Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:17:46 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Representative government
means just that; *my* Senator or Congressman should reflect
*my* concerns, not the citizens of France. If he does,
then he pays the political price for not doing what *I*
want him to do.

Well, I hope most of his constituents want him not act as if the US is
in a world of its own.

To be more specific, maybe every poster on rta isn't entitled to have
his beliefs stated and considered by the US government but I believe
governments should have a voice in how their citizens are treated at
immigration in other countries. Freedom travel is essential to getting
business done and I personally think it's right up there with other
major human freedoms. In that sense your congressman should indeed
consider the concerns of the gov't of France and a bunch of other
countries.

"tadaa" wrote in :

Shooting the crims was a public service.

Well I think that Government should take more active role in this
to make
the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in
case.

And they all realistically admit that they cannot and do not provide
individual protection for any citizen.The police cannot be everywhere
at all times.

So,practically speaking,you are on your own.It's just a matter of
what level of defensive weaponry your government allows you to have.

Note that the criminals are NOT likewise restricted.

I'm not proposing a bodyguard to every citizen. More in line of making
the society safer and tackling the source of the problem. Poverty,
unemployment, drugs etc.

I don't know of any country that has a handle on poverty,unemployment or
drugs.Do you?


If I lived in Baghdad I would definately get a firearm, but that
should not be the case in modern western country. If you really need
firearms to defend yourself there is something to be fixed.


Like there are NO crimes in Finland? No murders,no rapes,no robberies,no
burglaries,no assaults?
Individuals have widely differing security needs.A free society recognizes
that,and allows it's citizens the means and the right to defend themselves.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

nobody wrote:

But if a government captures your own body's information
(fingerprints, DNA, eye retina scan etc), then they "own"
part of your body/identity.

Ahhh, those commies are trying to affect the "purity of my vital bodily
fluids". **

(** General Jack D. Ripper - from Dr. Strangelove.)

Peter Kemp wrote in
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote in
m:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby
wrote:

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and
I can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
admittedly a miserable git?

Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a
crime,and not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?

Two reasons, because in the UK burglarly doesn't carry a death penalty

Does the UK have the death penalty for any crime?


without trial, especially when there was no risk to life or limb, and
I have not a huge amount of sympathy for someone who shot a teenager
in the back using an illegal weapon he obtained for that express
purpose. I have sympathy for his previous burglaries, but consider
that human life is somewhat more valuable than property. I suspect we
disagree.

I don't consider ALL human life as being more valuable than -my-
property.Some people aren't worth the air they breathe.



Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.

Shooting a person is not always a death sentence,often the criminals are
merely wounded,and apprehended while seeking medical treatment for gunshot
wounds.But it's their choice,their risk.


One has to draw the line somewhere;the guy should not have to suffer
repeated burglaries,and he HAD tried the police with no effect.I don't
believe in "career criminals" either;there should be some point at which
the "career criminal" loses their life,rather than have them continue their
life of crime,or live comfortably in prison,at the citizen's expense.If you
don't want to get shot,don't commit burglaries.Let the criminals bear the
risks,not the ordinary decent citizens.Your way just protects the criminals
in the commission of their crimes,in essence enabling them.When such
burglaries becomes too risky,burglaries decrease,a public
service.Burglaries cost everyone money.

What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

Kind of hard to hit the target from a moving platform,and stray rounds
would negatively impact others.And 'speeding' is a relative
term,anyways.IMO,not always a crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

"Big Brother" is not restricted to totalitarian regimes. Again, being a
democracy, does it make it better that they take photos and fingerprints
from everybody?

But I don't see you complaining about the *real* Big Brother problem of
all of the security cameras in England...

I don't consider that a particular problem, since they aren't
automatically tracking my whereabouts. It is no worse than the systems
already in place in the US. Have you looked at the ceiling in your
local Walmart to see how many cameras they have?

The problem I have with taking fingerprints is that they are
specifically using them to track people, and marry up to central
databases of info on what I read in libraries, who I send Emails to, and
what I purchase with my credit card. That is a much more insidious
agenda than simply replacing the beat policeman's eyes with a camera.

Good idea. Let's all pass out assault weapons so the terrorists can get
hold of them more easily. And don't register them, so you can't find
them.

Another fool who thinks that outlawing and/or registering firearms will
keep criminals and terrorists from getting them...

My intent was to expose the inconsistency in your argument. You have no
problem with the government tracking peoples movements and maintaining a
database on your activities, but complain about the simple registration
of firearms, when you acknowledge that is a waste of time.

