Whitmer extends stay at home order under May 28th
How's everyone feeling about this?
Yeah, I know you read that somewhere, but that is a fabrication, a fiction made up to change/expand the scope the the 2nd Amendment right. A fairy tale.
Founders did not include the 2nd Amendment as some sort of generic anti-government tyranny thing. It was only about preventing the federal government from disarming the organized state militias. It was about federalism, not an individual right of self-defense.
And yeah, I also know that five Supreme Court Justices joined an opinion stating that the original understanding of the 2nd included a right against state governments limiting the right to have guns in the home for self defense.
Thing is, they were wrong. Framers never intended that. It was not about self-defense or a generic 'anti-tyranny' individual right. And it absolutely was not about limiting state government regulation of arms.
If five Justices held that the earth was flat it would not render the earth flat, either.
But hey, that is what we get when seats on the Supreme Court are doled out based in fealty to fictions!
Well, since guns save several orders of magnitude more lives than they take each year, I'll stick with my interpretation of the amendment . And what's my evidence? Every bad government of the 20th century. ALL tyranny starts with disarming the populace.
I'll leave you with the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson on what the second amendment was intended for -
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
And one from William Pitt -
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
Thanks, cold dead hands and all that.
"All tyranny starts with disarming the populace."
LOL. No it doesn't. Not even close to true.
"Every bad government of the 20th Century..." You mean like the former Confederate state governments after the end of Reconstruction until the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965? Yeah, disarming "the people" had nothing to do with that.
Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Hugo Chavez (o.k. not 20th century, but a terrible government)? Not really about 'disarming the people.'
Jefferson? William Pitt? Neither was a drafter of the Constitution or of the Bill of Rights. Who cares what they said? Jefferson was in France at the time. William Pitt died in 1778, 11 years before the 2nd Amendment was even drafted.
Jefferson had a lot of random dumb ideas about the Constitution that he played no role in drafting. Here is one: The Constitution did not permit the Louisiana Purchase. Brilliant! He was just as wrong on that as on the 2nd Amendment.
William Pitt (again, long dead at the time) was an English dude. Irrelevant.
But yeah, I get it. "The People" need to rise up with their guns and overthrow the tyrannical dictator in Lansing.
LOL. Yes it does. Completely 100% true. Always.
20th Century = 1901-2000. Basics, please review.
Do you think African Americans not having the right to bear arms didn't make it easier for lynch mobs to do evil? Disarming the people had entirely to do with that, well, that and Democrats.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, all 20th Century, but we already covered that. All, ALL started with disarming their citizenry. ALL.
I can make an opinion about the Constitution and why it is one of the greatest documents ever written, and support the second amendment. I wasn't alive in the 1780s. Are you confused about the difference between supporting vs. drafting? Do you really believe Jefferson's opinions didn't filter into Madison's (a major contributor to the Constitution's writing) thinking? Do you really believe the opinions of other great thinkers didn't filter into the thinking of the people who wrote the constitution?!? Are you stupid enough to believe life isn't interconnected? We are today a product of history. Your lack of any original thoughts took centuries of effort by backwards thinking idiots. One of the last presidents favorite lines was "right side of history", not understanding that everything he believes is a sad relic of such failed states as Tsarist Russia and Ancien Regime France.
The Constitution didn't permit the Louisiana Purchase, it also didn't expressly forbid. He did it anyway because the constitution is still a document created by imperfect people. Jefferson knew that the purchase was the right thing to do from almost every consideration. Thank goodness Jefferson knew what the constitution is and is not.
Most of what became US law started as English law. Pitt's opinions, are relevant to why the second amendment is important. I'm sorry you're too small-minded to grasp the level of thought that most middle school children can get their heads around.
If the people wanted to rise up, the protests would've been a lot different than they were. They wanted to express their opinions, and they did so. That you disagree is your right. That you think they don't have a right is very closed-minded. Well done, you're the problem. Now that we've pin-pointed the problem, you can work on fixing it.
"Well, since guns save several orders of magnitude more lives than they take each year.."
Quit reading after that line of bullshit.
Your inability to deal with reality is disturbing. Do you have to be reminded to wipe up your drool?
Are you actually an OSU grad?
The truth has nothing to do with your sensibilities. It is simply the truth.
All right, Gomer.
