Defensive Carry banner

201 - 220 of 290 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
let's see....
lose your job
lose your business
lose your life

seems like the choice is a no brainer. but then I suppose there are people who have no brains.

by the end of this weekend we should be closing in on 1 million cases in the US. that's quite a number considering where we were just a a month ago. Can't help but wonder where we'll be a year from now. Looks like, if what they are saying about the virus having mutated into 30 different strains is accurate, the likelihood of an effective vaccine that will completely eliminate it from the global population is low, no matter when they develop and release it. If they can't figure out how to stop just one strain in short time, how are they going to find a way to stop 30 or more?

Better get your Road Warrior gear together before everyone else beats you to it and hoards the supply!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
Texas has one of the lowest deaths per capita so far, 22 per million. There are 13 states with over 100 per million, so Houston is not a universal example.
That means there are 37 with less than 100 per million. The reporting is also questionable in many places. We know the numbers are being inflated in many, maybe all areas of the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
let's see....
lose your job
lose your business
lose your life

seems like the choice is a no brainer. but then I suppose there are people who have no brains.
bu the end of this weekend we should be closing in on 1 million cases in the US. that's quite a number considering where we were just a a month ago.
same could be said about driving cars. In fact, Im more likely do die in a car accident than from COVID. 1 million cases? Lol. Probably more than that. Its funny though that people make 1 million cases sound like a lot. There are many more flu cases than that each year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WC145 and msgt/ret

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
same could be said about driving cars. In fact, Im more likely do die in a car accident than from COVID. 1 million cases? Lol. Probably more than that. Its funny though that people make 1 million cases sound like a lot. There are many more flu cases than that each year.
I agree, but 52,000 body bags is also a lot of body bags for the short time we've been dealing with this. At this rate we'll be looking at 500,000 deaths in the US by end of the year. And I suspect the 'collateral damage' number that is being considered by our Govt is probably in the 250,000 range.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,365 Posts
[1] Whether it's the least restrictive way to respond can't be determined now. There's still much to be learned about the epidemiology of COVID-19, and the states had to respond based on imperfect information. They have variously chosen to be more or less aggressive in their responses, and all can be argued for. It's easy to say it's not as bad as was feared; also easy to point out that NY had already lost 0.1% of its population. [2] There's just not enough evidence to judge shutdowns as overly restrictive at this point.

Yes, the US is a new country with new laws, but it's also a common law country. [3] The control of disease didn't simply disappear from the police power when independence was declared. I would guess that, if you asked Franklin or Madison whether the protection of free speech included the right to pack into taverns during an outbreak of plague, they'd have said no.
[1] If you had made this admission in a court as a Government attorney arguing in favor of a lock down, you would have lost your case. The burden of proof is on the Government, and to say it cannot be determined would be an admission the Government cannot make its case.

[2] Not enough evidence to judge shutdowns as overly restrictive - you have your burden backwards. The burden is on the Government to prove it is the least restrictive means, not on the plaintiff to prove that it is not. There must be enough evidence to find the shutdown as a narrowly tailored, least restrictive means to respond to a viral outbreak.

[3] Again, a false equivalence. I am not arguing the Government cannot take steps to control disease. I am arguing that the Constitution places limits on what the Government can do to control disease. Those two are not the same.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,384 Posts
"But given the virulent disagreements we see between individuals it makes us pretty sad that some people are downright disrespectful of those who are at risk."

This may be one of the rare instances when a "virulent disagreement" truly is.

My personal opinion either way isn't likely to influence any future actions so...I'll abstain.


Interesting conversation though so carry on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,024 Posts
I have no plan to deal with this, and I'm sticking to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmf552 and Poorly

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
I agree, but 52,000 body bags is also a lot of body bags for the short time we've been dealing with this. At this rate we'll be looking at 500,000 deaths in the US by end of the year. And I suspect the 'collateral damage' number that is being considered by our Govt is probably in the 250,000 range.
We aren’t looking at 500,000 deaths. We dont even have 50000 dead people who have tested positive for COVID, much less 50,000 people who are actually dead because of it. The numbers are BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WC145 and Recon1342

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
same could be said about driving cars. In fact, Im more likely do die in a car accident than from COVID.
This is clearly not true. In the USA, during more normal times the automobile death toll is 104 deaths per day. COVID is currently claiming around 2,000 lives per day. Your chances of dying from COVID are around 20x higher for COVID than an auto crash, actually even higher than that given the drop in highway deaths due to the shutdown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
This is clearly not true. In the USA, during more normal times the automobile death toll is 104 deaths per day. COVID is currently claiming around 2,000 lives per day. Your chances of dying from COVID are around 20x higher for COVID than an auto crash, actually even higher than that given the drop in highway deaths due to the shutdown.
104 per day for 365 days a year. We are not on a path to see 2000 covid deaths per day. In fact, when all is said and done, we may not even have one day of 2000 covid deaths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WC145

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
104 per day for 365 days a year. We are not on a path to see 2000 covid deaths per day. In fact, when all is said and done, we may not even have one day of 2000 covid deaths.
We are currently seeing 2K COVID deaths/day, 1959 yesterday, 2340 on Apr 23, 2358 on Apr. 22, and that number will increase significantly when the lockdowns are raised. It is very clear, your chances of dying from COVID this year are MUCH greater than your chance of dying in a traffic accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,212 Posts
[1] If you had made this admission in a court as a Government attorney arguing in favor of a lock down, you would have lost your case. The burden of proof is on the Government, and to say it cannot be determined would be an admission the Government cannot make its case.

