Coronavirus - are we all doomed? (1 Viewer)

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 06:23
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,001
In theory, they could interpret (define) the 2nd amendment to only encompass a well regulated militia therefore precluding gun ownership by private citizens.

@moke123 - yes, they could - except that I believe that has already been tested and found to not be the correct interpretation. By the Supreme Court's principle of stare decisis, they would not revisit that decision soon. For those not up on their Latin, that is "let the decision stand" - meaning "don't go revisiting cases or hearing new cases when we've already resolved this question.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 07:23
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,852
Until a new question comes up and the court agrees to hear it. 30 years ago who would have thought the court would have to define the word "Sex"
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 04:23
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say the right of the Militia, instead it says the people. This is why the founding fathers are under attack along with the Constitution. These were very smart people.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 07:23
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,852
At the time it was written all people (except blacks and indians) were required to be in the militia.
Prior to Heller, the right of individual citizens to bear arms existed only within the context of participation in the militia. Heller overturned that precedent.

This can be argued, un-neccessarily, all day
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 04:23
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
We may still have more modern versions of a militia than you might think. In my state several major Sheriff's departments, ones big enough to encompass practically the whole state's population, have what's called a Posse. It is comprised entirely of armed citizens, trained as volunteers in various law enforcement support activities. That is about as close to, if not actually, a real life example of a still-existent militia, as you could want.

Even if the court overturned 200 years of stare decisis on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, that would just be the first hole in the damn. Next there would be a flood of compelling arguments just on the basis of the state's power of policing and state's rights alone, which might, at worst, end up leaving the decision up to the states. Then you might have liability fights over defenseless people who'd been victimized vs. firearms control orders from officials. These are all just "might happen" ideas I thought of, but it seems very unlikely that a truly sweeping disarming policy could survive its practical application unless our entire legal system was changed.

Even if it was actually successful! Then there would be one more step. Presumably we might become like Chicago. Post-implementation, people might realize the ineffectiveness and change back ...
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 07:23
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
You may be able to own a gun, but soon it may be illegal to buy ammunition for that gun. The La Times reported on June 9, 2019: Gun owners stockpile ammo before new California background check law begins. The Sacramento Bee reported on April 25, 2020 that Stay granted in California ammo case, restricting sales again using criticized database. I don't know if there is any subsequent news. The take-away from this type of "obstructionist" laws is that unless successfully challenged, the imposition of this type of law will incrementally become more onerous essentially negating the 2'nd Amendment.

A related event:
New York attorney general sues to dissolve NRA, sets up gun rights group for political damage. The intent of "attacking" the NRA is to disable the ability the the pro-gun lobby to protect gun rights. This is similar to the Obama administration's unlawful use of the IRS, a government agency, to castrate the Tea Party, a lawful poetical entity.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 07:23
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,852
A related event: New York attorney general sues to dissolve NRA, sets up gun rights group for political damage. The intent of "attacking" the NRA is to disable the ability the the pro-gun lobby to protect gun rights. This is similar to the Obama administration's unlawful use of the IRS, a government agency, to castrate the Tea Party, a lawful poetical entity.
New York was not alone . . .
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...onal-rifle-association-foundation-for-alleged

Pretty similiar to https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/7772...pay-2-million-over-misuse-of-foundation-funds

One odd thing a friend told me the other day.
He ordered ammo online to be shipped to his house in N.Y. He said he had to pay $1.00 more to have it shipped in a plain brown wrapper as opposed to the regular shipping box.
Obviously this is done to skirt the laws.
 
Last edited:

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 04:23
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
Obviously this is done to skirt the laws.
Sorry but that's not true, FedEx UPS and others have partnered with the ATF to have all firearm related material regulated. The extra cost is do to the special handing of explosive materials. Ask me how I know, I live in a heavily regulated state California.

Sorry for the edit:
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 07:23
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
@moke123: Democrats are fanatical adherents to Lavrentiy Beria philosophy of: "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime".
 

deletedT

Guest
Local time
Today, 11:23
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
1,218
@moke123 the ending part reminded me of something. It's a long while back when I had joined to AWF. But I never forget it. Somebody told me we have guns to protect ourselves, you have knives. What's the difference. I couldn't help laughing.
 

dynamictiger

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 11:23
Joined
Feb 3, 2002
Messages
270
I am sorry if some of this is already said, however i am not reading 65 pages of posts.

I am sitting in one of the few places in the world where our cases are in single digits and the virus hasn't established itself in our community.

In addition, as it happens, my main work is related to bacteria eradication and public health issues. And as a helpful looking glass I have lived/worked in several other countries and states.

I think this mix of experiences gives me a unique perspective.

