Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-10-2020, 01:02 PM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,111

Most blatant COVID-19 related government overreach in the US so far


Leaving it to interpretation as many would say just being told you can’t eat out is one.

Personally, I’m down with staying home, social distancing, masks, and limited grocery store visits. With liberty comes responsibility and where I’m from state officials repeatedly asked citizens to practice these behaviors. When many of them didn’t, they started enacting enforceable rules.

But there have been a few instances I think where there has been an over reach:

Pennsylvania—- woman is fined $100 for just taking a drive:

https://www.wgal.com/article/york-co...order/32032535

Towns in New York and New Jersey banning leaf blowers because they are getting on people’s nerves:

https://dnyuz.com/2020/04/09/meanwhi...-blower-drama/

California sheriff threatens to arrest and fine $1000 for not wearing a face mask:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/654495/...fines-arrests/

My fellow Americans, what other COVID-19 actions just seem way over the top even if you agree with the basic new rules, or seem examples of government officials just using COVID-19 as an excuse to restrict something they just don’t like?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #2  
Old 04-10-2020, 01:36 PM
Fretful Porpentine is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,829
Well, apparently there have been cases of public tornado shelters being closed, which strikes me as a textbook case of people not weighing relative risks sensibly at all.
  #3  
Old 04-10-2020, 02:10 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by russian heel View Post

Towns in New York and New Jersey banning leaf blowers because they are getting on people’s nerves:

https://dnyuz.com/2020/04/09/meanwhi...-blower-drama/
"In Westfield, N.J., Mayor Shelley Brindle, in a statement, asked homeowners and landscapers to keep the blowers locked away until at least noon ever day."

Geez, I didn't know I was in Communist Germany. I should damn well be able to use my leaf-blower at 2 in the morning!
  #4  
Old 04-10-2020, 02:26 PM
Taber is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
"In Westfield, N.J., Mayor Shelley Brindle, in a statement, asked homeowners and landscapers to keep the blowers locked away until at least noon ever day."

Geez, I didn't know I was in Communist Germany. I should damn well be able to use my leaf-blower at 2 in the morning!
Also asking doesn't strike me as overreach unless it's backed by force of law. It does seem that other towns may have a ban.

My twitter feed has a video of a man being dragged off a bus for not wearing a mask, but so far it looks like only tabloids are covering it, so I suspect that might not be the real story.

Last edited by Taber; 04-10-2020 at 02:28 PM.
  #5  
Old 04-10-2020, 03:02 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,653
What about FEMA apparently confiscating ventilators and masks that states have ordered after the government tell the states they are own there own to get same. There also seems to be some playing favorites and strange math. The admistration apparently doesn't realize Texas has a lot more people than Vermont.
  #6  
Old 04-10-2020, 03:06 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 30,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
What about FEMA apparently confiscating ventilators and masks that states have ordered after the government tell the states they are own there own to get same. There also seems to be some playing favorites and strange math. The admistration apparently doesn't realize Texas has a lot more people than Vermont.
That doesn't seem like over reach as much as it does politicians playing politics.
  #7  
Old 04-10-2020, 04:02 PM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,651
In California various cities trying to declare gun shops "non-essential businesses" not solely due to trying to enforce social distancing but also because they want to prevent potential future gun violence.

If you're doing it just to prevent people from getting the virus is one thing, but doing it to prevent "potential violence" seems fairly unconstitutional.
  #8  
Old 04-10-2020, 04:27 PM
pullin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N Texas
Posts: 3,345
Agreed. Declaring gunshops non-essential is the same thing as Texas declaring abortion clinics' work as non-essential. Same totalitarian bullshit, just slightly different versions.

Last edited by pullin; 04-10-2020 at 04:27 PM.
  #9  
Old 04-10-2020, 05:05 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by pullin View Post
Agreed. Declaring gunshops non-essential is the same thing as Texas declaring abortion clinics' work as non-essential. Same totalitarian bullshit, just slightly different versions.
You can go buy a gun in a few months. Not so with an abortion. Therefore, I call bullshit on your calling of bullshit.
  #10  
Old 04-10-2020, 05:39 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 21,251
I think if you ever need a handgun, you might realize your need for it on an "answer needed quickly" basis. I'd have to agree with pullin — quit using the damn virus as an excuse for doing stuff that was on your desired political agenda already.
  #11  
Old 04-10-2020, 06:05 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I think if you ever need a handgun, you might realize your need for it on an "answer needed quickly" basis. I'd have to agree with pullin — quit using the damn virus as an excuse for doing stuff that was on your desired political agenda already.
If anyone ever needs a handgun, and they haven’t purchased one in the prior whatever years of their life since they were 21, their next option is to call the police... not take a drive down to the gun store and tell the assailant to hang on a few hours.