[2] Not enough evidence to judge shutdowns as overly restrictive - you have your burden backwards. The burden is on the Government to prove it is the least restrictive means, not on the plaintiff to prove that it is not. There must be enough evidence to find the shutdown as a narrowly tailored, least restrictive means to respond to a viral outbreak.

[3] Again, a false equivalence. I am not arguing the Government cannot take steps to control disease. I am arguing that the Constitution places limits on what the Government can do to control disease. Those two are not the same.
We're not arguing in court. I'm sure somebody will file a suit over something related to this, and if it gets to the Supreme Court maybe we'll know the answer. The government doesn't have to apply a strict scrutiny test and prove its case before implementing emergency measures. As the SCOTUS said in Jacobson v Massachusetts, regarding debate on the benefits of vaccination:

“The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive, for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
We are currently seeing 2K COVID deaths/day, 1959 yesterday, 2340 on Apr 23, 2358 on Apr. 22, and that number will increase significantly when the lockdowns are raised. It is very clear, your chances of dying from COVID this year are MUCH greater than your chance of dying in a traffic accident.
No they aren’t. Dying because of covid is not the same as dying and coincidentally having covid. Also, having covid and maybe having covid are not the same thing. Yet all of these are counted as COVID deaths. More than 1/3 of the covid deaths in NYC have never tested positive for COVID. You say the number will increase significantly when the lockdowns raised, but no they really won’t. All the lockdowns have done was drag out the same outcome and increase the burden on the rest of the country at best. At worst, they have caused more deaths.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
No they aren’t. Dying because of covid is not the same as dying and coincidentally having covid. Also, having covid and maybe having covid are not the same thing. Yet all of these are counted as COVID deaths. More than 1/3 of the covid deaths in NYC have never tested positive for COVID. You say the number will increase significantly when the lockdowns raised, but no they really won’t. All the lockdowns have done was drag out the same outcome and increase the burden on the rest of the country at best. At worst, they have caused more deaths.
So, dying with symptoms consistent with COVID but not having tested positive, in a large part due to limited availability of testing, means that person did not die of COVID? Got it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
So, dying with symptoms consistent with COVID but not having tested positive, in a large part due to limited availability of testing, means that person did not die of COVID? Got it!
We have limited testing to only people who show symptoms. In Texas, we are seeing about 10% positive, in NY, we are seeing about 40% positive. So no, having symptoms does not mean someone has COVID.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,452 Posts
Discussion Starter #216
I spoke to a friend yesterday who is an attorney and has a home in Blaine County, Idaho which has had one of the highest per capita death rates from C-19 in the U.S. He personally knows 18 people who have been infected, and two who have died. His wife has had it, and he still is recovering from it. He is in his 50s and has two stents, but to look at him you would normally think he is pretty health, and is a very active person. He says he feels like hell still and basically has no stamina after a month of having been "recovered."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sister

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,365 Posts
[1]We're not arguing in court. I'm sure somebody will file a suit over something related to this, and if it gets to the Supreme Court maybe we'll know the answer. The government doesn't have to apply a strict scrutiny test and prove its case before implementing emergency measures. As the SCOTUS said in [2] Jacobson v Massachusetts, regarding debate on the benefits of vaccination:

“The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive, for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases.”
[1] If a rationale for an argument is that we are not in court, then anything goes. Strict scrutiny be darned? Sorry, but that makes no sense. The basis of an argument for the exercise of police powers, or to determine whether to enact laws or rules, is whether the law or rule is constitutional in the first place, not whether someone will challenge it. Officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That means they are to pass laws that they believe are to be constitutional.

[2] Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were within the power of the state. Mandatory vaccinations are a far cry from precluding meeting with friends, precluding visiting other homes, precluding attending church services, precluding purchasing "non-essential items" as deemed by a governor, precluding people from conducting business that are deemed "non-essential" by a state governor, and so on. More generally, the facts of Jacobson are very different from the facts of the present day lock downs - it's holding of the exercise of the police power over the individual is not a broad holding that the exercise of police power over all individual rights in times of emergency is Constitutional.


Riddle me this:

Why is it Constitutional to allow citizens to go to grocery stores and touch products that others may have touched, but it is now unlawful to attend drive-in masses in a church parking lot without leaving your car?

Why is it constitutional to deem it unlawful to buy seeds at gardening stores, to grow vegetables, while it is lawful to purchase candy bars at grocery stores in Michigan?

