I have noticed that the people whom cry the loudest about their rights being abused are often the ones whom need their rights abused.
Have you never noticed how criminals always cry about "fair"?
I am not accusing anyone here, (although I bet there are a few who need scrutinized, its just statistically impossible to have 2,000 law abiding members) but I have always believed that only those with something to hide need worry. The other day when I mentioned the DNA sample being taken in the future for Drivers licenses, I am 100% in support of such an action. Its no more intrusive than putting up cameras at traffic lights to solve who hit whom in an accident.
I may be an over optimistic fool, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

I'm sure you dont mean cry as an insult, but people can and will pick up on that word in a negative way.

I dont see how anyone is crying over this anyways, it is our responsibility as patriotic Americans to question and review any change (or possibe change) to our civil liberties.


The people in power serve us, not the other way around.

Your problem is, you don't even know how to propose an opposite viewpoint without blatantly insulting the other side. What makes you think for a moment that you are knowledgeable enough to say the words "That post is so wrong"
Its perfectly acceptable in most societies to have an opposing viewpoint, but to claim higher standards enough to boast emphatically that another individual just has to be wrong is arrogant as hell.
So you do not like the idea. Who the hell are you? Just one individual, same as I.
Get off your high horse and perhaps next time we can have an adult conversation.

That post is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. I'm not a criminal, but I sure as hell don't want the government to have my DNA. I don't run red lights, but I loathe the idea of cameras on every corner.

Sadly "People" are usually the ones whom cause the need for things to be. In the case of the traffic light cameras for instance. How many Erin Brockovich's do you suppose there are out there who now fully support and appreciate the idea that now there will be a chance of winning their lawsuit? How sad is it that the lights need installed? How sad is it that now some altruistic assholes what them removed because the solution can be abused? Face it, anything can be abused all one can do is hope that the times are minimized by observant individuals caring enough to want it so.

(1)
What gives you the idea that the government is so altruistic that it will be responsible with your data? It is just run by people, who are fallible. And even if you trust them now, who knows who will be running the country 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the road?

Here again, face it. The government will have your DNA eventually anyway. What they do with it may or may not be abused but the benefit to even one crime solution makes it worth all. Ask yourself, what price would you pay to have your son's killer found? Your wifes rapist located and identified? Of course the system could abuse it, but why center your attention on the negative. People like you sound like people of old who were scared of inoculations. Yes people died sometimes but the benefit of saving one life? How can you place a price on that. Perhaps its merely a case of me being on the opposite extreme than yourself but I chose to be optimistic where you chose to be not. In the end they will have your DNA and which one of us will be miserable about it and which not? You are choosing to be miserable.

(2)
Your argument shifts the burden of proof from the people proposing the changes to the people opposing them. If the government wants to curtail civil liberties, it had better have a damn good reason for doing so - its not enough to not have any particularly bad reasons.

Placing blame? I? The actions are bound to happen, why not reduce the impact a trifle by acknowledging this fact and moving forward? As they used to say, "The proof is in the pudding". Why not allow the changes to happen then cry? Why cry in advance? Is it because the government has proven in the past that it is untrustworthy? DOH!, Name some organization that hasn't been. Any at all. Even the Churches and Medical fields have done this and few complain.

(3)
All the time you hear about the government limiting civil liberties. Do you ever hear about them broadening civil liberties? With the exception of massive radical and often violent movements (such as civil war, the civil rights movement, etc) basically the answer is no. Consider the long-term implications of this: the gov't is like a black hole without hawking radiation - slowly but surely eating up civil liberties but never giving any back. Doh.

Sadly, I feel perhaps we have to many already and thats why most complain. They have forgotten what its like to not have it bad. Also, many perceive rights that they do not have. Rights are not fluid, they do not overlap like water in a pond. You right to do something cannot supersede someone else's right for you to not do it. Perhaps this is an over simplistic viewpoint but it is also a very real one as well. I see things daily that should never even be a consideration as to "liberties"

I have some pretty narrow views on certain liberties already being considered so don't preach to me that we have no new ones being considered.