Telling a woman she has to wait indefinitely for a risk-free medical procedure, run by licensed physicians who are knowledgeable about health risks and so on, perhaps until the patent is no longer legally able to get the abortion, ain’t even in the same planet.

Both sides do it, my ass.

And there’s nothing in the OP that is overreach.
  #12  
Old 04-10-2020, 06:31 PM
Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,462
I've wondered how these rules and laws can ultimately pass muster with the first amendment with the right to peaceably assemble.

Is it because the amendment says "congress can make no law..." and since it wasn't congress, the first amendment doesn't apply?

THis sounds like a potentially dangerous constitutional problem, if an executive you didn't like started mandating that we can't assemble during some particularly bad flu season, or fire season, or snow storm....or...bad rain during election day.
  #13  
Old 04-10-2020, 07:28 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,476
Quote:
Pennsylvania—- woman is fined $100 for just taking a drive:

https://www.wgal.com/article/york-co...order/32032535
From the story:
"State police said they initially pulled the woman over for a vehicle code violation."

"State police said "Sunday drives" are not essential travel, but there are no checkpoints and it doesn't mean that everyone who goes for a drive will get cited or warned."


So, it's something we see every day: you are stopped for some traffic code violation and then anything else that the police may observe that could apply, gets applied.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
I've wondered how these rules and laws can ultimately pass muster with the first amendment with the right to peaceably assemble.

Is it because the amendment says "congress can make no law..." and since it wasn't congress, the first amendment doesn't apply?

THis sounds like a potentially dangerous constitutional problem, if an executive you didn't like started mandating that we can't assemble during some particularly bad flu season, or fire season, or snow storm....or...bad rain during election day.
All these orders are being issued under the authority of laws about emergency situations, some having stood for a long time, which do not in spite of ocassional appearances say that "all you gotta do is declare an emergency and you can make up anything". (Also, "fines up to..." doesn't mean that everyone will be fined the maximum or at all. But it helps focus people's attention.)

Quarantines and curfews are not wholly alien to American governance; just that most of us have never had to live it, nor most of our officials had to manage it, at this scale for this long..

What sometimes happens is that in abnormal emergencies, those in charge of enforcement may get confused as to what should be enforced and how. Plus of course the ocassional Respect Mah Authoratah type. In which case you take them to court.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 04-10-2020 at 07:30 PM.
  #14  
Old 04-10-2020, 08:39 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If anyone ever needs a handgun, and they haven’t purchased one in the prior whatever years of their life since they were 21, their next option is to call the police... not take a drive down to the gun store and tell the assailant to hang on a few hours.
Yes, obviously no one is going to be running down to the gun store as someone is kicking in the front door of their house, pandemic or no pandemic. But, someone could be facing a threat--an angry neighbor or an ex-boyfriend--which isn't imminent enough to make calling the police feasible, but is potentially sufficiently imminent that action can't wait for who knows how many weeks or months. "You used the court's new emergency web-based system to file for a restraining order already? OK, well, call us if he actually shows up at your house. We'll get there as quick as we can." Of course most of the increase in gun purchases right now is related to fears over COVID-19, and as such, those fears are somewhat inchoate--though, hey, it's still people wanting to exercise a constitutional right--but even in a pandemic, life goes on, for both good and ill.

Also, restrictions on public gatherings that are genuinely motivated by attempts to stop the spread of the virus--and only to stop the spread of the virus--might warrant restrictions on gun shops--along with everything else--though there might be ways to accommodate people's needs and desires short of closing down gun ships completely, like rules restricting (even sharply restricting) the number of customers who can be in the store at any moment. That could make gun purchases inconvenient and even difficult, especially if general demand is spiking, but at least it's not making them impossible.