Why is it Constitutional to force a business owner to close of up shop for months, and not allow the business owner to come up with his or her own solutions to mitigate spread while conducting business?

These are just some examples of government overreach, and these are questions that government officials should answer before enacting such rules, not after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,212 Posts
[1] If a rationale for an argument is that we are not in court, then anything goes. Strict scrutiny be darned? Sorry, but that makes no sense. The basis of an argument for the exercise of police powers, or to determine whether to enact laws or rules, is whether the law or rule is constitutional in the first place, not whether someone will challenge it. Officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That means they are to pass laws that they believe are to be constitutional.

[2] Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were within the power of the state. Mandatory vaccinations are a far cry from precluding meeting with friends, precluding visiting other homes, precluding attending church services, precluding purchasing "non-essential items" as deemed by a governor, precluding people from conducting business that are deemed "non-essential" by a state governor, and so on. More generally, the facts of Jacobson are very different from the facts of the present day lock downs - it's holding of the exercise of the police power over the individual is not a broad holding that the exercise of police power over all individual rights in times of emergency is Constitutional.


Riddle me this:

Why is it Constitutional to allow citizens to go to grocery stores and touch products that others may have touched, but it is now unlawful to attend drive-in masses in a church parking lot without leaving your car?

Why is it constitutional to deem it unlawful to buy seeds at gardening stores, to grow vegetables, while it is lawful to purchase candy bars at grocery stores in Michigan?

Why is it Constitutional to force a business owner to close of up shop for months, and not allow the business owner to come up with his or her own solutions to mitigate spread while conducting business?

These are just some examples of government overreach, and these are questions that government officials should answer before enacting such rules, not after.
1 that's not what I said. It should be expected that the government can argue for the constitutionality of its measures when implementing them, not prove it. Especially when proof is scientifically impossible, as it is impossible to prove what measures are justified for a disease that is not understood. Based on the information available right now, no one can say with any certainty whether less restrictive measures would be effective.

2 I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I think it's that that case doesn't answer all the questions posed by the COVID response. That's true, but the point is that the government can take measures that are designed to limit the spread of disease without having absolute scientific proof that those measures are correct and harmless.

As to your examples, I don't know if each contrasting pair applies to a specific jurisdiction or not. Broadly I'd say that food sales are less restricted because people need them immediately to survive, which is not true of church or seeds. I'm sure there are plenty of illogical rules being implemented and should be corrected, as is always true in everything.

As to letting business owners come up with their own solutions, again, maybe that's the best in the long run, but it depends on the epidemiology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
868 Posts
10+ pages so far. In America, people should decide for themselves what risks they are willing to take in this life. Democrats and their sympathizers have always been Chicken Littles and overreact. Their solution for their fear is always Kontrol. I think Americans on the other hand want to err on the side of Freedom and are willing to endure the consequences.

Fearful people should quarantine themselves. End of story. If you're afraid for whatever genuine or imaginary reason, hunker the frick down for Pete's sake, but leave me out of it. If I'm not supposed to care about who sleeps with whom, why should I be burdened with the worry of who breathes on whom?

I am personally qualified to take the risks I want to take. I ride a motorcycle, for example. I am an ATGATT rider, but a motorcycle rider nevertheless. Dangerous! From another direction, as some others may have done, I have been with some women with whom I might not have intelligently engaged myself, but took the chance and lived to tell about it. I take the chances I want to take. Any American should, but the Democrats just won't have it.

The point is that we ourselves are the most qualified to judge risks for our own selves and be willing to take the consequences. It is fantasy that we can rely on solid sources of information during these days of Leftist hysteria to be able to have the best information with which to make our judgments. Still, truthful information would be useful.

For the Kontrol freaks, after they've milked this current panic for what it's worth, I think they should really start thinking that all bars and lounges should be permanently closed. I mean permanently. Look what can come from patronizing a bar: drunk driving, developing alcoholism, unwanted pregnancy (which for Democrats very often leads to murder), STDs, gun shots, knife fights, prostitution, con men, pickpockets, catching a cold, catching the Wuhan Flu, drinking stale-dated beer and watered-down spirits, the sale of illicit drugs, and walking through somebody's vomit, just to name a couple of reasons. Those places should never ever be opened again in the name of public health. Can I get an Amen? If it saves just. one. life, all Kontrol is permissible. Say Hallelujah with me!

People:
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "B"
And that stands for Bars,
That stands for bars.
We've surely got trouble!
Right here in River City,
Right here!
Gotta figger out a way
To keep the young ones moral after school!
Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble...

I guess that, for right now, our loving Democrats and their sympathizers will have to be content to FUBAR this nation like never before with this bug thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
The updated numbers for Wisconsin are not even worth caring about. With 1% of the population being tested, we have a confirmed .1% rate of infection of the overall population. With 266 deaths being attributed to the virus. Why is my state shut down at all right now?

The numbers show that either the virus isn't nearly as infectious as was feared, or we got hit before the scare began and survived it with no flags or concerns being raised.
 
201 - 220 of 290 Posts
Top