Texas wants my thumbprint for a driver's license

[LadyRaven]

Frankly, when people invade the country (which is what an illegal is doing when they come in without the proper permission) the country has the DUTY to protect the citizens and IMO the right to shoot the invaders on sight. I'm sure that's not really popular here, but if it were any other people group besides what is coming over (like say millions of Russians or Millions of Chineese or Millions of Islamists) they would not hesitate to do so if they saw groups rushing the borders.

I know if people behaved like that on my property, I'd certainly shoot them.

Advocating the killing of another human being is not very christianlike.

Tell me...how many deaths do you suppose Christ was responsible for? To my knowledge, none...but then I could be wrong.

To defend oneself or ones loved ones or one's nation is not contrary to scripture. Ehud of Gera in Judges killed the king of the enemies of his people, his act led to 80 yrs of peace.

1 Tim 5:8 teaches that if you can't take care of what is given to you to take care of, then you may as well be an infidel...this includes seeing to their safety and security. Luke 22:36 also provides the guidence for Christians to take up arms in useful self defense. While there are times when we are called upon to turn the other cheek, and sometimes we will be called upon to die, but the whole of scripture does not indicate that we are to be doormats or that we must suffer abuses at the hands of tyranny or foreign invaders.

1 Cor 7:21 also indcates that we are to pursue freedom whenever it is possible. if it is not possible, we aren't to worry about it, but if it is possible, yes by all means do so. Freedom allows people to worship God and spread the gospel without hindrance. It is not always wise to upset the applecart, just like the Christians had no hope of overthrowing the Romans, but just because they did not have the ability to do so does not mean that we in the modern age cannot pursue freedom and defend our homes and our states from hostile forces.

If we were not to believe that we could defend ourselves then we need to all become anarchists, because anarcy means the absence of political authority...and the fundamental reason that government exists is the belief that self defense is right and correct. The whole idea that we can and should defend the right to life libertay and property is the foundation of the US constitution...and it came about because the founders believed that God not only allowed but sanctioned the idea of a state (government) to protect the individual from predators.

[kittyjo]

Seems to me that this is a matter of misplaced faith: Faith in the fear of conspiracy vs, faith in the victorious power of our Lord, our refuge.

Fingerprinting drivers has been done in California and many states for years, it has helped to solve crimes, to preserve justice and vindicate the falsely accused.

In order to work in the gaming industry in Nevada Sherrif or Gaming Cards are required, using photo and fingerprints to I.D., it is a percaution against hiring thieves and to help prevent new hires from theft or violence.

I have no fear in any of this, because the Lord is my strength; my refuge; He protects, preserves and provides for me.... For you too!

I'm not "afraid" of tyranny, however, I will stand against it. I respect what the too-long arm of the law can do to me much more than what it can do for me. The best form of government is self government and I have the right to be treated as if I've done nothing wrong until, in fact, I have done something wrong...not IN CASE I've done something wrong. I have the right to liberty, and the right to privacy. The fact that any state or federal agency thinks that they can regulate that over and above preventing me from hurting you does not mean that it actually has the right to do so. It doesn't.

Hi Raven!

I agree with much of what you say, I as well am no fan of 'Big Government'... Can this be misused? Perhaps, there is potential for misuse, but at this time the benefits outweigh the 'what if' factor. Background checks are needed, I see it as prudent 'preventative medicine'. It is wise to do so these days... I do not expect any employer to trust on face value alone, to do so may result in dire concequences. Many employers also require a lie detector test, TRW, a taped interview, and/or a psychological test that rates honesty. I find that more intrusive than my fingerprint alone.

Those who work in the government; justice system; school systems (teachers); hospitals; care givers; bank employees; security guards and many more have their prints taken for ID and for background checks. In some instances even 'eye prints' are taken. In fact we all have our prints taken (hand and foot), when born at the hospital.

Lets face it we are all 'trackable'. Does anyone here use one of those discount point cards at the supermarket? Your name and every purchase you make is logged into a database, mostly to be used by store and manufaturer's marketing staff... But there is one instance where it was used as evidence in a crime:

A woman suspected for the murder of her husband was found to be lying about her alibi of being out of town. Someone tipped off the police that she was seen in the supermarket... They ran the video tapes and visually ID'd her, but they had to be certain. So, they ran the register tapes and clocked her purchase to the date/time... The clincher was that she used her 'values card', so her name was on the purchase of duct tape, rope and large plastic bags... Ding, ding, ding! They caught their murderer.

FBI Fingerprint Database

DNA Database

Fingerprint FAQ

[kittyjo]

Frankly, when people invade the country (which is what an illegal is doing when they come in without the proper permission) the country has the DUTY to protect the citizens and IMO the right to shoot the invaders on sight. I'm sure that's not really popular here, but if it were any other people group besides what is coming over (like say millions of Russians or Millions of Chineese or Millions of Islamists) they would not hesitate to do so if they saw groups rushing the borders.

I know if people behaved like that on my property, I'd certainly shoot them.

Advocating the killing of another human being is not very christianlike.

Tell me...how many deaths do you suppose Christ was responsible for? To my knowledge, none...but then I could be wrong.

To defend oneself or ones loved ones or one's nation is not contrary to scripture. Ehud of Gera in Judges killed the king of the enemies of his people, his act led to 80 yrs of peace.

1 Tim 5:8 teaches that if you can't take care of what is given to you to take care of, then you may as well be an infidel...this includes seeing to their safety and security. Luke 22:36 also provides the guidence for Christians to take up arms in useful self defense. While there are times when we are called upon to turn the other cheek, and sometimes we will be called upon to die, but the whole of scripture does not indicate that we are to be doormats or that we must suffer abuses at the hands of tyranny or foreign invaders.