But as Asuka alluded to, at least some of the desire to close down gun shops seems to be motivated by agendas unrelated to the need to combat the pandemic. (As are, of course, many if not most of the restrictions on abortion clinics.) From the Slate article "Why Some Democratic Governors Are Avoiding Closing Gun Stores During the Pandemic" from a few days ago:
Quote:
On the other hand, more guns in more places raises the risk of suicides and domestic violence shootings while large swaths of the country are under virus-inspired lockdowns. “There are a lot of people bringing guns into their homes at a time when there is unprecedented economic pressure and social isolation,” [chief counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Adam] Skaggs said. “It’s a recipe for disaster.”
There are already laws prohibiting felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, or people who've been involuntarily committed from having guns. But it's not constitutional to prevent people from buying guns for the defense of themselves and their families simply based on a generalized fear of "unprecedented economic pressure and social isolation".
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #15  
Old 04-10-2020, 09:02 PM
jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 15,802
However, the countries with the highest death rates are those where people have the greatest freedom to ignore orders to protect public safety. More people will die if they are allowed to party through the storm.
  #16  
Old 04-10-2020, 09:33 PM
Darth Sensitive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
Well, apparently there have been cases of public tornado shelters being closed, which strikes me as a textbook case of people not weighing relative risks sensibly at all.
As someone living in tornado alley, with very few public storm shelters around, I'm not sure that you're right on risk calculations.

I did public sheltering a couple times in college (once during classes, once in a late evening) and they're terribly densely packed. Probably about as bad an environment that can exist for transmission of something like coronavirus. On the flip side tornadoes are unpredictable on the small scale, which is why those public shelters get so crowded, even though the damage paths will affect many fewer people than cram into those basements.

Even assuming your property is hit, you may be safer at home than in a public location. There were 149 recorded tornadoes in OK last year (most on record); 103 weak, 13 strong, 0 violent, and 33 unrateable (because they didn't hit anything). Out of those, 4 died and 48 were injured. 2 deaths and 29 injuries came from one tornado that came essentially out of nowhere; the news crews were on alert that day, but were taken by surprise by the one that hit (as in, a storm spotter was getting gas across the street from where it hit).

I'd assume that they've crunched the numbers and figured that contagious disease transmissions are more dangerous than random damage paths.
  #17  
Old 04-10-2020, 09:38 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,750
How about suspending Democracy in Wisconsin?
  #18  
Old 04-10-2020, 09:42 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,061
By far: Trump calling it a hoax when action was required. Subsequent federal inaction was legendary in its overrech of neglect of the safety of American citizens .

Last edited by bobot; 04-10-2020 at 09:46 PM.
  #19  
Old 04-10-2020, 09:43 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
Well, apparently there have been cases of public tornado shelters being closed, which strikes me as a textbook case of people not weighing relative risks sensibly at all.
The risk of being hit by a tornado, whether or not you’re in a shelter, is much much lower than the risk of catching Corona from or spreading it to someone you’re sheltering with. I’ve lived in times and places in which I’ve taken cover in a tornado shelter. The vast majority of times, it amounts to a mere precaution.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 04-10-2020 at 09:43 PM.
  #20  
Old 04-11-2020, 12:36 AM
Fretful Porpentine is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,829
Yes, I know most of the time it's a precaution. I live in a place where we regularly get tornado warnings probably 4-5 times a year, and I haven't been hit by one yet.

However: if you DO happen to be directly in the path of a tornado, and you don't have a safe place to go, you are really, really screwed. A lot of stuff would have to happen for you to have worse odds in a public shelter: someone else in the shelter would have to have coronavirus in the first place, and you would have to catch it from them (and the odds are that you wouldn't -- only 20% of the Diamond Princess passengers did, and they had days of exposure), and you would have to end up being one of the 1 to 2% of people who die from it.

FWIW, the American Meteorological Society seems to agree with me, since they say in the link that you should NOT let fear of coronavirus deter you from seeking shelter.
  #21  
Old 04-11-2020, 12:42 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 16,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Sensitive View Post
There were 149 recorded tornadoes in OK last year (most on record); 103 weak, 13 strong, 0 violent, and 33 unrateable (because they didn't hit anything). Out of those, 4 died and 48 were injured. 2 deaths and 29 injuries came from one tornado that came essentially out of nowhere;
[side-track]
What does a tornado have to do, to be called "violent"?
[/side-track]
  #22  
Old 04-11-2020, 12:52 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 16,144
Just in the thinking-about-it stage (AFAIK): Mandated use of tracking apps to follow known positive peeps, that will warn other nearby users that someone positive is nearby. I'm not aware that this is actually happening anywhere. Fear that such apps will inevitably lead to privacy violations and building of a (possibly clandestine) registry of positive people and their movements.

