"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." — tim wood

Yes, that right. And I do know what it means. And I think I dumped, in a PM, a lengthy legal analysis of that on you when I first arrived at this site. If you can find it, you can copy and past they whole thing here.

LOL! First you say I'm:

'encouraging' . . . everyone to get it creates a demand — Isaac

Then you say I'm making them:

even less likely . . . because all you've done is entrenched their paranoia — Isaac

Which is it?

And you say we are:

happily approaching your 70% target — Isaac

Uh, no. We aren't happily approaching our target. And we aren't because idiots like you aren't backing your own hand. That's why we have variants. And then, when the vax won't work, you'll be blaming me and my ilk. DOH! You're like the tobacco champ saying their is conflicting evidence about smoking and cancer. "I mean, just read the papers and the science and here's this guy (who works for Phillip Morris) who says blah blah blah."

The answer isn't to coddle the Faux-News-hesitant, and hope they come along while we vax up the rest of the world. The answer is to vax up the whole fucking world, including us. We are already on the losing side of this while others clamor for the vax. Seems the foreigners (many who want the vax) are ready to play ball. Get them the vax. But little good that will do if all the imbeciles in America are listening to you and we create new variants and render the vax useless.

Finally, I'm no fan of big pharma. For the life of me, I could not figure out why everyone was worried about espionage. All the science should have been shared, world-wide, free of charge, to any swinging dick or tit that wanted it. After all, it was U.S. taxpayer dollars, or the promise of them, that was and is going to pay for it in the U.S. If it was really a ww emergency then we should have been spreading all the latest data around like a rampant virus. Up to and including dumping pallets of the vax on our enemies in Afghanistan. From what I've heard, the virus doesn't respect borders.

but big fucking deal. — Srap Tasmaner

You're the one who mentioned FBI snipers having some turd in their sites. My big fucking deal was just a big fucking deal to your big fucking deal.

the US Army could just obliterate them, — Srap Tasmaner

Like they did the Viet Cong and the Taliban? The U.S. Army is composed of Americans, many of whom would not shoot mom and pop. And the U.S. Army would not have a snow ball's chance in hell against Americans. First, there is the fact they can't operate on U.S. soil unless certain conditions are met. When those conditions are met, see sentence number one.

That's a Red Dawn fantasy. — Srap Tasmaner

Again, tell that to history. The single most powerful nations on Earth continually get their asses handed to them by insurgents (Patriots/King George, U.S./Viet Cong, Mujahedeen/USSR, Taliban/U.S. etc.). Sure, there were states behind the scenes but there is no reason to think that would not happen here. Besides, none of those folks were armed up like we are, and none of the states had militaries composed of mixed units like ours. It's not Red Dawn fantasy. If you remember, Red Dawn was a foreign force.

The only real threat is if the military and the innumerable police forces and the civilians are on the same side. Sounds like the "right" is working that up and the left has forfeited.

Check out the Mulford Act, by the way.

What, if anything, is stopping you from offering free healthcare? — NOS4A2

The private sector insurance industry, for one. You know, that giant sucking sound between the patient and doctor.

I heard an interview once with a former FBI sniper who told a story about some militia-type dude they arrested, and he's spouting all this anti-government nonsense. Our guy tells him, "I had your head in my sights for the last two hours. If we wanted you dead, you'd be dead. You may be at war with your government, but your government is not at war with you." — Srap Tasmaner

I heard a similar story where the government snipers were, after the fact, given vids of them in the scopes of counter snipers at Bundy's place. All of them had been marked for death by several trained-up former spec ops guys (counter-snipers and much further out), had they squeezed off a single round.

That FBI guy may not think he's at war with the people, but when they infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms, they are.

Where would you rather be a cop? — Srap Tasmaner

In the same exact place that I'd rather be a despot.

