic argument that they shouldn't BE here in the first place, which is correct. However, the states that want to solve the issue of illegals driving cars and getting into traffic violations can now issue them, with the recognition that they won't be used for anything OTHER than traffic violations. While I'm not a fan of giving illegals any documents, for states that want to give them that, this would solve it without making it an identification document at airports or other places. So if one is flying from Seattle to Hawaii and has no intention of driving during the trip, one could go w/ the modified Social Security card, but without the license. Oh, and it also eliminates the need for a person to have a state issued ID card issued to non-drivers.

"right to use air transportation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation.

Where is this enumerated?

If you want to fly without "sanctioned" ID then get your private pilot license (PPL), hop in a Cessna, and have fun.

The 9/11 Commission?

[MagickalMyst]

"the Real ID Act, which was enacted by Congress in 2005 following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."

The 9/11 commission was a fraud. Any recommendation by that group of traitorous criminals should be idly dismissed with extreme prejudice.

Why The Furor?

[Toad-san]

I have serious problems with the Homeland Security Gestapo, as well as the "Patriot Act" itself (the name having made me suspicious right from the start).

However this furor about drivers licenses, ID, the demand for anonymity in all we say and do .. they're losing me on this. I've carried "Federal ID" (US Army ID cards, dependent and then GI) for almost all my life. Never had an issue, never a problem. I _liked_ the feeling of "Oh, okay, you're a good guy!" I'd always get whenever I showed it.

I _like_ the Feds (or whoever) keeping a record of who flies where, even who talks to whom! Red light cameras at intersections? No problem, HOORAY in fact. Security cameras in businesses and other locations? Fine by me! Dash cams everywhere? All right!

Why no worries? Because, usually, I am NOT a criminal, I am NOT hiding my location or activities. You got an issue with that? Tch.

Re:Why The Furor?

[Lodlaiden]

The problem is the honey pot of information that the government has proven they can't handle securing.

Re:2 can play at that game-revoke DL of TSA employ

[thejynxed]

Wrong, because carry/firearms licenses are also not-cross border, that constitutional argument went right out the window.

How Statism creeps up

[mi]

Or, you can cause a lot more damage to people and property with a motorvehicle compared to a bike or a horse, so it needed to be more regulated.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how the Statism sets in. I'm referring not just to this post, but also to the high moderation it achieved. Thank you, mx+b, for this fine example.

Real ID

[laie_techie]

At issue is the true identity of travelers. The linked Wikipedia article has a section on federally mandated standards. When I got my license, I had to provide the same documentation proving my identity and status as when obtaining a US passport. They know my legal name, sex, birth date, and primary residency. I signed swearing this information to be correct (corroborated by submitted evidence). The license has a color photo. Other states do not verify all this information, even providing licenses for illegal immigrants with no indication of legal status.

the Government defines "Voluntary" differently

[anti-disney]

Sounds like the 1980s when states were required to lower their speed limits to 55 MPH or lose federal funding for to maintain highways. States also could lose federal highway funding if their police departments didn't ticket enough motorists for speeding. They would have a sensor placed on the road to count how many motorist are speeding an a stretch of the Interstate highways and if a state has too high of a percentage of speeders vs. citations issues, they could lose highway funding. It sounds like the states will have the right to continue to reject the Real ID act or face consequences such as loss in funding to maintain their airports. States couldn't afford to lose funding (for the 55 MPH speed limit) and complied rather than voluntarily refused to loser the speed limit and even asked the government to reconsider and raise the speed limit to 65 MPH which they did in the late 80s. Now I believe they have freedom to decide their own speed limits. One more hassle when renewing a drivers license when you can simply present fake birth certificates and other fake ID to obtain a fake Real ID drivers license. The Government probably knows it is easy to forge these Real ID cards (by simply supplying fake birth certificates and other documents to obtain it) but like the idea of a centralized database that can be used to track everybody and they can pull up where you have traveled in the past. One more hassle for flying as well. Does the government really believe that terrorists will use Real ID cards that aren't fake? It's still easy to forge a birth certificate and other documentation to have a Real ID card issued to you. The states should truly have the option to opt out of this and so should individuals in states that have voluntarily decided to comply with the Real ID act.

