Its all a balance of not violating personal freedoms but knowing how many stupid assholes are out there which neccesitates some level of governmental strongarm oversight.
I certainly think a point exists where I would be all for the government doing more in this. But we aren’t at that point. But I would be willing to give more leeway in certain situations and a global pandemic is one. Just this one isn’t the type of point where I’d support some of those things.
If we were looking at something much deadlier and with even more infectious ability I could see myself supporting stricter enforcement. At some point a nation has to defend itself and it’s easy for people to say they would never allow something until death of everyone is staring people in the face. I’m sure some will say “no never no scenario” which is easy when we’re just shitting around with each other online.
Maybe doubly so if it’s as simple as just stay home a bit fuckers like you love to do. But I would prefer to see that done via Congress and not executive order.
Australian gun laws, esp in NSW are definitely a massive overkill, its just signalling control over the population. There is no danger, as you can’t just go out and buy a rifle even if you are licensed. It takes about 2 months to get approved for a license. It takes at least 6 weeks to get approval, for a permit to acquire(which costs $), so its all bullshit. Handguns as you mentioned are even stricter.
They stopped the sale of ammo. Ammo sales and amounts are always recorded anyway.
Guess where Police buy their ammo from? A: The gun shop.
From what I have heard in the media most shooters did a run on ammo before the ban came in anyway.
Farmers still need ammo for pest control.
Its all about control, re assuring the sheeple. The politicians do a knee jerk reaction which has nothing to do with reality, its all about perception.
1 Like
In the short term I agree with you about there not being a realistic threat of a tyrannical government, at the moment. The constant chipping away of rights(we don’t have enshrined rights in Australia, we have privileges, that can be rescinded for trivial reasons).
This leads to the almost certainty of this eventually happening sometime in the future. Controlled people are not citizens they are subjects, and they don’t have the ability to resist an unjust government even if they want to.
Democratic representation is a joke, its big corporations running the show behind the scenes.
1 Like
We have enshrined rights that can be rescinded because that’s deemed necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce, here.
2 Likes
So people can have freedom so long as they choose correctly?
Stupid asshole have rights too.
Not only do Progressives have rights, but they think they have more of them!
Isn’t he talking in the realm of the crisis though? Let’s look at it this way. I don’t think people should be punished during this for essentially anything they do. But if you had a highly infectious disease and it was known you don’t think any scenario exists where that person’s freedoms may be subject to scrutiny? I think everything has limits and even the die hards would agree in the right situation. I’m not sure I think people with known highly infectious diseases like this should under no circumstance
Right to bear arms- ok.
Individuals can have nukes and the government should say “well they have the right to bear arms.” Moronic. The vast majority of the country is going to demand that isn’t allowed to happen. We may have
Because sometimes in societies things are so extreme it’s obvious that if an individual can be responsible for killing massive amounts of people we may want to look at the limits of those things. I mean we can be pro freedom all we want but the vast majority of people don’t think someone with known Coronavirus should be around the general public. I agree but I don’t think they should be punished.
Highly infectious disease like it that has a 93% kill rate going to the mall? Yeah I may be for saying that scenario that person needs to be treated differently.
1 Like
This is the most shocking post I’ve ever seen from you. I lend a willing ear to well thought out arguments for anarchism and libertarianism, especially at the federal level. Bending over and voting for Trump? Sorry, I don’t abide by the lesser of two evils approach, and even if I did I would argue that Hillary was the lesser.
I don’t either, but I do believe the enemy of my enemy is (sometimes) my friend. Even moreso when the enemy of my enemy also appears to have less “legitimacy” with more people(which is a great quality in a President).
I don’t think Trump is Satan, so I do not agree.
Did you forget about the popular vote?
It’s not about Trump. It’s about his Republican sycophants. With Hillary there is political opposition leading to stalemate and less government intrusion. Kind of like Obama’s last six years. Now we have “capitalists” directly espousing socialist policies. As a few have mentioned in the new thread, this pandemic is causing a transfer of wealth that may be greater than what we’ve ever seen, and not because of a free market but because of government influence.
1 Like
Uhh…no…that seems to back-up my point.
Right…the two welfare/warfare parties are going to oppose one another.
I doubt it.
Absolutely.
They aren’t actually against socialism though. They just want a certain brand. Trump had no problem giving direct payments to farmers.
Not a Democrat around has ever been less of a fiscal conservative than what Trump ran as. He ran as a debt doesn’t matter, healthcare for all, won’t touch entitlements, I can negotiate if we default. And those limited government don’t tread on me Tea Party types nominated him over proven conservatives.
And yet the Dems are socialists for having some of those ideas but saying and this is how I would pay for it? Maybe having a plan to pay is the socialist part. Just saying you’ll give everyone all this shit and Mexico will pay for it is free market capitalism 101.
2 Likes
Yep. Well, you threw an unnecessary “s” on the end of conservative, but Rand Paul did run. Would love to have President Paul.
I can’t imagine voting FOR most of those ideas. They pretty much suck.
Edit: I’d much rather someone try to do those things free of charge than by raising taxes to pay for them…I’d rather see all U.S. forces brought home and foreign bases closed to free up funds.
I’d rather Mexico paid for our healthcare than the wall but I would take a 2 for 1 since they have the checkbook out.
I think you had 16 people significantly more conservative than him.
They are responsible for them being rights so…
Of course you ignored the fact Trump was considering a quarantine.
I’d take Rand Paul, Ben Carson, and probably Ted Cruz over Trump, but it wasn’t up to me.
I’d imagine Mexico is willing to pay for you to receive the same quality healthcare most of its people receive.
lolz…!
Times of crisis are precisely why the founders spelled it out. That’s when individual rights are most important and most threatened.
The constitution was written in a time when life expectancy was 35. They experienced epidemics and infectious disease. This isn’t new. Either is the threat to our rights.