I'm sure the people will be watching to see if the rule of law is applied to the traitors of January 6th. And I'm not talking about the foot-soldiers on the ground who trashed the building. I'm talking about the admins, logistics guys, coordinators and, most especially, those people in the Capital Police, law enforcement and investigative agencies, intelligence, military, and executive. And, last but not least, any legislators that were in on it. If they burn them down to the ground and purge their ranks of the insurgents, then I'll have a little more faith in the rule of law.

But there are two things I know: It's extremely difficult to break the blue or green wall, and the further up the chain you go, the less likely it is that anything will be done.

We agree it's needed (but maybe not here in the U.S.);
We agree it works.
We agree it's needed because it works.
We agree it works for several reasons, some more than others, and some possible, but not proven.

Now, another assumption on my part: You came to these conclusions through application of your analytic and critical thinking skills applied to the peer-reviewed and expert literature, after considering debate within the community of experts. Great! More power to you.

I just listened to https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html?s_cid=10493:covid%2019%20vaccination:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

and listened to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President.

After listening to them, I got the J&J on April Fools Day. Now, granted, the U.S. Government is fucked up for many reasons, and they have screwed the pooch in several misadventures (the most recent of which is Afghanistan), and they have, or have allowed the use of U.S. citizens as Guinea Pigs (like black folks and venereal disease, etc.), but all in all, I don't think they are out to get me. So I vaxed. And I encourage everyone else to get vaxed. And I think that if everyone would have followed the polite request of the government, there would be no variants and there would be no pass-throughs and we would have herd immunity, and hell, had we distanced and masked, we might not have even needed the vax!

Anyway, I'm glad you agree it's needed and works for several reasons.

One and done. I take those risks all the time, every day. I don't know what's in half the shit I eat or drink and I put my life in the hands of countless idiots every time I get on the road. I took a shot. Whooptie Doo!

I'll go find another thread to argue about some other shit. Fuck Covid and all the maelstrom surrounding it. I did my part and will continue doing so. If I end up magnetic, or Bill Gates starts telling to buy his shit when I sleep, or I up and die because I took the vax, so be it. I'm a rebel! A devil-may-care, risk-taking captain of daring-do! Gotta get me one of them Stars and Bars flags. But I guess I've been trod on, so I can't get one those snake flags. I'm bummed.

Okay, we established that it is needed.
We established that it works.
I'm going out on a limb here and assuming it is needed because it works, and not for some other reason. I forgot to insert that question in the appropriate order. Correct me if my assumption is wrong, and if there is some other reason that it is needed instead of the fact that it works.

As to what it works for, part of the reason is:

The vaccine works by giving some immunity to those which don't have sufficient acquired immunity or who may come to harm acquiring it. — Isaac

This raises a question in my mind: If it gives some immunity to the people you mention, does it not provide some immunity to other people? Or does it only provide some immunity to those you mention? Is there something about the people you mention that allows them to get some immunity, but others not?

Me: They work, yes. — Isaac

Cool. What do they work for? (Why would you say they are needed? What for?)

:100:

Work at what? — Isaac

That's obvious moron: Do they work at whatever would compel you to say they are needed. Do they work at that?

If they do, I will then ask you what they work at, if anything.

And what's holding up vaccine supply? — Isaac

That would be irrelevant if they don't work. First, tell me if they work. Then I will ask you what they work for. Then we can discuss whether morons like me are holding up the supply, or morons like you are dissuading people from using them. First things first, Isaac. Do they work?

other countries need the vaccines — Isaac

Why? Do they work?

Once upon a time and a long time ago, our military used to do military things. The private sector was relegated to turning out widgets and making huge profits off of Uncle Sugar's tit. Now, thanks to Dick Cheney and his ilk, we have contracted out a lot. So, instead of Private Snuffy burning shit barrels as part of punishment for being a rebel who questioned authority, he lays on his bunk, listening to his iPod, and we pay Haliburton metric shit tons of money to do it for him.

