California skate park now requires fingerprints to enter

reply to post by ZuluChaka

I am pretty sure nobody has been forced to go to the skate park and skateboard either. You are destroying your own argument.

The difference lies in the licensing scheme. Your game of semantics is the same game all prevaricators play. No one has the right to a license to perform illegal acts. Traveling is not illegal and as such you do not need a license to drive in order to travel. If you want a license to drive this is your choice to make, you cannot however, force your choice on other people.

Where application for a license to drive is a privilege, enjoying the public property of a park is a right, and no amount of semantics will change that, nor will it make you appear to seem any smarter, just zealously in favor of tyranny.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The right to travel is inalienable and cannot be construed as an illegal act.

Once again you are reigning havoc on your own argument. So you and I earlier established that you must be fingerpinted to get a passport and now you established that travel is an inalieable right. So then according to what you are saying then it must be a violation of our rights to be fingerprinted to get a passport or really even being made to get a passport would limit our inalienable rights to both privacy and travel to have to get a passport to travel.

it's a skate park for gods sake.....

why the hell does it need to have access control ??? If they tried to pull this at my local park there would be riots.... I guess it's just another way TPTB are conditioning the youth of today for a future of limited rights

instead of the technology why not just have the sites staffed and have a small skate friendly crew of security.....

amazing how in the space of 30 years the TPTB have taken skateboarding and pushed it away from it original roots.... anything to make a buck i guess

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Where application for a license to drive is a privilege, enjoying the public property of a park is a right, and no amount of semantics will change that, nor will it make you appear to seem any smarter, just zealously in favor of tyranny.

Earlier you inserted a quote that included roads in the definition of public property. So just as driving on a publc roadway is a privelege skateboarding or even using facilities or walking in a public park is also a privelege that could be subject to regulations. For example, many parks have restrictions on hours to use the park or a limitation on certain things you can do in the park. Are you saying those violate your "rights" to the public park?

"If those people in this thread who are advocating an oppressive state, actually cared about your child, they would be volunteering to help monitor the parks in which your child would play, instead of advocating tyranny."

These mentally incapacitated individuals you are referring to prefer to give the nanny state the responsibility to keep their children safe. They have the gross misconception that fingerprinting some lowlife will prevent him from committing a crime. They have no clue as to the potential for massive abuse regarding such unconstitutional regulations. These brain dead morons are the reason why these draconian, inhumane, tyrannical and invasive laws are passed with little or no resistance.

This same nanny state has been successful in creating an entire generation of boneheads who are conditioned to support knee jerk solutions which do little to solve crime problems, and go a long way towards reinforcing a tyrannical police state. As you've stated, these gullible idiots do not mind being treated like criminals at every turn because they have no respect for the rule of law.

If you think anyone on this planet can guarantee you safety in exchange for giving up freedom, you are certainly a candidate for a brain scan. The people who have been brainwashed to advocate and swallow this load of rubbish hook, line and sinker are a cancer to free society.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

Once again you are reigning havoc on your own argument. So you and I earlier established that you must be fingerpinted to get a passport and now you established that travel is an inalieable right.

It is not I who is reigning havoc on my own argument, it is you doing so and relying on continual prevarications in a hopeless attempt to make my arguments seem as if they are what you say they are. I most certainly did not establish that you must get fingerprinted in order to get a passport, I established that obtaining a passport is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the government. No one needs a passport in order to travel. The evidence of this lies in the fact that here in the U.S. where the right to travel is protected by law, passports are not required.

So then according to what you are saying then it must be a violation of our rights to be fingerprinted to get a passport or really even being made to get a passport would limit our inalienable rights to both privacy and travel to have to get a passport to travel.

Here is the game you play, as all who are ill equipped to actually debate facts tend to play. It is called the "according to you" game, or "by your logic" game. The game is to pretend that you are fairly representing what your opponent has said by twisting their language to support your own argument. More importantly, I am relying on points of law, not merely opinion, (which is all you have offered, opinion), in order to support my arguments. No one needs a passport in order to travel. A passport is not the granting of a right, it is the granting of a privilege, and travel is not the privilege being granted. Identification is the privilege being granted. Learn the Law!

As usual, first they impede on the privacy and rights of an unpopular segment of society. Inch by inch it progresses until every one of us is swallowed in it. Fingerprints for your driver's license, fingerprints to get a job, fingerprints here fingerprints there. Once people are sick of having to show ID and do bio-scans all the time a great new alternative will be offered. A chip.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

No one needs a passport in order to travel.

My good friend, I apologize if I have done anything to offend you or misrepresnt your words. Trust me, it was not intentional. I was just pointing out where you were wrong and how you are twisting your logic around in a way that is counter to your own argument. Basically, I am just trying to help a brotha out.