(Too much paranoia maybe?)

In a similar vein: Talk of widespread antibody testing, with some kind of government-issued certificate to antibody-positive people, certifying that they are "safe" to be out in public, go back to work or school, and in general participate in re-starting the economy. (ETA: I think Dr. Fauci was talking about this idea.) Fear that this, likewise, will lead to some kind of government mandate to get tested, and a registry (IINM, Rand Paul expressed a concern like that), and also concern that this will lead to a two-tier caste system.

These are the kinds of things that may just be really important in controlling a dangerous epidemic, but will certainly be massively controversial.

Last edited by Senegoid; 04-11-2020 at 12:54 AM.
  #23  
Old 04-11-2020, 04:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
Just in the thinking-about-it stage (AFAIK): Mandated use of tracking apps to follow known positive peeps, that will warn other nearby users that someone positive is nearby. I'm not aware that this is actually happening anywhere. Fear that such apps will inevitably lead to privacy violations and building of a (possibly clandestine) registry of positive people and their movements.
...
In a similar vein: Talk of widespread antibody testing, with some kind of government-issued certificate to antibody-positive people, certifying that they are "safe" to be out in public, go back to work or school, and in general participate in re-starting the economy....
Isn't much of this already operating in China and Taiwan? (Though I've not heard of the "warning" app. And presumably Chinese can make trips while leaving their cell-phone tracker at home.)

I've heard that the use of such tracking is a big reason why China has contained the virus successfully. And presumably the world will want to resume its 2019 ways but with such apps available to decrease danger when the next such virus strikes.

Many young people seem unfazed by the loss of privacy associated with smartphones. I'm an old-timer not over-fond of modern high-tech, but mitigating pandemics does seem appropriate.

Many (older?) Americans seem bitter about "loss of rights", and unconcerned that measures might save a million lives. Are people in other countries reacting similarly, or is this primarily an American thing?
  #24  
Old 04-11-2020, 05:11 AM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post

As the old saying goes at times “the law is a Ass”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #25  
Old 04-11-2020, 05:17 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
I've wondered how these rules and laws can ultimately pass muster with the first amendment with the right to peaceably assemble.
Spreading a highly contagious and potentially fatal disease doesn't sound very "peaceable" to me.
  #26  
Old 04-11-2020, 05:21 AM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Yes, obviously no one is going to be running down to the gun store as someone is kicking in the front door of their house, pandemic or no pandemic. But, someone could be facing a threat--an angry neighbor or an ex-boyfriend--which isn't imminent enough to make calling the police feasible, but is potentially sufficiently imminent that action can't wait for who knows how many weeks or months. "You used the court's new emergency web-based system to file for a restraining order already? OK, well, call us if he actually shows up at your house. We'll get there as quick as we can." Of course most of the increase in gun purchases right now is related to fears over COVID-19, and as such, those fears are somewhat inchoate--though, hey, it's still people wanting to exercise a constitutional right--but even in a pandemic, life goes on, for both good and ill.

Also, restrictions on public gatherings that are genuinely motivated by attempts to stop the spread of the virus--and only to stop the spread of the virus--might warrant restrictions on gun shops--along with everything else--though there might be ways to accommodate people's needs and desires short of closing down gun ships completely, like rules restricting (even sharply restricting) the number of customers who can be in the store at any moment. That could make gun purchases inconvenient and even difficult, especially if general demand is spiking, but at least it's not making them impossible.

But as Asuka alluded to, at least some of the desire to close down gun shops seems to be motivated by agendas unrelated to the need to combat the pandemic. (As are, of course, many if not most of the restrictions on abortion clinics.) From the Slate article "Why Some Democratic Governors Are Avoiding Closing Gun Stores During the Pandemic" from a few days ago:

There are already laws prohibiting felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, or people who've been involuntarily committed from having guns. But it's not constitutional to prevent people from buying guns for the defense of themselves and their families simply based on a generalized fear of "unprecedented economic pressure and social isolation".

How is purchasing firearms essential?

It’s 4/11 and so far I do not see roving bands of brigands outside my house roaming around in search of personal possessions and thanks to shelter in place laws I doubt there are any in cities as well and I have heard of very few crimes on other affected countries as well. (Oh that’s right—- they have fun control in almost every other Western country!)

So far, I see little or no reason to purchase firearms during this crisis, other than to use them to rob essentials from others.