Pick one day

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick one day and not fly. No one, anywhere. You don't accept my ID as valid to fly, I won't fly. The airlines will make more noise than you can imagine and those ID rules will not be enforced. All other businesses that rely on air travel will join in with their complaints too.

Getting enough people to actually do that will be a problem, but one day is all it will take. If there is anything government understands, it's money.

Perhaps just picking a day a few weeks out and promoting it as "No Fly Day" will be enough.

TSA - you want IDs, we've got your IDs right here.

Re:TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the ability to conceal it that the permit requires. In my state its perfectly legal for anyone to strap a sixshooter to their hip, or sling a shotgun/rifle over their back and go for a walk down town.

Perfectly legal, but some 'concerned citizen' will call the police, and they will come and harass & interrogate you, and try to find any other reason to bring you in, because even if it isn't illegal, it is super suspicious and freaks everyone out generating a ton of calls to the police.

Whole thing? How about you try three words?

[dbIII]

"Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency.

Thus a militia, as an organized body, operating quite well, not an individual who can shoot well or a gun in good condition - the militia itself. The two utterly stupid redefinitions of a working gun or a good shot are the foundations to build a house of cards on top.

You want me to read the whole thing but refuse to read three words yourself? Pretending that "well regulated militia" only has two words and that the first two don't refer to running the third is what this steaming pile of cowardly lies is based on.

Army considers civilian sport shooting an asset

[drnb]

You are depending on both the drafters of the constitution being stupid and the readers of your arguments about everyone being an actual soldier instead of a potential one as stupid. It's very insulting both ways.

Not at all. No one is claiming the unorganized militia consists of actual soldiers. That is your manufactured straw man.

That said, unorganized militia of the 18th century often proved useful auxiliaries. In particular the backwoodsman with their Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles since their personal firearms were superior to that issued to soldiers by the government.

For current times prior experience with firearms is a somewhat common factor with recruits who excel at marksmanship training. These higher performing recruits help coach the lower performing recruits during such training. The Army in fact promotes civilian marksmanship because of such benefits. It supports interested civilian shooters by providing obsolete surplus rifles, after an FBI background check, and sponsors tournaments where both military and civilian shooters compete. The civilian shooting expertise enabled by the second amendment among the general US population, that unorganized part of the militia, is considered an asset to the Army.

Re:Whole thing? How about you try three words?

[drnb]

Thus a militia, as an organized body, ...

Federal law says the militia has both organized and unorganized components.

... operating quite well, not an individual who can shoot well or a gun in good condition - the militia itself.

Actually US history shows that unorganized militia with their own personal firearms in good condition, and sometimes superior to military issued firearms, and who were good shots from their own personal experience were in fact quite useful auxiliaries. Read up on the backwoodsmen with Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles.

Today the US Army itself considers ordinary civilians, i.e. unorganized militia, who can shoot well to be an asset. And to promote such civilian marksmanship the US Army sponsor tournaments and even equips shooters with obsolete surplus rifles, after an FBI background check.

"The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

To this day the 2nd amendment right to personal firearms is considered an asset by the US Army.

A driving license has never ...

[RockDoctor]

... been sufficient to get onto a plane. At least, not in this country.

If America has been so slack as that ... well, watch out, or you'll get people hijacking your planes all over the place.

Re:Whole thing? How about you try three words?

[dbIII]

Stop avoiding it and pretending it's about keeping gun in good condition, the three words go together - the drafters were not as stupid as you like to pretend they are. The amendment is about arms for the "well regulated militia" and not a licence for a very political gun owners union (a million miles away from a "well regulated militia" by any stretch) to do anything they like.

Three words go together

[dbIII]

"Well regulated" goes with "militia". Pretending the three don't go together is an act of calling the drafters idiots. Please stop doing that.