If you have a degree from UM my two probably aren't worth the paper on which they are printed.
You are also welcome for the decade I spent defending your right to be a gun cuddling dipshit.
(I have several, btw. They are tools, not some magic freedom maker toted around by wannabes)
I'm going to move on to more productive pursuits.
Let's just say I figured out education is a starting point, not a finish line.
I don't own a gun, but thank you for defending anyone's rights.
I didn't attend the protests, I'm simply open minded enough to listen to why they're protesting, and when I find some idea or concept I disagree with, my first instinct is to ask, "what do they know that I don't" and listen. Doesn't always change my mind, but I have spent the better part of my life getting smarter, and I'm entirely comfortable with the ideas I have - ever mutable by more info, but rooted in very solid ground.
Have a nice day, Moose, I wish you "more productive pursuits" - like listening to smart people :)
I think they carry their guns for multiple reasons, including some of the reasons mentioned here by other mgobloggers. While the shut down and second amendment are technically separate issues, many of the protesters see them as linked. They feel as though their constitutional rights are being whittled away slowly over time and they wont stand for it. They refuse to be the slowly boiled frog. While these protesters are labeled as gun-toting ignorant hillbillies here and elsewhere, they have a good understanding of their constitutional rights as free people. As long as it stays nonviolent, I have no problem with them or anyone else that stands up for what they believe in.
What rights are truly being whittled away? Your opinion on government and changing public norms doesn't impact your rights... furthermore, all rights have restrictions. See that you can't say fire in a movie theatre.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the guns were carried by these true patriots as a deterrent. It is common knowledge among the militia faithful, that cronovirus is easily deterred by simply carrying an AR-15 strapped to your chest. You see, this is because the coronavirus is a liberal hoax, and is it common knowledge liberals don't like guns. The virus will choose to stay away from the protesters, if they are carrying guns. Now if that doesn't work, then you can also shoot it from a safe distance of at least 6 feet.
Those “patriots” look a lot like ISIS terrorists.
I doubt the guys with the legally obtained and licensed semi auto AR-15s are the same as the the guys with automatic AK47's who enslave women and cut people's heads off with who they disagree with. But that's just my silly opinion.
Let's be real clear here. The guys you are trashing will defend your freedoms regardless of whether or not you like or agree with them. The other guys will either tell you to convert to Islam or they'll slit your throat.
"Defend my freedoms..."
Let's unpack that for a second. I am *completely* in favor of the Second Amendment. Full stop.
However, anyone who parades around in public without wearing a mask these days is most definitely not a "patriotic American." Whether it is blind ignorance, willful disregard for the safety of others, or just garden-variety selfishness, showing up to a rally like this, shoulder to shoulder, without wearing a mask is inviting the spread of a virus they may be unknowingly shedding. The mask isn't there to protect *you*; it's to protect other people *from you*. It seems to me that a group of people so concerned about rights and freedoms might consider that their right to not wear a mask ends where the air we share begins.
However, anyone who parades around in public without wearing a mask these days is most definitely not a "patriotic American."
I could not disagree more. Mask ordinances are a ridiculous abuse of power. There is no reason for a healthy person to wear a mask.
I love the mental gymnastics involved in trying to protect people from a disease that's so debilitating that many people don't even know they have it.
If I'm sick, I'm staying home. If I'm not sick, and you're afraid of me anyway, that's your right; I'm not about to impose myself on you. But standing up to an overreaching authority is one of the most patriotic things an American can do.
Meanwhile, trying to shame people into covering their face is not only borderline offensive, it also overlooks the serious problems with masks. They exacerbate subconscious biases. If you see someone hiding their face, they appear untrustworthy. That's not something that you can overcome in a couple of weeks by deciding "oh, masks are OK now" -- it's ingrained from thousands of years of humanity. How long until we start hearing about increased harassment of mask-wearing minorities? How long until someone gets hurt due to a mask-induced misunderstanding?
Wearing a mask sends a signal saying "I'm a threat to you." In a country that's already on edge, the last thing we need to do is to amplify that fear. Our nation's overall health will be enhanced by discouraging masks, not by requiring them. The CDC's original guidance was correct; not the politicized, replacement recommendation.
I fundamentally agree with you. Government Forcing people to wear masks is stupid. Businesses requiring it is different. They want their customers to feel safe
Businesses are within their rights to cater to the ignorant. I am also within my rights to refuse to do business with those companies. So far, I've succeeded.
