What does a tornado have to do, to be called “violent”?
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.
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?
As the old saying goes at times “the law is a Ass”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spreading a highly contagious and potentially fatal disease doesn’t sound very “peaceable” to me.
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
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.
Nobody NEEDS a handgun. No, seriously, no one does.
Violent means EF4 or EF5.
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”.
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.
This is why we can’t have nice things!
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.
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.
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.
They already have 'em. Don’t most departments have stock to issue to new officers or replacements?
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.
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.
Illogical. Quarantine rules permit grocery shopping and NO mask is 100% effective