The observations I have made is:

- Isolation is our friend. I read somewhere we are the most isolated capitol city in the world
- Boring is our friend. I regularly read that we don't get many tourists as we are kind of boring...and to be honest I think that may be true to some views.
- Conservative and generally co-operative population
- Political leader who is plain speaking and keeps the message on point

I have been monitoring the actual data, not what the press would have us believe, but the actual data in our state. In looking back as far back as 22nd of March the data was showing we had very low if any community spread. However we didn't lock down till 27th of March. By the 2nd of April the numbers were dropping through the floor, and this has continued.

In contrast other parts of the country have gone the reverse. In comparison part of the reason is the conservative population. About the 12th of March I held a staff meeting. I suggested I was concerned with where this COVID thing was going and I asked my staff to consider not going to gyms and other facilities where they used shared surfaces or equipment. I expected a bit of support and a lot of grumbling. I was surprised to find all my under 30's staff supporting this. I think this alone speaks to our generally conservative population. In other countries, I have been in I am fairly certain I would have got a lot more 'lip' about this and the attitude would be one of 'what do you know'?

Coronavirus is tricky. We have not defeated it previously and it has been with us for a long time. This particular one is nastier than the more common cold. It is interesting to read the vaccination studies and heartening to read some as they are suggesting some potential to work.

The Spanish Flu died out, (broadly assuming) it had infected so many and the community built a combination of resistance and management to handle it, leaving it nowhere to replicate. Perhaps this may happen, one can only hope.

I am optimistic one way or another this situation will be resolved. To a certain extent it simply must. Whether that is by eradication of the actual virus, drugs to treat the infected, a vaccine for the population or adapting to live with this thing, I am unclear. Humans live with Flu and that kills a lot of people. I think malaria kills more people (in a year) than this thing has, last I checked, and we don't fuss about that. To a certain extent the coverage by media of this is disproportional to the actual issues. Its a little like watching a shark feeding frenzy as the press pumps out doom and gloom on an hourly basis. I wont go into press on this post, however, I do not believe a single news item in mainstream media, a lot of the time the statements are 'perhaps extreme' or 'isolated views'.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 04:23
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
The Spanish Flu died out, (broadly assuming) it had infected so many and the community built a combination of resistance and management to handle it, leaving it nowhere to replicate. Perhaps this may happen, one can only hope.
I am optimistic one way or another this situation will be resolved. To a certain extent it simply must.
Virus strain: Strains of A/H1N1 the spanish flu Lasting from February 1918 to April 1920, it infected 500 million people–about a third of the world's population at the time–in four successive waves. The death toll is typically estimated to have been somewhere between 17 million and 50 million, making it one of the deadliest pandemics in human history.

We are in for a bumpy ride.
 

deletedT

Guest
Local time
Today, 11:23
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
1,218
I think malaria kills more people (in a year) than this thing has
I think that I think is not enough for me. Specially when it comes from somebody who works within Public Health issues frame.
I'm very interested in what you're trying to tell us. That we don't need to be afraid of this virus? How many people are dead by malaria per year?
Up to now corona virus has left at least 733,234 dead. and it's not even a year. And it's world wide. While Malaria's death has been mostly within Africa continent. (and pandemic in only 31 countries).
Not that I want to say African countries doesn't matter for us, but the widest a pandemic grows, the widest the concerns.
Plus we know how to stop malaria, but we have nothing to fight against Corona Virus.

In 2018, there were an estimated 405 000 deaths from malaria globally,
compared with 416 000 estimated deaths in 2017, and 585 000 in 2010.

soruce:

Edit:
and we don't fuss about that. To a certain extent the coverage by media of this is disproportional to the actual issues. Its a little like watching a shark feeding frenzy as the press pumps out doom and gloom on an hourly basis
I really don't understand why everybody tries to blame everything on media. So many people are dead, so many infected, so much damage to each nation's economy and you expect media to shut up and go on their regular programs?
 
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 06:23
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,001
My problem is that it appears that news media in the USA are spinning this in a way to hurt President Trump, not to disseminate useful news that might help save lives. At this point, if it could be proved that they were willfully manipulating life-saving news for purely political agendas, I would revoke "Freedom of the Press" for them on that grounds that they were dangerously close to violating the journalistic equivalent of the "screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater" except to the Freedom of Speech rule.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 04:23
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
My problem is that it appears that news media in the USA are spinning this in a way to hurt President Trump, not to disseminate useful news that might help save lives. At this point, if it could be proved that they were willfully manipulating life-saving news for purely political agendas, I would revoke "Freedom of the Press" for them on that grounds that they were dangerously close to violating the journalistic equivalent of the "screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater" except to the Freedom of Speech rule.
I feel like we're way past that.
 

Cronk

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 22:23
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,770
Media will generally slant in a way to sell more. When times are good, they'll be good forever; when bad, it's dooms day. Follow the money.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom