H1N1 leading to a "Police State" ???

This is a discussion on H1N1 leading to a "Police State" ??? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; On FoxNews.com today ... Scary, possible, but not probable in my opinion. An uncontrollable, deadly virus ravages America, shutting down civilian institutions and triggering martial ...

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: H1N1 leading to a "Police State" ???

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array jfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palm Beach County, FL
    Posts
    1,485

    H1N1 leading to a "Police State" ???

    On FoxNews.com today ...

    Scary, possible, but not probable in my opinion.

    An uncontrollable, deadly virus ravages America, shutting down civilian institutions and triggering martial law. Vaccinations are compulsory, and there are mass quarantines throughout the country.

    It's the stuff of Hollywood — but rumors that it could be real are spreading like the flu in the blogosphere, where some people are loudly expressing their fears that the federal government is seriously considering such measures as it maps out a worst-case-scenario response to the swine flu pandemic.

    During the bird flu scare of 2005, the Bush administration added novel forms of influenza — including the swine flu — to the official list of "quarantinable communicable diseases," clearing the way for the forced detention of people who exhibit symptoms of the disease.

    Now a proposal awaiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates' approval would allow the military to set up regional teams to assist civilian authorities in dealing with the impact of the swine flu pandemic. And some observers see this level of government preparedness as little more than a pretext for tyranny.

    "The implications are far reaching," Michel Chossudovsky wrote on the Global Research Web site, which averages 18,000 visitors daily. "The decision points toward the establishment of a police state," he said.

    "It would be extremely troubling and raise serious constitutional questions," Chris Calabre, ACLU counsel for technology and liberty, told FOXNews.com when asked how the civil liberties group would react to mandatory quarantines. "We opposed this in 2005 and will do so again because it gives the government blanket authority to hold anyone and has no due process."
    The first rule of a gunfight: "Don't be there !"
    The second rule: "Bring enough gun"

    jfl
    (NRA Life Member/Instructor - GOA - IDPA - GSSF - ex-IHMSA)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array 2ndsupporter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    737
    Yet another avenue of power they pursue!
    [One Nation Under God]

  4. #3
    Member Array cz2075bd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    272

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Government has always had the power of the quarantine to isolate. It has the power to mandate vaccination, and has had that pretty much since the small pox vaccine was invented.

    There have been plenty of court rulings that where the exigencies of public health are involved, Uncle and The States have the power to protect us--even from ourselves.

    We have forcibly put people in leaper colonies, in specialized hospitals for tuberculosis, in isolation for being a carrier of typhoid fever, and more. In the 19th century we isolated communities when there were outbreaks of typhoid and shigellosis.

    H1N1 is unlikely to be sufficient a public health issue for any such measures to be put in place, but other things that pop up from time to time could be.

    When there is a high probability of a mass epidemic we get a choice. Cooperate with public health officials and do the things the public health authorities require of us, or be utterly selfish and foolish and possibly lose our lives and the lives of those close to us to disease.

    We have been remarkably lax in controlling several epidemics by not quarantining those who are infected. That is because as a practical matter government has chosen insofar as possible to favor freedom over the quarantine and isolation; using those as a last resort. That however, doesn't mean the latter two can't be used when necessary. There isn't a State or Federal court that will uphold individuals against the government in a crisis requiring use of the quarantine. Nor should there be. I don't want someone else endangering me by their careless and selfish behavior and I don't want to endanger someone else by adhering to a paranoid fearfulness that might cause me to disobey those who know what must be done to protect us.

    The folks who argue against government power in situations like this remind me of the stubborn individuals who last year refused to heed evacuation orders during the hurricane that hit Galveston/Bolivar Island; then drowned themselves. Hey, they made a great political statement about their right to defy authority.

  6. #5
    Member Array doctruptwn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    281

    Now a proposal awaiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates' approval would allow the military to set up regional teams to assist civilian authorities in dealing with the impact of the swine flu pandemic
    Nothing new. They already have teams in place for all kinds of things. All the locals have to do is go through the governor's office and request the resources.
    Kansas Concealed Carry Website

    NRA/Ks. Firearms instructor
    Cheif Range Safety Officer

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Government has always had the power of the quarantine to isolate. It has the power to mandate vaccination, and has had that pretty much since the small pox vaccine was invented.

    There have been plenty of court rulings that where the exigencies of public health are involved, Uncle and The States have the power to protect us--even from ourselves.

    We have forcibly put people in leaper colonies, in specialized hospitals for tuberculosis, in isolation for being a carrier of typhoid fever, and more. In the 19th century we isolated communities when there were outbreaks of typhoid and shigellosis.

    H1N1 is unlikely to be sufficient a public health issue for any such measures to be put in place, but other things that pop up from time to time could be.

    When there is a high probability of a mass epidemic we get a choice. Cooperate with public health officials and do the things the public health authorities require of us, or be utterly selfish and foolish and possibly lose our lives and the lives of those close to us to disease.

    We have been remarkably lax in controlling several epidemics by not quarantining those who are infected. That is because as a practical matter government has chosen insofar as possible to favor freedom over the quarantine and isolation; using those as a last resort. That however, doesn't mean the latter two can't be used when necessary. There isn't a State or Federal court that will uphold individuals against the government in a crisis requiring use of the quarantine. Nor should there be. I don't want someone else endangering me by their careless and selfish behavior and I don't want to endanger someone else by adhering to a paranoid fearfulness that might cause me to disobey those who know what must be done to protect us.

