Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: DNA Collection

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    Don't be surprised if one day we have to submit DNA and fingerprints for owning/buying a gun. If this passes, it's only a matter of time before misdemeanors qualify as well. Then traffic offenses. Then it will be an administrative requirement for carrying. Etc.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo.../80148687.html

    It would be nice if people could see two feet in front of themselves. Hopefully Van Hollen has some weight on the issue.


    edit: On a side note, if you read the last part of the story you will read about the effort to felonize (is that a word?) another traffic offense. Whether that's a good idea or not, this is another group of people who lose 2A rights. Why? What does one have to do with the other? I believe I mentioned on this forum a while back that we have this continuing tendency to revoke your abilities/rights in one area for violating something completely unrelated.

    We have to stop accepting this false logic that we can take rights away from people for reasons that have nothing to do with the rights being taken away. Who will be left when they want to take my rights away?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    gbu28 wrote:
    Don't be surprised if one day we have to submit DNA and fingerprints for owning/buying a gun. If this passes, it's only a matter of time before misdemeanors qualify as well. Then traffic offenses. Then it will be an administrative requirement for carrying. Etc.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo.../80148687.html

    It would be nice if people could see two feet in front of themselves. Hopefully Van Hollen has some weight on the issue.


    edit: On a side note, if you read the last part of the story you will read about the effort to felonize (is that a word?) another traffic offense. Whether that's a good idea or not, this is another group of people who lose 2A rights. Why? What does one have to do with the other? I believe I mentioned on this forum a while back that we have this continuing tendency to revoke your abilities/rights in one area for violating something completely unrelated.

    We have to stop accepting this false logic that we can take rights away from people for reasons that have nothing to do with the rights being taken away. Who will be left when they want to take my rights away?
    welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave <<< sarcasm.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  3. #3
    Regular Member Optimus Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    They took a DNA sample of me way back when I reported for basic... pretty much anybody who was in the service in the last 20+ years or so will be on record already.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.
    agreed , the crimes that you can be charged a felony for have been increasing for the last 200 years. everytime a new law is added to the books, gives them a new reason to charge you with a felony, it will only get worse not better. soon spiting on the sidewalk will be a felony or not wearing your seat belt. If they make every infraction a felony then they can take away your rights & you will allow it. I love living in a democratic totalitarian police state. The only way to end this practice is to end this country & start over. we need a book burning in this country, burn 99 % of the law books.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    Quite true. When I was growing up, I understood a felon to be a very dangerous person. One to keep your distance from. Now it means much less.

    Not unlike when I hear someone is a sex offender. That term has lost much meaning now that I don't know, without researching it further, whether a given 30 year old guy classified as a sex offender is a guy who grabbed a 6 year old girl off the street or is a guy who at 18 got caught sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend, or someone in between (I have to do background checks on occasion).

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    In other jurisdictions, felony is a condition of punishment, a felon is liable to more than 365 days of incarceration.

    I was in a jury pool, one hundred people in that county. Judge Eggleston spent a long while lecturing on just what is a felony. Then he directed all felons and potential felons to approach his bench. Twenty only of us remained seated.

    Given that a repeat drunk driver may be a felon if this bill passes, will you as juror convict a repeat drunk driver and make him a felon? Too bad the legislature will not listen to us that can nullify the law.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    I like the idea of collecting on CONVICTION. Arrest? That's ridiculous. When are these idiots going to spend ONLY WHAT THEY HAVE?

    And Doug, FIRST OFFENSE DWI should be a felony. I would feel GREAT finding a man or woman guilty of a felony in that case.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Given that a repeat drunk driver may be a felon if this bill passes, will you as juror convict a repeat drunk driver and make him a felon?* Too bad the legislature will not listen to us that can nullify the law.

    I would not convict on a simple OWI 4th offense. Many reasons for this. Primary being that .08 is too low let alone the .02 legal limit for a fourth. Even the mother who founded MADD split company with the organization because she felt they were too 'Nazi' over lowering the limit to unreasonable levels. Second, a simple bac is no indication in and of itself whether someone is impaired or not. It's simply a catch-all. Kind of like a disorderly conduct charge. If they can't get you on anything else, it's the default that's almost impossible to win. And third, if it's only an OWI (i.e. no accidents/injuries/deaths) it shouldn't be a felony. If any of those other elements exist, it is a different set of or additional charges that will be felonies when charged.