We spend even more, of our nickel, training up Tier One Operators to be the best soldiers the world has ever known, and then the private sector lures them away with our big bucks to run security for their executives.

And our private contractors receive a huge chunk to train up Afghan forces who cut and run.

The point here is, while gubmn't can indeed be wasteful, such waste usually comes from those old-school private sector MIC types who have cost over-runs and whatnot on their widget production. But when we actually turn the job of using the widgets over to them, then the fleecing really begins. The private sector is no great panacea when it comes to serving the people. They know gubmn't is not capable of overseeing them, and holding their feet to the fire, and to the contracts; and they have congressmen and women to make sure they don't.

Health care is the same. The people are getting fucked, coming and going.

The private sector could never have won any war we have won; nor should they be given such powerful tools as the military has. Some jobs are just best performed by Private Snuffy and the Tier One Operators, and every one in uniform in between. Same with health care and other essential services. The private sector simply lacks the wisdom, intelligence, patriotism, selflessness and incentive to do right by the people. That's why they should not be allowed to own politicians the way they do.

But alas, just like NASA: they did all the heavy lifting and open the doors. But fifty years from now they will be forgotten and Bezos and Musk, et al, will be hailed as the entrepreneurs, rugged individualists, risk-taking, bootstrapping men who led us into the new frontier, boldly going where no man (well, no private sector man) has ever gone before! Just like the pioneers who opened the west, all with the sweat of their own brow (forget the U.S. Calvary, land give-aways, etc.)!

Can the private sector produce widgets? Yes. But they should not be endowed with the power to use those widgets in furtherance of the public good. Likewise healthcare. (Don't get me started on publicly funded Universities and the tech and medicine that come out of those.)

The private sector needs to be harnessed, like a fucking horse, and put to work, by the people, for the people. It's a free country, they don't have to work if they don't want to. But if they want oats and grain and a stable, that's part of the deal. Work you little bitches! Or go away and let in a horse that's ready for the harness.

End rant.

:100: Yeah, it's like the experts were saying early on: The U.S. could distance, mask, vax and wash their hands 100% but it would be all for naught if the rest of the world was not on board. Turns out we were the recalcitrants. And now, because the adults didn't play ball, the kids are the new petri dishes that they have always been. Saddle up, boys. It's going to be a long ride.

:100: :up:

:ok:

How do you place others at risk by non-vaxxin? — Prishon

I'm beginning to think, like others have opined, that you might be a troll. At first I understood the inability to use the forum tech. After all, I'm no tech guy myself. Then I thought it was your fat fingers on your cell, as you suggested. But there's something more than typos here. Finally, I thought that maybe English wasn't your first language and that maybe you sounded like a fool for that reason. After all, you're a physics guy so you can't be stupid. It must be the language thing. But when you are patently obstinate, I'm inclined to put you on my informal, personal block list. Hmmm. I guess I'll hide and watch.

:rofl:

From twitter: "I'm not sure there is a non-condescending way to say 'Stop eating horse dewormer.'"

In looking at the title to this thread, and the words "free markets", it brought to mind something I was taught a long time ago as a little boy: Nothing is free.

You lack the data to make such decisions. — NOS4A2

Data! Data! I don't need no stinking Data!

I choose free markets — NOS4A2

As long as all costs are internalized among those who voluntarily agree to assume them, and are paid to do so in good faith and fair dealing, then I'm good with that.

Only I know what goods and services I need to purchase — NOS4A2

I'd just like to take this opportunity to interject a distinction between "want" and "need." If you want a cheep piece of Chinese plastic shit, then I don't care what you want, or if the markets will allow you to get it; You should be denied. I'd be happy to centrally plan that denial. I've got the knowledge and foresight to do that. I'm competent to tell you that you don't need that. Because, really, you are just benefiting from communism and we all know you are not a communist. This analysis extends likewise to the purchase of products from sellers who benefit from dictators, fascists, misogynists, homophobes, corporate polluters and others who externalize their costs in the product of the widget that you want. Yeah, I can do that. Make me King and I'll make sure you do run afoul of your own standards or my standards.

