Are We In A Police State?

[Todd.K]

Stop the spread and the legal authority to take action to stop the spread isn't needed.

Three counter points.

1) Why do you believe we can stop the spread? Incubation time + contagious during incubation + the number asymptomatic + transmissibility

2) With NYC antibody testing showing almost TWENTY FIVE percent have been infected, did any of the models predict that? If not, why haven't we put NYC data in, run them again, and then determine how reasonable the restrictions are?

3) What happened to the curve? Flatten the curve was beaten into our heads. Now the goalpost is moved to "stop the spread"?

[tvfreakarms]

Three counter points.

1) Why do you believe we can stop the spread? Incubation time + contagious during incubation + the number asymptomatic + transmissibility

2) With NYC antibody testing showing almost TWENTY FIVE percent have been infected, did any of the models predict that? If not, why haven't we put NYC data in, run them again, and then determine how reasonable the restrictions are?

3) What happened to the curve? Flatten the curve was beaten into our heads. Now the goalpost is moved to "stop the spread"?

If anyone who has the flu shot in last few yrs, wouldnt there be coronavirus in their system.


Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Adrenaline_6]

But is that because they weren't at risk or because of preventative measures?

NY is working on 20,000+ dead, it's not like that's some kind of hoax. Those people are dead.

Seriously? The data is there. Children and young adults are on the lowest end of the death spectrum. Look st the available data man...it's all there.

20,000 in a population of almost 20 million? Do the simple math.

Malpractice kills 250,000 in the US alone. Cancer and heart disease each kill more than malpractice. 20,000 in the grand scheme of things is insignificant.

[jsbhike]

Antibody news. Is this another goal post move?

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...id-19-immunity

[SteyrAUG]

I tried looking it up. But does it have to do about Goa suing to repeal the full auto ban?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Ok, first things first. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, single you out or treat you like some kind of idiot.

But you are an example of the problem. You don't know, most people don't know. It's not really your fault, many people don't want you to know.

But within the 1968 Gun Control Act (legislation that probably passed before you were born) is the "sporter clause" or "sporter test" clause which is an arbitrary tool and yardstick the ATF uses to determine what firearms are "suitable" for importation or manufacture for sale to citizens in the US.

This is why you cannot import a TRUE Walther PPK that was manufactured after 1968. It falls within the "Saturday Night Special" / pocket gun classification that ATF has decided is unsuitable for any sporting application and therefore unimportable. This is the justification ATF used to ban imports of many modern semi auto rifle and handguns in 1989. This is the justification they used to pass the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapon ban and it is the tool that permits ATF to legislate by decree and classify firearms as suitable or not suitable for "sporting applications" even though the second amendment has no such qualification whatsoever.

And if we could somehow get everyone on the same page and get them to stop yanking rugs out from each other with pointless division, we could get whatever activist group was willing to take our money and actually represent us and get the "sporter clause" removed from the 1968 GCA. But the last time anyone removed parts of the 1968 GCA was all the way back in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act which removed some pretty draconian aspects of the 1968 GCA that few today even remember and all they remember is FOPA included the Hughes / Rodino amendment which closed the registry for domestic machine guns.

[SteyrAUG]

I was and am annoyed that part of my life was affected by this. I have not been inconvenienced much at all. The annoying part is that I don't get to shoot my 3gun matches, I really like to do that, but I think I'll make it. Money hasn't been a problem at all since most of my money comes from my retirement vehicles. I am still working my part time job, since it's considered essential. And I put on hold my move to Idaho. All and all, things aren't that bad. My problem with this whole thing is that from the beginning of this and the lock down I thought it would be devastating to millions of people financially. Millions of people don't have a couple of hundred grand sitting in the bank to tide them over for 3 months (and Newson is talking about more months). All the while vile people like Nancy Pelosi are still getting paid. I guess I should be thankful that so many still have jobs at all. Do we really have to destroy the village to save it. And now in LA county they release actual criminals but go after surfers...it make my head hurt.

I can accept all that, I too have been greatly inconvenienced. But not to the point that I'm willing to put anyone at undue risk. I think the government is grasping at a solution for a problem they don't fully understand and here we are. My point continues to be that it could have been much, much worse.