    It's simply a feel good measure. If someone kills someone else while intoxicated (or fleeing after robbing a bank, etc), there are felony charges that can be brought for those specific things.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    thelongone13 wrote:
    FIRST OFFENSE DWI should be a felony. I would feel GREAT finding a man or woman guilty of a felony in that case.
    Since the BAL has been lowered to .08, would you still consider someone borderline on BACa felon worthy of losing most of their rights and forfeit ever owning a firearm ever again?

    So the new secretary at the office (little miss Fifi 1-shot at a whole 102 pounds) has 2 glasses of wine, gets stopped for a license plate obstruction because it is coveredwith snow, the cop smells alcohol, and she should become a convicted felon due to this? So she can no longer own a firearm, or most any other defensive weapon to defend herself against scumbag with rape on their mind.
    A little harsh, don't ya think ?

    What if Fifi's husband happens to own firearms, should he nowbe forcedto get rid of his guns because his wife had a 1/2 glass of wine too much after a rough day of work?

    Since the BAC has been lowered from .10 down to .08, I have not had more than 1 single beer at a bar or with dinner, the .08 limitis ridiculously low IMO, and it is nothing more than increased revenue generation for the insurance companies and local governments.


    Then lets look at "Heidi the Drunken bartender/bitch from hell waitress" she just got convicted for her 10'th DWI in WI, but she only gets sentenced to 36 days of Huber release, that's it!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.
    Really? Has anyone you know been killed by a drunk driver? A responsible person would NEVER drive intoxicated. EVER. Some countries KILL second offenders.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    thelongone13 wrote:
    FIRST OFFENSE DWI should be a felony. I would feel GREAT finding a man or woman guilty of a felony in that case.
    Since the BAL has been lowered to .08, would you still consider someone borderline on BACa felon worthy of losing most of their rights and forfeit ever owning a firearm ever again?

    So the new secretary at the office (little miss Fifi 1-shot at a whole 102 pounds) has 2 glasses of wine, gets stopped for a license plate obstruction because it is coveredwith snow, the cop smells alcohol, and she should become a convicted felon due to this? So she can no longer own a firearm, or most any other defensive weapon to defend herself against scumbag with rape on their mind.
    A little harsh, don't ya think ?

    What if Fifi's husband happens to own firearms, should he nowbe forcedto get rid of his guns because his wife had a 1/2 glass of wine too much after a rough day of work?

    Since the BAC has been lowered from .10 down to .08, I have not had more than 1 single beer at a bar or with dinner, the .08 limitis ridiculously low IMO, and it is nothing more than increased revenue generation for the insurance companies and local governments.


    Then lets look at "Heidi the Drunken bartender/bitch from hell waitress" she just got convicted for her 10'th DWI in WI, but she only gets sentenced to 36 days of Huber release, that's it!!
    Yes, I would as a matter of fact. If you are planning on drinking, find alternate transportation. That simple. I'd be fine with a zero-tolerance DWI law. Drunken driving does kill in and of itself.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    thelongone13 wrote:
    Really? Has anyone you know been killed by a drunk driver? A responsible person would NEVER drive intoxicated. EVER. Some countries KILL second offenders.
    First, regarding zero tolerance. A quick wikipedia check about bac in other countries shows the following to have zero tolerance:
    Romania
    Saudi Arabia
    Slovakia
    United Arab Emirates
    Brazil
    Bangladesh
    Czech Republic
    Hungary

    I can't speak for anyone else, but the day the US strives to be any of these countries will be a sad day.

    And now for the above quote. An emotional response to a personal circumstance. As humans, we're usually not the best decision makers when we use emotional pain to guide us in making difficult decisions. I don't have that personal experience but I have had many experiences of me and my family members being harmed in various ways by people. In fact, I try hard to make a point of it not to use my personal experiences when making these sorts of decisions. Whether something happens to you or not, a rational thought process must prevail.

    You say a responsible person would never drive intoxicated. You clearly have not thought about your statement. Let's look at the wikipedia def of intoxicated:

    "Intoxication is the state of being affected by one or more psychoactive drugs."

    Psychoactive drugs include aspirin, ibuprofen, and the biggest culprit caffeine.