Are you really believing that Taliban has some chances to free range U. S.? — javi2541997

I view Trumpster Republicans as American Taliban.

Is that picture of you wearing a gun? I like that picture! — Prishon

No, that is Robert De Niro in the movie Taxi Driver.

Not even the police officers or military officials. — javi2541997

Who would enforce this? You know, if the Taliban had free range in the U.S., who is going to disarm them?

A pity that there was Ronald Reagan to take that away from them. — Prishon

White privilege. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is sacred, except not "those people." When Ronny thought the blacks were getting uppity, he was fine with gun control.

Lack of fear works just as well. — unenlightened

It works really well, under some circumstances. Like when the rule of law is still held in regard by the gun holder. If a person is afraid to use the gun because of potential legal consequences, then a person without a gun can carry the day.

Guns are only any good for killing and killing is only any good for instilling fear. — unenlightened

Guns are good for instilling fear in would-be despots.

Because it were the blacks demanding the right to wear arms? — Prishon

They weren't demanding it; they were exercising it.

Ah! I think its getting more clear now to me. I didnt know about the founding fathers that they thought guns helped people keeping the goverment in check. But does that still apply today? I watched (from my cosy sofa) the happenings at the Capitol. One man was shor dead (?). They were prepared to shoot Pelosi. Is that what you mean? — Prishon

Yes, that is what I mean. Another example is the armed occupation of the State House in Michigan. You know why those Republicans, and the Republicans who assaulted the Capital, and Cliven Bundy's dad, et al, were not mowed down by crew-served, belt-fed automatic weapons fire, like BLM and Antifa would have been? It's not just because they were white. It's because they are armed to the teeth. That is why Ronald Reagan supported gun control in California back in the day: Blacks were arming up. Since then, the left, by and large, has forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. Thus, they must rely upon the good graces of government and people like Trump to not subjugate them. They must rely on the cops (with guns) and to protect them. They must hope the cops aren't with the fascists. The left must hope. That's all they have left. Because the fascists don't abide the rule of law.

The argument you made was... — Isaac

But that is not the argument you asked about when you asked me about my risk. Maybe put more context, or more of my argument (like you just did with the kick-to-the-curb argument I made). Then I would respond to that. See how that works? That way you won't get all confused by answers to questions you didn't ask.

Since you've now admitted that it being their choice is irrelevant we can assume you've relented. — Isaac

I haven't relented on anything. My argument is consistent and solid, and I've handed your ass to you. Don't ASSume, son. You're making an ass of yourself.

So? — Isaac

That is a nonsensical response. Up your game or I will tune you out.

Yes. — Isaac

Well, then. We agree. However, all these sick people are going to the hospital and getting drugs that are not FDA approved. That makes no sense.

Sounds daft to me. — Isaac

Me too, but understandable. I just wish when the doctor's save their lives with drugs that aren't FDA approved, the patient would not dig in their heels, double down and say they wouldn't take the vaccine because it's not FDA approved. They don't know what's in it. These people eat all kinds of shit from the grocery store, get tats with ink and avail themselves of tons of stuff that they don't know what's in it.

Not sure what any of these examples have to do with me. — Isaac

The record speaks for itself.

What argument is that? I haven't given any argument regarding the people you mentioned above. You've given three reasons why people might not take a vaccine and then assumed that's a counter-argument to anyone not taking the vaccine. Was three your limit? Did you have trouble thinking of more? — Isaac

You asked about kicking to the curb. I answered. It flew over your head. Okay. I see who I'm dealing with.

What the fuck has marketing got to do with reasonable risk? — Isaac

You tried to draw an analogy to fast food and other risky activities. Covid has no market. The other activities that you tried to analogize have a market. Try to pay attention, son.