    The folks who argue against government power in situations like this remind me of the stubborn individuals who last year refused to heed evacuation orders during the hurricane that hit Galveston/Bolivar Island; then drowned themselves. Hey, they made a great political statement about their right to defy authority.
    +1

    Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves, or it costs the others millions of dollars and many lives to bail them out later.
    When Katrina hit many did not take warning and had to be rescued later and complained that rescue wasn't fast enough. Had they listened instead of staying put their would have been no rescue therefore leaving resources to deal with other issues.
    I don't want to get into a debate about the problems with the feds response during and after Katrina. I just used it as an example of people needing to be protected a times.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  8. #7
    Member Array cz2075bd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves
    I see your point on this, but also, this is the same reason the anti-2A'ers will give for rounding up your guns.

    The fact is that the swine flu is mild and not really any worse than regular seasonal flu (unless/until it mutates to become more deadly). If it does not mutate, mandatory vaccines would be a violation of civil liberties. A forced vaccination program, where, potentially, armed LEO's will accompany a nurse door-to-door to make sure you and your's are vaccinated, would indeed be symptomatic of a police state. I'm not saying, if it comes to this, to decline the vaccine, and I'm certainly not saying to excersise your 2A rights in declining the vaccine, but I also get irritated when the "keep your hands off my body" liberals force a vaccination. If they roll out a new vaccination this fall, that means it was developed in about 6 months. Normally to develop and test a vaccine it takes 12-18 months so this vaccine won't be guaranteed safe. In the 1976 swine flu outbreak at Fort Dix, President Ford launched a mandatory vaccine program and at least 500 people contracted the paralyzing Guillain-Barré syndrome from the vaccine. For the new vaccine, will it be thimerosal free? Thimerosal is a preservative that contains high levels of mercury and is commonly used in vaccines. It has been linked to autism and SIDS in children. So have administering multiple vaccines in too short a period, and administering vaccines while a child's immunity is concurrently weakened by some ailment such as a cold or sinus infection. Will a mandatory vaccine program make accomodations for these circumstances, or will it be take the needle at gunpoint?

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570

    No one is talking about forced H1N1 vaccination

    Quote Originally Posted by cz2075bd View Post
    I see your point on this, but also, this is the same reason the anti-2A'ers will give for rounding up your guns.

    The fact is that the swine flu is mild and not really any worse than regular seasonal flu (unless/until it mutates to become more deadly).
    Relax. No one is talking about any such thing as forced vaccination for H1N1, though it wouldn't be such a bad idea for school kids.

    It has been said many times that our constitution isn't a suicide pact.

    If folks need to be vaccinated and that is the best judgment of the public health officials, by golly, I'm going to be the first on line if I can get there. My wife will be second. My kiddo, right in front of me if I can push him there.

    This isn't a civil rights issue.

    Now, as a practical matter, it doesn't take 100% compliance with a vaccination program to kill off an epidemic. Few epidemics will propagate if even about half the folks are vaccinated. That is because
    there are always folks who are naturally resistant, others who simply won't ever get exposed, and transmission isn't necessarily highly efficient.

    So, stand on line or not as you wish for your flu shots when they come out. Hopefully more than half of us will not see this as some big brother conspiracy, and we will have a mild season.

    Added-- Guillaine Barre syndrome (and several related neurological difficulties) can occur from a variety of infections, and vaccination isn't the primary cause.

    If you are going to be afraid of things, or afraid of your government as well, at least base the fear on fact and not myth.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    +1

    Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves, or it costs the others millions of dollars and many lives to bail them out later.
    When Katrina hit many did not take warning and had to be rescued later and complained that rescue wasn't fast enough. Had they listened instead of staying put their would have been no rescue therefore leaving resources to deal with other issues.
    I don't want to get into a debate about the problems with the feds response during and after Katrina. I just used it as an example of people needing to be protected a times.
    Katrina is not a good comparrison with a virus. A person should be able to decide for themselves in that case, it only endangers them. Refusing flu precautions could endanger many others as well as themselves.

    Michael

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Katrina is not a good comparrison with a virus. A person should be able to decide for themselves in that case, it only endangers them. Refusing flu precautions could endanger many others as well as themselves.

    Michael
    Sure it is, read the sentence right before the one you highlighted. The people who did not leave before Katrina, risked the lives of many who would later have to render aide to rescue them. When you do not evacuate from a natural disaster you are risking the lives of many rescuers not only your own.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. "Blue Force Gear" and "eCop! Police Supply" Review
    By Medic218 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 30th, 2012, 05:31 PM
  2. "Handgun Dispute Roils Colorado State University"
    By Skippys in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 10th, 2010, 06:45 PM
  3. Washington State lawmakers to seek ban on "military-style" weapons!!!!
    By swatspyder in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: February 5th, 2010, 08:53 PM
  4. 23 State Attorneys General To AG Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"
    By sigman232 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 19th, 2009, 03:09 PM
  5. "(AP) Armed state senator foils alleged burglary by teens"
    By osanmike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 21st, 2006, 01:39 PM