Stay at home, and take the money you were going to spend on that useless assault rifle to feed your family or donate it to a good cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #27  
Old 04-11-2020, 05:49 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Yes, obviously no one is going to be running down to the gun store as someone is kicking in the front door of their house, pandemic or no pandemic. But, someone could be facing a threat--an angry neighbor or an ex-boyfriend--which isn't imminent enough to make calling the police feasible, but is potentially sufficiently imminent that action can't wait for who knows how many weeks or months.
This is a situation where universal gun registration would be a plus: they could be allowed to sell one handgun to any person who doesn't already have one, but any transactions beyond that would be nonessential.
  #28  
Old 04-11-2020, 05:53 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I think if you ever need a handgun
Nobody NEEDS a handgun. No, seriously, no one does.
  #29  
Old 04-11-2020, 06:34 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
[side-track]
What does a tornado have to do, to be called "violent"?
[/side-track]
Violent means EF4 or EF5.
  #30  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:47 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
However, the countries with the highest death rates are those where people have the greatest freedom to ignore orders to protect public safety. More people will die if they are allowed to party through the storm.
Silveria Jacobs, the prime minister of Sint Maarten, isn't accepting any of your excuses for leaving your house. "If you do not have bread, eat crackers". I met Ms Jacobs a few months ago, before all of this, and she impressed the hell outa me. Her speech inspires confidence. Compare that with, "people should be praising me for what I've done".
  #31  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:47 AM
The Vorlon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sol III
Posts: 2,493
The RI governor has gone into full goosestep mode.

The MI governor has taken leave of common sense also.

Charlie Parker, er, Baker, in MA somehow thinks the second amendment, both federal and state, is optional.
  #32  
Old 04-11-2020, 02:07 PM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 16,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by russian heel View Post
(Oh that’s right—- they have fun control in almost every other Western country!)
This is why we can't have nice things!

Last edited by Senegoid; 04-11-2020 at 02:07 PM.
  #33  
Old 04-11-2020, 02:15 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Personal firearms are needed to shoot rattlesnakes and divert stampeding cattle (though my Doberman did a good job with the latter). But I digress. I've not personally witnessed any local or state government overr-each but I do notice stupendous federal under-reach because of a totally incompetent impeached executive. I foresee criminal negligence prosecutions in a best-case scenario.
  #34  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:13 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Nobody NEEDS a handgun. No, seriously, no one does.
Not even LEOs?
  #35  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:29 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Not even LEOs?
I'm sure some Brits can answer that. But this is USA, where lax concealed-carry regs mean cops and civilians alike MUST assume that non-nudes are carrying. Everyone is potentially armed and dangerous. If someone looks at you or a cop funny, they're a potential attacker, so be ready to shoot first. Failure is suicidal.
You just stand there, looking cute.
And if someone moves, you shoot!
For federal overreach, look at SCOTUS deciding corporations are persons, money is speech, firearms are personal and fuck a well-regulated militia, states can limit voting rights, and LEOs can confiscate property without a court order. How's THEM apples?

COVID overreach at any level of government is probably less deadly than neglect. Your survival may vary.
  #36  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:30 PM
jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 15,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Not even LEOs?
Not even LEOs. Police on the beat, into the 70s or 80s, did not carry guns in most British cities and some in Canada.

By the way, here's a thought. Every covid death was caused by somebody breaking the quarantine rules.
  #37  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:31 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 38,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Not even LEOs?
They already have 'em. Don't most departments have stock to issue to new officers or replacements?
  #38  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:19 PM
purplehorseshoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 10,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Not even LEOs. Police on the beat, into the 70s or 80s, did not carry guns in most British cities and some in Canada.



By the way, here's a thought. Every covid death was caused by somebody breaking the quarantine rules.
Or by government inaction, or by governmental truth-bending, or by governmental budget cuts to relevant federal departments. Also, by civilian hoarders ensuring shortages of respiratory masks and hand sanitizer supplies.
__________________
I can haz sig line?
  #39  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:27 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,629
A mayor telling a private corporation what they can and cannot sell is an overreach

A *Sheriff* threatening to arrest people for not wearing a mask without even any federal or state or even city order (iF that is true) to do so, is an overreach.
  #40  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:28 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Not even LEOs. Police on the beat, into the 70s or 80s, did not carry guns in most British cities and some in Canada.