So you're saying we're morally obliged to take only the risks that have been approved by society? Harsh, but consistent at least. Bullshit though. — Isaac

No, son, that is not what I'm saying. Go back and read your posts and how I directly responded to the issue you raised, shot it down and left you with nothing but pretending that you don't know what I'm saying or how it relates. It's a weak man's cop out. Just admit you were wrong. Go ahead, it's cathartic.

Policies are something politicians decide, based on their values and objectives. — Isaac

Policies are something people decide based on evidence. They often come from recommendations of experts. Sometimes that evidence is scientific. Sometimes the experts are scientists. Doctors, even.

I've given more than thirty citations in this thread alone, probably more in the other Coronavirus thread. I'd be very surprised if anyone here has cited more papers than I have on this subject. — Isaac

But I just told you, son, I have not seen a single one. And I also taught you that it would not matter one bit if you were to go regurgitate all that alleged shit that you posted that I have no read, because I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. I am not qualified, and neither are you. You are only qualified to decide if you like the policies, values and objectives that the government has laid out based on evidence. You aren't smart enough to weigh the evidence. Neither are the politicians. They are just relying on experts.

hat's why I asked you 'exactly' what you think Fauci is saying. — Isaac

And I answered, for the umpteenth time: He is saying distance, mask, vax. If you make this mistake one more time I will have to add you to my personal ignore list. I can't keep engaging obstinate children.

Yes. That is the opinion of experts, including the official opinion of the World Health Organisation. — Isaac

So, have they moved to remove Fauci from his position? Can you show me where steps have been take to remove his license to practice? I'm just curious, because that is how it would be done. I mean, if he is endangering the lives of people and your experts are really experts, his peers, then surely there is a movement afoot.

Why would they have to be wanting Fauci's job, what's that got to do with anything? — Isaac

Well, if they are really his peers and if he is really endangering peoples lives by saying distance/mask/vax, then they would want him replaced. If they would not want such a person replaced then surely they are not worthy of consideration. I mean, you know, Hippocratic Oath and all.

You might day that they are killed by the bad criminal lunatic and that thats the reason you wear them. — Prishon

Another thing I *think* we try to do here is not try and make the other person's argument for them.

Drugs are firbidden in the US and guns are allowed. — Prishon

Our founding father's didn't think drugs were a right. I suspect they didn't think drugs would help the people keep the government in check or secure a free state.

Neanderthals never built civilizations. Civilizations are the product of, and the means by which humans maintain advanced skillsets over time. — frank

We are not talking about civilizations. We are talking about acting civilized. Regardless, I would argue that taking care of one another is apparently and advanced skillset, since so many countries have yet to maintain it.

We aren't descended from Neanderthals (for the most part), but I take your point. — frank

I toss them out as an "even" argument. Cro-Magnons and others which were our ancestors did likewise. I just think it more demonstrative to say "Even a Neandertal is more civilized than a Republican."

It's a less massive killer but more persistent. If you look at 100 years it gives you 3 000 000 people dead. How many Corona victims are there in the US? — Prishon

Okay, so the first thing you should do is admit you were wrong. Then we can ask if it's fair to compare 250 years of gun killings with 1 year of Covid. hmmmm? I think not.

Next, after totaling up all the gun dead, I like to do something you may not want to do: I deduct all the suicides, all the accidents, and all the killings of those folks what needed kilt. After all, the first two are not the gun's fault and the latter is a net positive. That leaves us with innocent victims. How many?

Regardless, that is all going down an unnecessary and irrelevant rabbit hole. The right to keep and bear arms is primarily designed to secure a free state. Not defense from criminal acts or hunting and whatnot.

I think you agree with those who say state funded healthcare is a sign of civilization. — frank

I do. But I also think it is a part of human nature. Even Neandertals took care of their people.