Peter Kemp wrote in
:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area,
when the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.

So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
fast over there.

No, I never claimed the police are not responsible for policing.

For the last time - in the UK you are entitled to use *reasonable
force* to defend *your life*, not your property, and if you have the
chance to run, then you should.

No,you should not have to flee a criminal,regardless of whether it's a
property theft or a act of violence.That's simply protecting crimminals
more than ODCs.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at
the wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered?

"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence.

Not really. If I walk up to a drug dealer and shoot him, it;s still
murder if it's premeditated and not self defence. The fact he's a git
has nothing to do with it.

How about if he's shooting up one of your kids? There is such a thing as
justifiable homicide.


In this case it was * very* premeditated (obtaining an illegal shotgun
for the purpose), and it's hard to claim self defence when you shoot
someone who didn't threaten you and whom is running away.

If he didn't want to risk
his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
while committing a potentially-violent crime.

I'm not, I'm criticising the bugger who shot him. There is a
difference.

Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?

Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the
old guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?

No, they would have burgled the house and no one would have been hurt.

And just how does one be certain of that? Until after the burglary is over
and no one is harmed,it's solely up to the criminal.Things can change very
rapidly.Why should a ODC have to take such risks? To protect a lousy
criminal? No.Let the criminal bear the risks.


I tend to believe that human life is more valuabel than mere
possesions.

Not all human life.The right to own property is a basic human freedom.
Having to allow others to take that property without due process is anti-
freedom.It's also cowardly.

Certainly nothing I own is worth more than my life.
Except your life -is- at risk during a burglary.There IS a threat implied
by the burglar;leave me to take your possessions or suffer physical
harm.The burglar could decide to not leave any witnesses,could take a
liking to your pretty daughter or wife,or maybe want the ring that will not
come off your wife's finger,and he's willing to hack it off with a knife.

That's
what is insurance is for.

Insurance costs everyone.
IOW,you're willing to spread the costs of your tolerance for crime to
everyone else.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Peter Kemp wrote in
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:



Shooting the crims was a public service.

Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.
What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

You obviously don't know the difference between a civil traffic violation
and a felony crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Stephen Harding wrote:

Well the US and Europe are going their separate ways. I'm hoping
the divorce is a rapid one personally, and certainly better for
both I've come to believe.

There is an old saying that people who fail to learn from history are
destined to repeat it.

In the case of isolationism, the US has tried that numerous times
before, and has thoroughly regretted it each time. You had better
rethink you position.

George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

George Z. Bush wrote:


You might be right if the world was driven only by political idealogies.
Unfortunately, we live in a global economy, like it or not, and it'll be a

very

cold day in hell when US corporations divorce themselves from their
international trading partners. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to
happen, 'cause it's not going to happen any time soon.

Absolutely true. I was speaking only in a political alliance
sense.

The business world is global and there's no getting around it,
nor should we want to. I'm all for businesses fighting it out
around the world, but no American blood or treasure to keep
some government in power or feeling secure; that means S.
Korea, Taiwan, Japan or even UK if it came to such a thing.

It means no NATO, WTF, IMF, World Bank or whatever. UN is OK
for debating practice.

Back to good old George Washington's admonition, "no entangling
foreign alliances".


That'd be peachy keen in his day, when it took a couple of months to cross the
Atlantic, but now it's only a couple of hours via SST. The world has changed,
and no one has yet discovered how to make the clock run backwards in order for
us to not have to make adjustments.

George Z.

Not quite that bad. Now that they've junked the SSTs it's a safer
place. Still hours but a reasonable number of them. FFM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

In message , Stephen Harding
writes
I have no intention of shooting anyone.

Agree fully with Stephen on this: back when I was a pistol shooter I
cheerfully massacred hordes of cardboard silhouettes with no intention
of finding live targets, and that applied to everyone I knew who shot:
we enjoyed socialising while turning live rounds into empty cases, and
trying to improve our grouping or our course times or both.

Massachusetts
law doesn't let you off the hook if you shoot someone
that has broken into your home. You are required to
leave the premises if escape is possible.

As a side note, in the UK "duty of retreat" doesn't apply in your home:
you're allowed to use whatever means are reasonable and necessary to
defend yourself if attacked there.



Yes,it's just the definition of "reasonable and necessary" that's
questionable,arbitrary,and vague.

IMO,once they're in my home,they're a threat to my life.
You cannot consider it otherwise,there's always that possibility.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net