I suggest you try boarding an international flight without your passport and then come back and tell me you dont need a passport to travel.

reply to post by ZuluChaka

I suggest you try boarding an international flight without your passport and then come back and tell me you dont need a passport to travel.

I suggest you ask why it is you need a passport to travel internationally when none is required to travel from state to state within the United States of America. I suggest you ask why it is that by pointing to governments who willingly abrogate and derogate the right to travel is sound reasoning as to the non existence of a right. I suggest you ask yourself that if tyranny can erase rights, what in God's name makes you think that tyrant will respect rights? I am only trying to help a brotha out.

Either we fight together defending fundamental rights, or we remain divided protecting the divine right doctrine of kings and tyrants. It is an either/or situation, and the more you come to cherish your own rights, the more you will come to understand this. If they are your rights, they are my rights, and if they are our rights they are every persons rights. The abrogation and derogation of another persons rights does not make anyone of us safe, nor does it prevent crime. All it can accomplish is strengthening the resolve of petty tyrants.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I have never said whether I agree that it is my preference to have to have a passport to travel internationally or whether it is right to make some one to get fingerprinted to go to a skate park. I am just simply saying that it is constitutional.

Personally, I would have just closed the park down if it was crime ridden or sold it to a private entity, because why in the hell is the government in the entertainment business in the first place. What next, they going to open government funded movie theaters to compete with private business?

The thing is that when people overstep the constitutional argument, like I believe you have done here, then it becomes like crying wolf and then when we scream and yell at the times they really do overstep the constitution it has less impact.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by ZuluChaka

I have never said whether I agree that it is my preference to have to have a passport to travel internationally or whether it is right to make some one to get fingerprinted to go to a skate park. I am just simply saying that it is constitutional.

Simply stating it is Constitutional doesn't make it Constitutional, and where I have pointed to the actual Constitution in question and effectively shown that it is not Constitutional, you have steadfastly refused to point to any part of that same Constitution that would empower government to override the inalienable rights of individuals. Demanding acquiescence of finger printing is not Constitutional, regardless of how many times you say it is.

Personally, I would have just closed the park down if it was crime ridden or sold it to a private entity, because why in the hell is the government in the entertainment business in the first place. What next, they going to open government funded movie theaters to compete with private business?

Again, you have willfully ignored the Supreme Law of the Land to offer instead your personal opinion as the more valid suggestion. The right to public parks is spoken to in the same Declaration of Rights that protects privacy and due process of law:

"Public work or improvement" means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility, common carrier or other similar projects such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a State or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public work or improvement.

~Article I, Section 19, Clause 5; Declaration of Rights California State Constitution~

You really do not have much respect for the law do you?

The thing is that when people overstep the constitutional argument, like I believe you have done here, then it becomes like crying wolf and then when we scream and yell at the times they really do overstep the constitution it has less impact.

The thing is that I keep pointing to the actual Constitution in order to support my arguments, and you fail to point to any form of law whatsoever in order to make your arguments, which now include your opinion that I have "overstepped" Constitutional arguments. Wolves in sheep clothing are still wolves.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Demanding acquiescence of finger printing is not Constitutional, regardless of how many times you say it is.

You are right that "Demanding acquiescence of finger printing is not Constitutional". However, havng people get fingerprinted to engage in a privelege such as skating in a skate park, public or otherwise, is completely constitutional as long as they are free to decline getting fingerprinted by choosing not to use the facility. Is it really that hard to understand the difference. One is forcing you against your will, unconstitutional. The other gives you a choice to either do it to gain the privelege to use the facility or decline to do it and loose the privelege, constitutional.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well I see that you have logged off for the night. I appreciate debating with you and I must say you are one determined woman, even if I disagree with you. I am going to make you a friend, hope you do not mind.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by ZuluChaka

However, havng people get fingerprinted to engage in a privelege such as skating in a skate park, public or otherwise, is completely constitutional as long as they are free to decline getting fingerprinted by choosing not to use the facility.

Skateboarding is not a privilege it is a right, and you simply calling it a privilege doesn't make it so. Since the right to parks and recreation is clearly stated as a right within the Declaration of Rights it is irrefutably a right and most certainly not a privilege. However, a right need not be enumerated by Constitution in order for it to be a right. The 9th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America makes that clear, and the 14th Amendment makes all states subject to the Bill of Rights within the Constitution for the United States of America.

No matter how you slice it, you have no legal authority to by whim declare what is and what is not a right. Rights are understood to be that which causes no harm, unless such harm is caused in the defense of life, liberty or property. Skateboarding in and of itself causes no harm, and certainly skateboarding in a public park expressly created for the purpose of skateboarding causes no harm and as such is a right, not a privilege.