1 Cor 7:21 also indcates that we are to pursue freedom whenever it is possible. if it is not possible, we aren't to worry about it, but if it is possible, yes by all means do so. Freedom allows people to worship God and spread the gospel without hindrance. It is not always wise to upset the applecart, just like the Christians had no hope of overthrowing the Romans, but just because they did not have the ability to do so does not mean that we in the modern age cannot pursue freedom and defend our homes and our states from hostile forces.

If we were not to believe that we could defend ourselves then we need to all become anarchists, because anarcy means the absence of political authority...and the fundamental reason that government exists is the belief that self defense is right and correct. The whole idea that we can and should defend the right to life libertay and property is the foundation of the US constitution...and it came about because the founders believed that God not only allowed but sanctioned the idea of a state (government) to protect the individual from predators.

[LadyRaven]

I know if people behaved like that on my property, I'd certainly shoot them.

OUCH Lady -

Note to self: Never drop by to visit LadyRaven without calling ahead first!!

Well, home invaders and visitors (even unplanned ones) do not behave the same way. Visitors do not swarm, they do not seek to force their way in and they do not try to sneak in. They knock on the door and wait for entry. (just like legal aliens ask and get entry)

[Guest LadyC]

Frankly, when people invade the country (which is what an illegal is doing when they come in without the proper permission) the country has the DUTY to protect the citizens and IMO the right to shoot the invaders on sight. I'm sure that's not really popular here, but if it were any other people group besides what is coming over (like say millions of Russians or Millions of Chineese or Millions of Islamists) they would not hesitate to do so if they saw groups rushing the borders.

I know if people behaved like that on my property, I'd certainly shoot them.

Advocating the killing of another human being is not very christianlike.

Tell me...how many deaths do you suppose Christ was responsible for? To my knowledge, none...but then I could be wrong.

God was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. for anyone who believes in the holy trinity, that should count, right?

i agree that it's not very christlike to advocate murder. but if someone came onto my property that i percieved to be a threat to the life of me or my family, i'd shoot them in a heartbeat... if i knew how to load a gun anyway. not all killing is murder.

[Guest LadyC]

When you make ref. to NZ I am assuming you mean New Zealand.

You can't compare NZ to the U.S.

NZ population...4,147,403

U.S. population...299,604,490...and that's not counting the over 11 million illegals within our border's. The population of New York alone is over 8 million.

In land area the U.S. is almost 36 times the size of NZ.

The illegal population here is 3 times that of NZ. And those are just documented illegals.

There is a need for security within our border's that you don't understand. There are thousands of people sneaking across our border's everyday. Many of those people are criminals and I'm sure there are a few terrorists amongst the group. I don't think you have this problem in NZ. I could be wrong...if I am, correct me.

I'm not ripping on your country...I'm just saying there's a big difference. The security needs for the U.S. are much different then that of NZ.

First off I must state absolutely categorically I DID NOT, IN ANY WAY, COMPARE NZ TO AMERICA!! I merely mentioned it to explain my comment about paper licences and point out that a "digi-photo'" on a DL always means that it can be used for face recognition technology which - last I read which was a couple of years ago - was not only highly illegal and banned everywhere, but extremely dangerous and very innacurate.

However, the main point is: Certainly I understand the need for security in a country so large, but are you saying that taking the fingerprints of everyone in the country is for "security"? And if so, how will that provide security against these thousands of people sneaking across the borders?

facial recognition technology is legal in america, and has been used for many years in casinos. (just a little FYI)

[kittyjo]

facial recognition technology is legal in america, and has been used for many years in casinos. (just a little FYI)

Not only that but for some odd reason the security cameras cause polyester (especially black) and all red fabrics to become see through on the monitors. (Another FYI)

[Guest LadyC]

facial recognition technology is legal in america, and has been used for many years in casinos. (just a little FYI)

Not only that but for some odd reason the security cameras cause polyester (especially black) and all red fabrics to become see through on the monitors. (Another FYI)

thanks for the tip kittyjo! i'll quit wearing black polyester tops when i go downtown!

[buckthesystem]

RollinTHUNDER wrote:

"Biscuit,

There is nothing to worry about here. The Bible makes it very clear. The mark of the beast will be one that is placed in either your right hand or forehead. They do not want to mark you with your own thumb print, but rather, they want to keep a record of your prints, probably put on a piece of paper. This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about".

Hmm, "This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about".

So you're bring up the old discredited ridiculous catchphrase of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Do you realise that this is reversing the onus of proof that has always been a cornerstone of democracy? I always though you had your fingerprints taken AFTER you had proved yourself to be a criminal, not BEFORE, or IN CASE YOU MIGHT be a criminal. As for "clearing your name if you are falsely accused" - yeah, right! Do you really believe that?

[Guest LadyC]

RollinTHUNDER wrote:

"Biscuit,

There is nothing to worry about here. The Bible makes it very clear. The mark of the beast will be one that is placed in either your right hand or forehead. They do not want to mark you with your own thumb print, but rather, they want to keep a record of your prints, probably put on a piece of paper. This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about".

Hmm, "This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about".

So you're bring up the old discredited ridiculous catchphrase of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Do you realise that this is reversing the onus of proof that has always been a cornerstone of democracy? I always though you had your fingerprints taken AFTER you had proved yourself to be a criminal, not BEFORE, or IN CASE YOU MIGHT be a criminal. As for "clearing your name if you are falsely accused" - yeah, right! Do you really believe that?

buck, fingerprint analysis is routinely done to eliminate suspects.