U.S. to close..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

My hatred of lawyers comes from many years of experience, thank you.

I'm a lawyer (among other things). Thanks for your hatred. Very pleasant to hear.

[SeanPatrick]

I'd just like to apologize for multi-posting and getting a little wound up. I'm obviously passionate about politics and my country. Anyway, this has nothing to do with sailing, so I'm going to give it a rest.


I would still like to hear more opinions on my question, though.


... And Dockhead: nothing personal, mate!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Do you [and this question is for everyone else, too] think U.S. soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines/coast guardsmen would open fire on the people? And by "people", I mean not a small group of teenagers burning and looting a particular city. I mean mass dissatisfaction with the government. I'm genuinely interested to know as many people's opinions on this as possible.. . .

In case of real mass dissatisfaction with the government, the masses will vote out that government.

In case of a minority of armed people, unable to influence events through voting, who are dissatisfied with a government elected by a majority of the people, and who are threatening that government with armed insurrection -- yes, that's a quick way to jail, and the police, eventually National Guard, and finally other elements of the U.S. military if necessary, will apply whatever force is required to restore order, including if necessary opening fire on said armed insurrectionists. That's how it works. Our Constitution does not contemplate change by force; in fact its whole purpose is to provide mechanisms for change by other, peaceful means.

In 1861-65 we had even a whole section of the country in armed rebellion, and not just a bunch of wacko Boogaloo Boyz. Did the U.S. military hesitate to fire on them? We know how that worked out -- 258,000 rebels killed by their own countrymen -- so why do you think this will be any different?

For better or for worse, tyrannical or not, the state certainly knows how to preserve itself. The only realistic weapon we have against the state is the ballot box. The only realistic path to reform is by accumulating a weight of mass opinion sufficient to win elections and put together legislative majorities.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In 1861-65 we had even a whole section of the country in armed rebellion, and not just a bunch of wacko Boogaloo Boyz. Did the U.S. military hesitate to fire on them? We know how that worked out, so why do you think this will be any different?

Okay, one last post ... and only because I knew someone would mention the Civil War and you've sucked me back in.


The Civil War resulted in the minority rebellion (the South was outnumbered roughly 2:1) being put down and the result was ... wait for it ... more freedom. This is exactly what I meant to exclude: riots, relatively small groups of malcontents and [most importantly] anyone not interested in preserving or extending actual freedom - which is the foundation of the United States (imperfectly as it may have started).


U.S. military personnel take an oath to defend the Constitution. That's exactly what they succeeded in doing during the Civil War. Slavery was not specifically condoned by that document - nor was it ever - even from the beginning, and there are reasons for that. Freedom and equality were.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Within our borders, the courts have ruled that the protections of the Constitution do indeed apply to everyone ... even non-citizens. AFAIK, that has been duly enforced. I would like to see evidence to the contrary.
..................

AFAIK, USA courts will deport non-citizens but won't deport citizens. Of course I could be wrong.

I'm not suggesting this wrong, it is just an example that 'rights' as expressed by some posters only exist by the consent of others.

[Yihang]

Non resident aliens cant buy guns either.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What is basically never used by professionals to formulate policy intended to save human life is a simple life for life calculation, notwithstanding what some naive people aggressively insist.

Did someone call my name?

Professionals (hopefully) don't put their thumb on the scale, or ignore options or resources because they challenge the status quo.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...People want nothing more than to be told what to do during a crisis, and to have their neighbors forced to do it. You can see this mentality even in these threads.

The whole point of organizing as a society or a country is to do together what we cannot do individually. Such as respond to crises like pandemics. What do you think the governments of Finland or Sweden would be doing if they were not blessed with a national attitude of cooperation that made 'light touch' voluntary measures possible and effective?

[ but, whoa, what a thread! Epic]

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I have studied, taught, and written published works on policy and policy-making, and advised politicians, ...

So, you’re the one! I’ve wondered who to blame ...

Originally Posted by SalingSue

... And yes, any government who would force me, at gun point, to strap a mask over my face, that is a government that needs to be put back in its place. You really thing all these countries that went all democide just went 0-60?
These are huge red flags that need to be nipped in the bud.

That’s a hysterical, somewhat fallacious , “Slippery Slope” rant, not an argument.
Nowhere have I heard of a government employing force (never mind @ gunpoint) to enforce masking (nor any other prudent public health measure).

We need to make sure, if we are creating a line of reasoning, in terms of events leading to other events, that we aren’t falling into a slippery slope fallacy. The problem with this reasoning, is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to an extreme hypothetical.
Beware of “the next thing you know” conditional propositions, but (conversely) just because a slippery slope fallacy is used, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or fallacious.

There’s an important difference between laws that are intended to prevent a person from harming other people, which can be a justified exercise of State police power, and laws that are intended to protect only the health of the individual herself, which are unjustified violations of liberty.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Our influence over how we are governed does not, contrary to popular belief, come from the Bill of Rights. Few of the individual rights enumerated in or implied in the Bill of Rights cannot be overridden for a "compelling government interest" (the "strict scrutiny" test). It is rather the BODY of the Constitution, which provides PROCESSES through which the People have a certain degree of influence over how we are governed, mostly through voting. If you don't like what you get to vote for, then there's not much else you can do other than running for office yourself. We are not nearly as free as you think ...
... Mike is right about the expansion of state power during the pandemic...

In a 1905 Supreme Court case (Jacobson v. Massachusetts*), upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations, against a claim that it violated the constitutional liberty to control one’s own body and health, the court observed that:
“... The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will...
... upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members ...”