You keep attempting to frame the fingerprinting rule as Constitutional by insisting that people have the choice to not enter the park. People had that choice prior to the fingerprinting rule, now those who wish to assert their right to privacy are denied access to their fundamental right to enjoy access to that public park unless they give up their fundamental right to privacy and I have shown how the rights exist and I have shown that by Constitution. What have you shown other than your opinion?

Is it really that hard to understand the difference.

Are you asking me, or you thinking out loud? Clearly you have a hard time understanding the difference between what is a right and what is a privilege, but that would make sense given your willful ignorance of the law. Even so, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. You quite simply do not have the right to abrogate and derogate the rights of others, and why you keep insisting you do is beyond me, but it reveals your character clearly, and you are not about freedom, brotha.

One is forcing you against your will, unconstitutional. The other gives you a choice to either do it to gain the privelege to use the facility or decline to do it and loose the privelege, constitutional.

In spite of the fact that I showed you the precise section and clause of the California Constitution where parks and recreation is a right, you insist on calling it a privilege. You have taken a page out of Mein Kampf and clearly believe that if you yell a lie loud enough and long enough that it will come to be believed as the truth. Fortunately, there is the law to refute your lies. You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream La-la-la-la-la-la-I can't hear you-la-la-la-la-la-la, all you want. The truth will set you free my brotha, lying is just a trap.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Well I see that you have logged off for the night. I appreciate debating with you and I must say you are one determined woman, even if I disagree with you. I am going to make you a friend, hope you do not mind.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

I don't know why it shows me as logged off, as I have not done so yet. I am happy to have you as a friend, my brother, even if I fear you are less for freedom than I would prefer. However, I am not a woman, I am a man, and stubbornly so. As my friend, I would prefer in the future you not call me a woman. I adore women, but thank God daily that I do not have to squat when I pee.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Glad you are back.
LMAO! Skateboarding is not a right. Skateboarding is an activity.

So according to your line of thought, every law banning skateboarding anywhere is uncostitutional because it violates a persons rights. Show me any constitution from any government where skate boarding is specifcally stated to be an inalieable right.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


OMG... I am so sorry. I just assumed you were a woman, because I have an Aunt named Jean. Around here usually spelling it like Jean is generally for women and spelliing it Gene is usually for men. I guess it is different in different parts of the country.

My bad. You not what they say about assuming. Once again my apologies.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am actually all for freedom. Personally, I dont think the government even has a right to build a skate park or a swimmng pool or any other thing that competes with private business, because it is unfair competition.

It is ok for them to have parks to protect the land and create greeen space because it is good for the environment and the community and it a park doesnt realy compete with private business, because it would be hard to turn a profit with a park, but I bet someone has.

However, parks shouldnt be allowed to build BMX tracks and stuff like that because their are private companies out their doing that and how can you compete with a goverment that can just bleed money and raise taxes when their business plan sucks.

I am all for super compressing governement down to the bare minimum so we can regain our freedoms. So I bet we think a lot alike.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by ZuluChaka

LMAO! Skateboarding is not a right. Skateboarding is an activity.

Life is an activity...well, for most people it is. Speech is an activity. Press is an activity. Worshiping religion is an activity. Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is an activity. Baring arms is an activity. All of these are fundamental and inalienable rights. Do you understand?

So according to your line of thought, every law banning skateboarding anywhere is uncostitutional because it violates a persons rights.

There you go again playing the "according to you" game. We are discussing the right to skateboard in a park expressly designed for skateboarding, are we not? That is what this thread is about is it not?

Here is the deal, rights are rights in as much as they do not abrogate or derogate another persons right. The right to skateboarding does not give one the right to trespass. The right to skateboarding does not give one the right to block the free passage of others. Do you understand?

Show me any constitution from any government where skate boarding is specifcally stated to be an inalieable right.

(Sigh)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

~9th Amendment, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution for the United States of America~

Do you not understand the meaning of the 9th Amendment? Did you not understand the meaning of Article I, Section 1 of the Declaration of Rights in the California Constitution? Allow me to post it again:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Do you need it explained to you what it means to be free and independent by nature? This means that people do not need a Constitutional grant of a right in order to enjoy that right. That is also what the 9th Amendment means. Do you understand?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Skateboarding is wherever on the planet you want is not a right. In most cities you cannot just skateboard up and down the sidewalks of the main business district.

Just because they build a park just for skateboarding doesnt mean they cannot set rules and stipulations for use of the park. They set rules and stipulations on park use all the time for almost every park. Just because it is a public park doesnt mean you can do whatever you want, or that using the park may require you to do something in order to gain access tothe park. Where I live they charge you for a sticker to go to the parks in the area. That is not unconstitutional. Just a pain in the ass.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]