    So your statement means people who use all these things while driving should be felons. Now of course we both know that isn't what you meant. My purpose for stating it is in my opinion you're using irrational thought to make judgments. Judgments which can affect people in real ways, including yourself if you're not careful.

    Nobody is saying drunk driving should be a slap on the wrist. Of course it's serious. Of course we need to reduce it to as near zero as possible. But would you argue that someone convicted of owi 4 times should lose 2A rights? Should they lose 1A rights? How about African-Americans? Should they lose their 13A rights? Can we put them back in bondage? I don't see a relationship between automatically losing 2A rights with being a felon, considering that being a convicted felon is increasingly becoming a result of feel good measures and less the result of someone who has a violent, dangerous disposition committing societies most despicable crimes?.

    If you are saying it's okay with you for a person convicted of drunk driving to lose 2A rights, and I'm not positive you are saying so, would you kindly share with me the rationale for losing 2A rights over a driving offense? I'm honestly curious as to your line of thinking. And if so, would you also be in favor of losing the other rights I mentioned? And if not, why the difference?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Look here at the contrasts among how we regard the 'rights' to go armed, to drive and to enjoy our bodies. Absolutely stunning ignorance.

    Not to mention, on OP topic, the right to privacy in our persons, effects and papers.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Driving isn't a right, Doug, it's a privilege. It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

    I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea. I would hope it would cut down the number of drunk-driving related deaths on our roads.

    And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

    Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know. Maybe I live in the wrong state... At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I do not believe anyone is defending drunken driving, it seems to me that those opposed to your idea feel that the penalty should fit the crime a little better.

    Then we get into the liberal-mindsettwistedend of things where they defend a drunks actions by saying "it is a disease, they can't help themselves, it isn't their fault, Etc Etc Etc."

    I am speaking of "Buzzed Driving" when I say your intended penalties are harsher than they need to be.

    What do youthink about someone taking legally prescribed drugs for a medical condition, do you feel they shouldlose their rights to own firearms?

    I have lost friends due to intoxicated drivers, I have also been hit by a drunk driver and required hospitalization and surgeries due to the wreck. What would you suggest be doneabout old drivers, should they lose their rights due to their age and not being as mentally fit as they once were.

    Should talking or texting, on a cell phone be a felony too, since it is just as irresponsible and avoidable? the skills lost during texting while driving has been compared to be 700% more likely to cause a wreck, so should those inattentive drivers be felons too?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    thelongone13 wrote:
    It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

    I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea.

    And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

    Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know.

    At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.
    Response to statement #1:
    Permanently revoked? So a 20 year old female has 2 glasses of wine at dinner, feels fine drives home. On the way, she is pulled over for a tail light out. Officer smells alcohol, gives breath test, she's 0.08. In your world view, she is revoked permanently, never to drive again. Sorry, that's insanity. Here's a link for you, I think it'll fit your nazi sense of justice.
    http://www.livinginsingapore.org/

    Response to statement #2:
    Zero tolerance is ridiculous. If I'm point 0.001, your world view would ban me from driving forever. What a silly, silly indefensible position.

    Response to statement #3:
    So people show a complete lack of responsibility and utter disregard for safety. Interesting. Someone like that should have their children taken away also. Hell, if they can't be trusted to handle an inanimate object such as a firearm, it's outright dangerous to leave them in charge of innocent children. In fact, I would say it's so dangerous, we should ban them from, let's say 1000 ft of all school zones. We'd probably be wise to create an online offender list so we can all keep track of these dangerous individuals. And don't forget about doctors, police officers, teachers, child care workers. On second thought, drunk drivers are really sort of like horses with broken legs. They really are too irresponsible for this world. We would probably be better off just shooting them in the head on the side of the road. Hell, saves taxpayer money that way.

    Response to statement #4:
    You're trying to defend against an argument that nobody is making. Again, your logic is deeply flawed. As Nutz said, it's an argument of appropriate punishment, not an argument
    on whether it should be punished.

    Response to statement #5:
    This tells me all I need to know about you. My only question is, you were either beat up a lot in high school, or your stepdad beat the shite out of you?

    I do feel sorry for the people of Little Chute having to deal with little Miss 'You Better Show Me Respect Because I Wear A Gun And A Badge'.

  19. #19
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    thelongone13 wrote:
    Driving isn't a right, Doug, it's a privilege. It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

    I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea. I would hope it would cut down the number of drunk-driving related deaths on our roads.

