Are Californians unfamiliar with the first ammendment?

[PhilipNolan]

@Samm

As much as your concern regarding mass gatherings exacerbating spread of this disease is rational, you cannot simply say the rights guaranteed by the Constitution no longer apply. The Constitution cannot be switched off and on. You can make your case and try to convince the people that they should forgo their rights for the common good, but you can’t just suspend the rights by force.

And that pretty much is the nuts and bolts on the issue of these lockdowns.

[gooddad409]

@Samm

@Paul_Thomson

@GrandWazoo

A person who tests positive for the virus.

Do you want us to reach herd immunity? Or are you for locking down until a safe vaccine is available sometime in 2022?

We will never reach herd immunity without a vaccine. And in the meantime, people have to survive and for the county to survive, so does the economy. A perpetual prolonged lockdown will kill us all.

That doesn’t seem to register with many on the left advocating an indefinate lockdown.

[mobulis]

@PhilipNolan

@Samm

As much as your concern regarding mass gatherings exacerbating spread of this disease is rational, you cannot simply say the rights guaranteed by the Constitution no longer apply. The Constitution cannot be switched off and on. You can make your case and try to convince the people that they should forgo their rights for the common good, but you can’t just suspend the rights by force.

And that pretty much is the nuts and bolts on the issue of these lockdowns.

Fine, just don’t bitch if infections increase.

[GrandWazoo]

@gooddad409

That doesn’t seem to register with many on the left advocating an indefinate lockdown.

I have not heard anyone on the left advocate for a indefinite lock down. Just on its face it is a stupid idea.
And certainly I have not heard any democrat or independent politicians advocate for that. If you can send me a link I will stand corrected.

[gooddad409]

@GrandWazoo

@gooddad409

That doesn’t seem to register with many on the left advocating an indefinate lockdown.

I have not heard anyone on the left advocate for a indefinite lock down. Just on its face it is a stupid idea.
And certainly I have not heard any democrat or independent politicians advocate for that. If you can send me a link I will stand corrected.

Then you aren’t paying attention to some of your fellow posters.

Dem politicians are never going to admit it either but look at their actions, especially people like Whitmer and Newsom.

[mobulis]

@gooddad409

@GrandWazoo

@gooddad409

That doesn’t seem to register with many on the left advocating an indefinate lockdown.

I have not heard anyone on the left advocate for a indefinite lock down. Just on its face it is a stupid idea.
And certainly I have not heard any democrat or independent politicians advocate for that. If you can send me a link I will stand corrected.

Then you aren’t paying attention to some of your fellow posters.

Dem politicians are never going to admit it either but look at their actions, especially people like Whitmer and Newsom.

Thank you for admitting that no one on the left advocates for an indefinite lockdown.

[GrandWazoo]

@gooddad409

Then you aren’t paying attention to some of your fellow posters.

Dem politicians are never going to admit it either but look at their actions, especially people like Whitmer and Newsom.

Well if some of my fellow posters actually said “indefinite lock down” I certainly missed it.
Whitmer and Newsom are easing restrictions. And from what I have seen they both are letting their state health departments determine the extent. We shall see in a couple of weeks if they were right or wrong.
I think that either spikes or lack of will be evident soon.

[zantax]

@Scratch

“Like all amendments” he said. So yes, that does bring other amendments into the discussion…You do know how to read don’t you?

What he didn’t say, was that prior restraint of any of them was ok.

[WuWei]

@mobulis

@gooddad409

@GrandWazoo

@gooddad409

That doesn’t seem to register with many on the left advocating an indefinate lockdown.

I have not heard anyone on the left advocate for a indefinite lock down. Just on its face it is a stupid idea.
And certainly I have not heard any democrat or independent politicians advocate for that. If you can send me a link I will stand corrected.

Then you aren’t paying attention to some of your fellow posters.

Dem politicians are never going to admit it either but look at their actions, especially people like Whitmer and Newsom.

Thank you for admitting that no one on the left advocates for an indefinite lockdown.

Newsom said the order has to remain in effect indefinitely.

Newsom orders all 40M Californians to stay home in nation's strictest state...

[GrandWazoo]

Coronavirus Stage 2 reopening: 47 counties in California given green light to...

They are trying to speed up the reopening.

[WuWei]

@GrandWazoo

Coronavirus Phase 2 reopening: 47 counties in California allowed to reopen schools, restaurants and malls - ABC7 San Francisco

They are trying to speed up the reopening.

Conceding to the inevitable loss of consent of the governed to maintain the illusion of power.

“Yeah, I meant to do that.”

[GrandWazoo]

Alameda County Becomes COVID-19 Hotspot

We shall see what happens here.

[RTchoke]

@WuWei

@GrandWazoo

@WuWei

’d like to see such an oath please.

OATH OF OFFICE
For Health Authorities in the State of Texas
I, _____________________________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of Health Authority of the State of Texas and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.

How about a governor? You know, the guys issuing the orders?

“Health Authorities” You said all. Nice try though.

I personally do not see

and to protect the life and health of their constituents.

in there anywhere.

[FlameHeart]

By your logic, that would also mean abortion is not an absolute right. If you’re going to respond “but there’s not a victorious case against abortion” well, the courts don’t make the laws.

[FlameHeart]

@mobulis

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Rights are not unlimited.

Same goes for abortion.

[mobulis]

@FlameHeart

By your logic, that would also mean abortion is not an absolute right. If you’re going to respond “but there’s not a victorious case against abortion” well, the courts don’t make the laws.

Its not.

[mobulis]

@FlameHeart

@mobulis

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Rights are not unlimited.

Same goes for abortion.

Yep…

[PhilipNolan]

@mobulis

Fine, just don’t bitch if infections increase.

That might be a good thing, it will clear out some of those overcrowded cities.

[Samm]

@gooddad409

@Samm

@Paul_Thomson

@GrandWazoo

A person who tests positive for the virus.

Do you want us to reach herd immunity? Or are you for locking down until a safe vaccine is available sometime in 2022?

We will never reach herd immunity without a vaccine. And in the meantime, people have to survive and for the county to survive, so does the economy. A perpetual prolonged lockdown will kill us all.

That doesn’t seem to register with many on the left advocating an indefinate lockdown.

The only people who could do that are prepers … and we know what the libs think about them.

[Samm]

@mobulis

@PhilipNolan

@Samm

As much as your concern regarding mass gatherings exacerbating spread of this disease is rational, you cannot simply say the rights guaranteed by the Constitution no longer apply. The Constitution cannot be switched off and on. You can make your case and try to convince the people that they should forgo their rights for the common good, but you can’t just suspend the rights by force.

And that pretty much is the nuts and bolts on the issue of these lockdowns.

Fine, just don’t bitch if infections increase.

I’d much rather that there were more cases of illness than to lose the Constitution. Besides, most of the “victims” will be big city liberals so what does it mater.