It wasn't that way in the 1960s and 70s, and (white) people then just as firmly assumed that corporations were supposed to care about communities (of white people). — frank

Yes. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that we used to have up to a 90% marginal tax rate. With that high a rate, the rich naturally started buying politicians and legislating loop holes and exemptions. Unfortunately, when their employees in the legislature got done providing loopholes, they started dropping the tax rate, precipitately, and there was no commensurate closure of the loopholes and exemptions. So now those (white?) communities have garnered unto themselves the majority of the loot and pay little or no taxes, and everyone else subsidizes their socialist freeloading asses.

I demand animals should be allowed too. So we can all kill each other. I have read there are 60 000 people killed each year by bullets. More than Corona has done. Corona leaves with the tail between her legs. — Prishon

Hmm? Maybe you are right. Have more than 600,000 people been killed by guns in the same time frame that Covid has killed that number? (U.S.) If your number of 60,000 is right, then Covid has killed ten times as many people. Gun leaves with the tail between her legs.

I forgot this is an American site. — Prishon

I don't know for sure, but I think every one from around the world is welcome to chime in on equal footing. I *think* (but am not sure) that there might be an English requirement. I like to hear what those from more civilized countries have to say.

P.S. Unless and until you figure out the "quote" thing, I can tell you that I will probably miss many posts you may be directing to me, or those wherein you have endeavored but failed to quote me.

The gun empowers. — Prishon

Power to the people.

But to whom must we grant this shooting power? — Prishon

The U.S. does not grant this shooting power. This power is a Constitutional Right. The government is merely prohibited from infringing upon the right.

Who should be allowed to wear a gun (and use it)? — Prishon

The people.

If the government wants to keep it why give it and then take it back? — TheMadFool

I guess I'm confused. I've been both an employer and an employee in my life. As an employee, the $250.00 was never given to me and then taken back; it was just taken. The employer would offer to pay $2k, withhold $250.00 and send it in to government. As an employer, I withheld the $250.00 and often matched it, or a portion of it, and then sent it to the government on a monthly or quarterly basis.

While I agree that employers should not be burdened with doing the government's job for it (the government should tax the employee at the end of the year) I understand why the government does not do that. Employees don't make enough money, or are not disciplined enough to save the $250.00. So the government puts a gun to the employers head and makes him/her tap the employee's check before the employee even gets it.

I can't for the life of me get why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2? A government can save millions with the amount of paperwork that's involved in tax deductions/payments. :chin: — TheMadFool

Where is the $250.00 in scenario #1 and #2?

1. Most countries do it

Which isn't true. Few countries provide 100% state funded healthcare.

2. A country isn't civilized if it doesn't.

Which isn't true. — frank

I often wonder if, when people talk in universal, either/or, black/white dichotomies, they know they are doing it? Maybe someone said "100%" or bothered to define what "civilized" meant. But unless and until those questions are properly addressed, people will continue to talk past each other; talking to straw men.

No state anywhere is 100% anything. And the definition of "civilized" is wide open. How about "more or less funded in X state than in Y state" and "X state is more or less civilized than Y state"? Seems to make more sense to me.

Countries that fund health care more than countries that don't fund health care as much, are more civilized. I define "civilized" as a state that takes care of it's citizens. Civilization - civilized - citizens - civics. Get it? An advanced stage of social and cultural development, a civilized society, enlightened, educated, advanced, developed, cultured, polite and well-mannered. You know, as opposed to "sink or swim" barbaric, "you're on your own" capitalistic BS countries that imprison a large percentage of their population, have the highest health care costs with the least desirable health care.

I push quote and there shows up a random word. — Prishon

Use your left mouse button to highlight the text you would like to respond to. Then you should see the word "Quote" immediately to the lower right of the text you just highlighted. Press that word "Quote" and the text you just highlighted should appear in the response box. You would then type your response to that that quote. If that is what you are doing and it's still not working, then I don't know how to help.

I am in rabid disagreement on the government/gun thing, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion so I'll let it be.