    And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

    Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know. Maybe I live in the wrong state... At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.
    I agree 100%. Bummer is that our "justice" system does not look to even want to start thinking of DWI as a real crime. A crack smoker, or a pot smokeris a problem, but a drunk driver is a joke...? I do not understand the idea...

    I like the three strike idea, but that is even a bit week... You want to "play" with the life of my family, you should pay... Someday soon, I am sure you will.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    .... soon spiting on the sidewalk will be a felony ....

    It IS a felony in Baltimore. Goes back to some outbreak (I don't recall which) as an effort to stop the spread of the disease.

    Anywho, DNA collection should be saved for those CONVICTED of a violent crime, if at all. Simple OWI/DWI does not (should not) qualify. An arbitrary number used as the basis for just how impaired someone actually is is rediculous. And yes, I have been affected by a drunk driver - he hit me as I crossed the street - headtrauma and lingering back problems suck!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    gbu28 wrote:
    thelongone13 wrote:
    It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

    I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea.

    And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

    Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know.

    At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.
    Response to statement #1:
    Permanently revoked? So a 20 year old female has 2 glasses of wine at dinner, feels fine drives home. On the way, she is pulled over for a tail light out. Officer smells alcohol, gives breath test, she's 0.08. In your world view, she is revoked permanently, never to drive again. Sorry, that's insanity. Here's a link for you, I think it'll fit your nazi sense of justice.
    http://www.livinginsingapore.org/

    Response to statement #2:
    Zero tolerance is ridiculous. If I'm point 0.001, your world view would ban me from driving forever. What a silly, silly indefensible position.

    Response to statement #3:
    So people show a complete lack of responsibility and utter disregard for safety. Interesting. Someone like that should have their children taken away also. Hell, if they can't be trusted to handle an inanimate object such as a firearm, it's outright dangerous to leave them in charge of innocent children. In fact, I would say it's so dangerous, we should ban them from, let's say 1000 ft of all school zones. We'd probably be wise to create an online offender list so we can all keep track of these dangerous individuals. And don't forget about doctors, police officers, teachers, child care workers. On second thought, drunk drivers are really sort of like horses with broken legs. They really are too irresponsible for this world. We would probably be better off just shooting them in the head on the side of the road. Hell, saves taxpayer money that way.

    Response to statement #4:
    You're trying to defend against an argument that nobody is making. Again, your logic is deeply flawed. As Nutz said, it's an argument of appropriate punishment, not an argument
    on whether it should be punished.

    Response to statement #5:
    This tells me all I need to know about you. My only question is, you were either beat up a lot in high school, or your stepdad beat the @#$%e out of you?

    I do feel sorry for the people of Little Chute having to deal with little Miss 'You Better Show Me Respect Because I Wear A Gun And A Badge'
    If you plan on drinking alcohol, don't drive. It really is that simple. So get a designated driver and build a bridge & get over it already.

    Responding to statement 5: I have no stepdad. I was not beat up at all in high school. You make assumptions about me and have never met me. I don't come from some trashy family where beating the snot out of kids is accepted practice. You're only making yourself look like a complete tool.



    AaronS: Exactly my sentiments.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Doug is correct when he says "we may all be legally disbarred by suffieciently lowering the bar of "felony"". We already have an example of that in Wisconsin re. school zones. First offense for carrying a dangerous weapon other than a firearm in a school zone carries a first time penalty of a Class A misdemeanor. First offense for carrying a loaded visible firearm in a school zone is a felony. No question that firearms are singled out.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    thelongone13 wrote:
    Driving isn't a right, Doug, it's a privilege.

    [ ... ]

    At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.
    You haven't read here long or enough to know my thoughts on driving as a privilege. In a word, I stopped counting my bicycling miles at 50,000.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth. <<-- that might be you 'long gone'.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Shiela Harsdorf is my Senate representative. She asked for my comments concerning the "DNA Bill". My response was along the line of A.G. VanHollen. I responded that under the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions a person is considered innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. To subject an accused but still presummed innocent person to an involuntary bodily invasion to collect a DNA sample is in my opinion an infringement of their civil rights. I seldom disagree with Harsdorf's position on issues, but on this one I do.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    thelonggone13:

    Despite my earlier comments, nothing personal to you as an individual. I'm sure you're a fine individual.

    As far as your thoughts on this topic...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •