Posted on 02/27/2005 7:13:06 AM PST by TheBlackFeather
He's unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID
SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghpostgazette.com ...
Officer Friendly: You were going 45 in a 35 zone.
Cultural Jihad : The last sign I saw was 45, whats the problem.
Officer Friendly: Well the 35 mile sign got taken down to be repainted...
Cultural Jihad : Well then give me the ticket, I will gladly pay it because you asked...
Apparently it is easier to identify people by their motives than by their credentials.
Yeah. How many of us have THAT option?
If you do not drive, the motor vehicle bureau can issue you a "non-driver" ID which you can use to cash your welfare check or ride on an airplane.
After all, if a policeman pulls him over, he (Jihad) must have done something to deserve it.
He is not one to question authority.
Sorry, but the arguments are stupid. No, they are not saying that. They are saying that you cannot enter a privately owned jetliner unless they have a reasonable idea of who you are, so that they can check to see if you are on a terrorist check list.As a fellow passenger, I think that this privately owned company has a responsibility to provide a reasonable amount of security for me. And I am sure that their insurrance carrier feel the same way.
(b) In fact, the British soldiers were not "confiscating guns" but were trying to take the armory of an organized militia. The conflict had escalated quite far by that point and the reaasons for that escalation were self-rule and taxation.
Unlucky number. Try a 12 next time.
If you stop emoting long enough to think about what you write and the questions you pose, you wouldn't sound so silly.
The cards that most of us have applied for were obtained when we were 16 or younger and just as unaware of true liberty as you are now -- whatever your age.
Does your driver's license make you or anyone else a safer driver? Are you safer that mine was issued 30 some years ago and I haven't been tested since? Were you in grave danger a few years ago when I refused to renew mine and drove for 3 years without it?
You place too much trust in the government to make you feel safe. Do you rely on 911 or are you armed to defend yourself?
You don't have to answer that. It's rhetorical. I don't ask anyone to reveal whether they are armed or not. It's no one's business.
Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant. The argument that "why do something if there are ways around it?" is something like the programmer's credo: "never trap for a condition you don't know how to handle."
In this case checking for ID is closing one in a series of doors. The fact that there are other doors doesn't change the fact that this door is closed.
Because a single solution can be bypassed in extreme cases means you should not implement the solution?
Inelegant reasoning -- mostly the ravings of a lunatic.
So we don't know the reason, you are guessing one of your cites might apply. Of course then Mr. Gilmore would be free to question whether the gov't has the authority asserted. Did you check your Constitution lately? When was it amended to allow a police state?
The fact of the war on terror not being a declared war (tho I have argued otherwise) has implications, mainly that the gov't may not assert authority on the grounds it is wartime.
"The Declaration is speaking of the overall purpose of government. The Preamble to the Constitution, in contrast, is speaking only of the reasons for adopting this Constitution. The purpose of a particular constitution is a lesser question than the purpose of government. A nation can have a government without having a constitution. It would not be wise, of course; but it can be done."
"Specifically the Preamble to our Constitution mentions six reasons for supporting the Constitution. Those six reasons are:"
"[1.] form a more perfect Union,
[2.] establish Justice,
[3.] insure domestic Tranquility,
[4.] provide for the common defense,
[5.] promote the general Welfare, and
[6.] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
"It is obvious from this list that the reasons given are those in favor of adopting this Constitution as opposed to a continuation of the Articles of Confederation. The preamble does not presume to be a statement of the overall purpose of government. It should also be observed that if the Preamble to the Constitution actually did elevate the common good to the same level as protection of the unalienable rights, then it also elevates national defense and the other goals to the same level. No one seems to want to make that case, however, further illustrating the error in the position of the national standards."
"...Well yes I do have to right to fly in safety Mr. Troll..."
YGPYEO, that is rich! You're a FReeper since 11/2004 and you're calling Palmer (who has been on this board since 10/1999) a troll. Get a grip on yourself.
The amount of governmental bootlicking seen on this thread in "support" of the War on TerrorTM is nauseating. I'm sure you're a big fan of those random DMV license/insurance/registration checkpoints, too.
~ Blue Jays ~
My bad, I meant MOLE :0)
Thank you for bringing historical accuracy into this discussion. Though I side with the group who did not want to ennumerate the rights, it doesn't matter anymore. We see it demonstrated in this thread that the ability to intellectually defend individual rights is almost non-existent anymore. We will all be in chains soon enough, sadly.
On international flights from drug exporting countries, yes. I don't believe that I've ever heard of a case of an in country flight being used for that purpose. Nor has any of the millions of such searches yielded anything but a free feel for an obnoxious screener.
I forgot that you are a drug warrior too. Are you getting rich off that war or do you just feel safer when American citizens are harassed by LEOs?
Just out of curiosity, what do you think about the National Firearms Act of 1934?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.