At the moment, (most) governments (correctly, IMO) believe they have a temporary compelling interest, in restricting gatherings, assemblies and movement in public, in order to minimize the spread of this virus.
While we may tolerate these restrictions on our liberties, in the shorter term, we should never fail to be on guard, lest these prudent constraints become a slippery slope to tyrany, or “democide”.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Our influence over how we are governed does not, contrary to popular belief, come from the Bill of Rights. Few of the individual rights enumerated in or implied in the Bill of Rights cannot be overridden for a "compelling government interest" (the "strict scrutiny" test). It is rather the BODY of the Constitution, which provides PROCESSES through which the People have a certain degree of influence over how we are governed, mostly through voting. If you don't like what you get to vote for, then there's not much else you can do other than running for office yourself. We are not nearly as free as you think ...
... Mike is right about the expansion of state power during the pandemic...

* I’d welcome Dockhead’s thoughts on how, and if, "Jackobson" applies to our current situation (legally).
Is not the "strict scrutiny" just one (prevalent), of several, test philosophies (intermediate & rational basis) ?

One practical reason for protecting personal liberty rights, is that it encourages social solidarity. People are more likely to trust officials who protect their personal liberty.
Without trust, public officials will not be able to persuade the public to take even the most reasonable precautions, during an emergency, which will make a bad situation even worse.
The public will usually support reasonable public health interventions, if they trust public health officials to make sensible recommendations, that are based on science, and where the public is treated as part of the solution instead of the problem.
21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials, to tell the truth.
Unfortunately, it’s sometime difficult to believe politicians, whose reelection depends more on those who finance their campaigns, than on the (often) ill-informed voters.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Yihang

Non resident aliens cant buy guns either.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-...chase-firearms

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, you’re the one! I’ve wondered who to blame ...



That’s a hysterical, somewhat fallacious , “Slippery Slope” rant, not an argument.
Nowhere have I heard of a government employing force (never mind @ gunpoint) to enforce masking (nor any other prudent public health measure).

We need to make sure, if we are creating a line of reasoning, in terms of events leading to other events, that we aren’t falling into a slippery slope fallacy. The problem with this reasoning, is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to an extreme hypothetical.
Beware of “the next thing you know” conditional propositions, but (conversely) just because a slippery slope fallacy is used, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or fallacious.

There’s an important difference between laws that are intended to prevent a person from harming other people, which can be a justified exercise of State police power, and laws that are intended to protect only the health of the individual herself, which are unjustified violations of liberty.



In a 1905 Supreme Court case (Jacobson v. Massachusetts*), upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations, against a claim that it violated the constitutional liberty to control one’s own body and health, the court observed that:
“... The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will...
... upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members ...”

At the moment, (most) governments (correctly, IMO) believe they have a temporary compelling interest, in restricting gatherings, assemblies and movement in public, in order to minimize the spread of this virus.
While we may tolerate these restrictions on our liberties, in the shorter term, we should never fail to be on guard, lest these prudent constraints become a slippery slope to tyrany, or “democide”.



* I’d welcome Dockhead’s thoughts on how, and if, "Jackobson" applies to our current situation (legally).
Is not the "strict scrutiny" just one (prevalent), of several, test philosophies (intermediate & rational basis) ?

One practical reason for protecting personal liberty rights, is that it encourages social solidarity. People are more likely to trust officials who protect their personal liberty.
Without trust, public officials will not be able to persuade the public to take even the most reasonable precautions, during an emergency, which will make a bad situation even worse.
The public will usually support reasonable public health interventions, if they trust public health officials to make sensible recommendations, that are based on science, and where the public is treated as part of the solution instead of the problem.
21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials, to tell the truth.
Unfortunately, it’s sometime difficult to believe politicians, whose reelection depends more on those who finance their campaigns, than on the (often) ill-informed voters.

These cops had guns but used “less than lethal” force.


https://abc7.com/woman-arrested-for-...kitts/6555132/

[Jason Flare]

As for a ragtag group of people getting the better of a world superpower I look to how the people in Afghanistan dealt with Russia and later the US.

Here’s one guy who turned US law enforcement upside down for a short while:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chri...gs_and_manhunt

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-...chase-firearms

you just agreed with yihangs statement,was that your intention?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

At the moment, (most) governments (correctly, IMO) believe they have a temporary compelling interest, in restricting gatherings, assemblies and movement in public, in order to minimize the spread of this virus.

While we may tolerate these restrictions on our liberties, in the shorter term, we should never fail to be on guard, lest these prudent constraints become a slippery slope to tyranny, or “democide”.

Maybe it's just me, but I believe that the biggest threats to US democracy aren't so much pandemic response, but the broader issue of who is not only paying the piper, but who's pretty much bought and owns the piper, as you allude to:

it’s sometime difficult to believe politicians, whose reelection depends more on those who finance their campaigns, than on the (often) ill-informed voters.

And there's also the small issue of who's been actively, unashamedly working to deny the vote to some, or to discourage voting by make it more difficult, and of course challenging the result of a fair election by any means possible. These seem like bigger threats to American democracy than being asked to temporarily limit gatherings and wear a mask to help stop pandemic spread.

The whole, pesky "one [person], one vote" thing seems to be bugging some people.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by atoll

you just agreed with yihangs statement,was that your intention?

My intention wasn’t to agree or disagree but to cite the specifics.

An alien legally in the U.S. is not prohibited from purchasing firearms unless the alien is admitted into the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa and does not meet one of the exceptions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as possession of a valid hunting license or permit.

[18 U.S.C. 922 (d)(5), (g)(5) and (y)(2); 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.32(a)(5) ]

[Yihang]

FYI a resident alien is basically a greencard holder. So everyone else on work visas do not have second amendments rights, which is fair enough to be honest. I was able to shoot off some rounds at a range in Vegas though, any tourist can do that, Merica....