By the way, here's a thought. Every covid death was caused by somebody breaking the quarantine rules.
Illogical. Quarantine rules permit grocery shopping and NO mask is 100% effective
  #41  
Old 04-11-2020, 11:54 PM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,651
Hey guys I don't think arguing whether or not you personally think a gun is necessary is relevant to the discussion at hand of government overreach in crisis situations.
  #42  
Old 04-12-2020, 12:41 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Not even LEOs. Police on the beat, into the 70s or 80s, did not carry guns in most British cities and some in Canada.
This isn't Britain or Canada in the 70s.
  #43  
Old 04-12-2020, 02:04 AM
Carryon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 927
First of all there are many situations were you would need a handgun.

You cannot compare Britain an island, which is easily contained to the USA.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

if a six foot man, 200 pound man is threatening to kill a 5' 90 pound woman she needs one

The statement no one needs one is at best naive and more likely made simply to provoke. This blanket black and white thinking and lack of analogy skills is what gets people in trouble.
  #44  
Old 04-12-2020, 08:39 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carryon View Post
First of all there are many situations were you would need a handgun.

You cannot compare Britain an island, which is easily contained to the USA.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

if a six foot man, 200 pound man is threatening to kill a 5' 90 pound woman she needs one

The statement no one needs one is at best naive and more likely made simply to provoke. This blanket black and white thinking and lack of analogy skills is what gets people in trouble.
I think the overall point is that we can argue about gun ownership, but the argument is no different now that it was before Covid-19. However, the pandemic should not be a way to get your own public policy choice enacted (whether that is banning guns or abortions) under the guise of the emergency.
  #45  
Old 04-12-2020, 09:03 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You can go buy a gun in a few months. Not so with an abortion. Therefore, I call bullshit on your calling of bullshit.
But I want to do my looting a raiding NOW!
  #46  
Old 04-13-2020, 12:27 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
But I want to do my looting a raiding NOW!
I can get you a good deal on a nice machete. No bothersome background checks, no costly ammo, and decapitation is great exercise. You can loot and raid quietly. For only a little extra I'll throw in rubber gloves and a dive mask. You'll be set.
  #47  
Old 04-13-2020, 07:54 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Not even LEOs?
No, not even LEOs. They can use a gun at work, but they dont need to take one home and they dont need to own it.
  #48  
Old 04-13-2020, 10:00 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
In California various cities trying to declare gun shops "non-essential businesses" not solely due to trying to enforce social distancing but also because they want to prevent potential future gun violence.
It depends on your definition of essential. If essential means the minimum amount of the economy needed to safely keep goods and services available to people during this crisis, then gun stores aren't essential.

You don't need gun stores to keep people fed, and clothed. You don't need them to keep the lights on, the roads safe, communication flowing. You don't need them to keep doctors and nurses working, to keep pharmacies filling prescriptions, and drug companies manufacturing medicine.

The list of essential businesses are about keeping enough stuff running so that things don't go completely to shit. Now, the fact that we need some core business running opens up other businesses. For example, you need to keep car repair shops open because all of these other essential employees need to get to work, and they can't if their cars are broken This isn't true of gun shops.

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 04-13-2020 at 10:01 AM.
  #49  
Old 04-13-2020, 10:10 AM
Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,462
I'm generally a big fan of the constitution; but I am personally having a bit of a hard time thinking if gun shops are essential. If we treat the first amendment and the second amendment equally, I would say gun shops are just as essential as newspapers (note I'm not saying internet news sources....just newspapers).

But I really am having a hard time saying we need to have gun shops open at this time....

THen again, we think that liquor stores are 'essential' and I can't make a reasonable argument for why they should be open either.


To me, if we keep liquor stores and newspapers open; we should keep gun stores open...but I'm not hard set on my commitment.
  #50  
Old 04-13-2020, 10:22 AM
Edward The Head is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere in time
Posts: 6,634
I don't know about overreach, but the local county has said we must wear face masks when we go to the stores now. It goes in to effect today, but they only said something Thursday night. I've turned off the news in the last week or so and would not have heard a thing had someone else not told me. It's a $500 fine the first time and $750 after that. I find that to be a really steep fine, and to not get the message out any better I find the couple of day notice a bit short.

I have heard reports of a few motorcyclists who had gotten $750 fines for being on their motorcycles. It's hard to tell if they were being jerks or not, but they did show copies of their tickets for violating 'stay at home orders.' I get having fines for hosting parties or something like that, but for going out to pick up food and getting a ride in sounds like a bad idea to me.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017