If we had a President Clinton in office, I'm confident she would have permitted a body count to hit six digits so she could demand emergency powers that would never be completely relinquished. The reichstag would definitely be burning.

Why would the NRA want to get rid of one of their biggest cash cows that they supported?

Which NRA are you referring to? The one that existed in 68, the one that existed in 77, the one that existed in 86, the one that existed post Columbine or the one we have right now?

I understand your premise that law enforcement really doesn't want to solve "all crime" or they wouldn't be needed, but the NRA isn't a constant. I think we need to get rid of Wayne and we might be able to get a few things done. It will never be perfect but it's been worse.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Three counter points.

1) Why do you believe we can stop the spread? Incubation time + contagious during incubation + the number asymptomatic + transmissibility

2) With NYC antibody testing showing almost TWENTY FIVE percent have been infected, did any of the models predict that? If not, why haven't we put NYC data in, run them again, and then determine how reasonable the restrictions are?

3) What happened to the curve? Flatten the curve was beaten into our heads. Now the goalpost is moved to "stop the spread"?

Antibody news. Is this another goal post move?

https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...id-19-immunity

We need to figure out if anti-bodies confer immunity, like a hard 'know', not probably or it seems. Mainly because the people that have non-leathal outcomes will be at significant risk.

1. You can't stop the spread, but you can slow it down. We have done the experiment and it works. Sweden Vs Norway and Demark. Here in the US as you draw out the data on how densly packed people are and how fast it spreads. Less contact, less spread.

2. Be careful with that. 1 in 5 testing positive is almost the false positive rate for the anti-body testing, they also are extrapolating from a survey. It is also many times what another study in NYC showed recently, higher than an area in Germany that was hard hit and they tested a lot of the people. I hope it is true. It would have to mean that the people that are going to die from it have already pretty much died. That the 'fire' ran through and burned all the 'dead wood'. If it is spreading at that rate and the death rate is going down, that is a real good thing, hard to believe, but a good thing.

3. I don't see those as bing incompatible. We had to flatten the curve and we did. Stop the spread is the goal, and we should do what we can to do that. Wash your hands and wear a mask, sure. There are enough people out of work, and enough Dem voters out of work that a total lock down won't be able to be held,

[scooter22]

I think the problem with everyone here you have never been in a police state. In a real police state for even asking the question are we in a police state you get picked up in the middle of the night.

You still own guns, then no it is self evident we are not in a police state.

Don't worry; it's coming.

If you think it's not, you're mistaken.

[Grand58742]

There are a lot of Americans, including those in blue states, who are pushing back on the lockdown. And the longer it goes on the more you are going to see if it.

The more people push back against it, the more emboldened the governments are going to be in trying to maintain their power.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/c...rks/index.html

California Gov. Gavin Newsom intends to order the closure of all state beaches and parks starting Friday, according to a copy of a memo provided to CNN by a senior law enforcement official.

"We wanted to give all of our members a heads up about this in order to provide time for you to plan for any situations you might expect as a result, knowing each community has its own dynamics," the memo says.

Newport Beach in Orange County saw about 90,000 beachgoers last weekend despite the urging of officials to follow the state's stay-home order. On Tuesday, Newport Beach's City Council voted to keep its beaches open, with additional enforcement of physical distancing.

An Orange County board of supervisors member pushed back on Newsom's expected announcement, calling it an "overreaction."

In a statement late Wednesday, Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner acknowledged Newsom has the authority to shutter the state's beaches, but called the decision "not wise."

"Medical professionals tell us the importance of fresh air and sunlight in fighting infectious diseases, including mental health benefits," he wrote.
"Moreover, Orange County citizens have been cooperative with California state and county restrictions thus far. I fear that this overreaction from the state will undermine that cooperative attitude and our collective efforts to fight the disease, based on the best available medical information."

[Grand58742]

The other half of that is social media platforms, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook mainly, have taken it upon themselves to be complicit with making sure the public doesn't question the authority of the state nor hear any good news that might come up. Videos get deleted, users get banned, posts disappear, articles are shoved down in the pecking order from the first ten pages of a Google search.

They have become de facto elements of the Ministry of Truth in this crisis. And certainly not on the side we need them to be on.