It's the government restrictions that bother me.
If their policies are keeping you out of the store, they're clearly not catering to the ignorant
But look at how people are wearing masks (and other gear)... they're doing it in a manner which doesn't promote safety, most of the home grown masks are prophylactic at all -- it's nothing more than health care theater.
There is no reason for a healthy person to wear a mask.
Here is the problem: an infected person is not "healthy" whether or not they have symptoms.
And that's why we have a Due Process clause. If you have probable cause to believe that I'm a health risk, fine -- quarantine me, but then it's on you (the state) to prove it.
Forcing me to wear a mask because I might be sick is like taking away my drivers' license because I might hit someone. (There are other, darker metaphors, but I'm trying to remain civil).
The belief that everyone on the planet is an existential threat to everyone else on the planet is unsustainable. (And the belief that we're all protected by wearing boxer shorts on our face is silly). We simply cannot have a functioning society under those conditions.
Driving a car isn’t a constitutional right. We do take peoples licenses away because they might hurt someone. We should probably do more of it.
After the application of due process, yes. That's the piece that's missing here. I should not be treated as a disease-borne, germ-ridden parasite, with no evidence whatsoever, just because it makes somebody feel better.
Riddle me this... if masks work then why can’t we wear them and go back to work? If they don’t work, why should we wear them?
You are making at least two different arguments here:
1. Healthy people don’t need to wear masks: You further state “If I’m sick, I’m staying home. There are at least two holes in this argument.
- Just because you’d stay home, it doesn’t mean everyone would. Some because of very strong economic drivers, they’d lose their jobs if they didn’t, they have no sick days, etc. Some because they are just inconsiderate assholes. There are many of these.
- Many people with Covid are asymptomatic, so no matter how well intentioned, you don’t actually know if you are transmitting the disease in many cases.
2. Because of the biases it creates. ‘Wearing a mask sends a signal saying "I'm a threat to you." In a country that's already on edge, the last thing we need to do is to amplify that fear”
- In a covid world where people are worried about getting the virus, I think this works both ways. People will be less fearful of others wearing masks because they will feel they are less of a threat to transmit Covid. I’m not sure which bias ultimately wins out, but ai’m pretty sure it’s not as one sided as you portray it. My instinct (and this may be because ai live in a more urban and multicultural area is that at least in the short term, mask wearing will alleviate fears and biases, not exacerbate them. I will freely admit this is an unsupported assertion, not one based on studies so I could be convinced otherwise, but at this point I’d argue your position is just as much conjecture.
1a - You're right that not everyone will stay home.. That's the cost of living in a free society. I do my part, knowing that not everyone will. I accept that burden.
1b - Asked and answered above. Additionally, here is the current guidance from the WHO:
COVID-19 is mainly spread through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing or has other symptoms such as fever or tiredness. Many people with COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms. This is particularly true in the early stages of the disease. It is possible to catch COVID-19 from someone who has just a mild cough and does not feel ill.
Some reports have indicated that people with no symptoms can transmit the virus. It is not yet known how often it happens. WHO is assessing ongoing research on the topic and will continue to share updated findings.
If I'm coughing -- which, BTW, I don't think I've coughed without covering my mouth since I was three -- I'm not going out. "Some reports..." "It is not yet known..." To me, that's not worth giving up my freedom.*
2 - You're an optimist. While, yes, fear is a powerful motivator, I don't think it can overtake subconscious biases. Somebody's going to get hurt from this. Maybe in your community, it's not an issue, but there have been increasing reports of anti-Asian bias, particularly toward masked individuals, since this whole mess started. And boy would I hate to be a black teenager who needed to use the restroom at a gas station in rural Alabama while wearing a mask.
* Yes, masks are a particular tipping point for me -- the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will. Many people are going to have a different one. In truth, it's less about the masks than it is the total cumulative effect of all of the changes that led up to them... but the masks are something I can point to specifically.
You are sorely lacking common sense. You really don’t think masks help with a virus that is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or speaks?
Wearing a mask sends a signal that you are not a selfish bastard, that you actually care about your fellow man.
If infected people want to wear them, more power to them. But if my case is so mild that I'm not showing any symptoms -- not coughing or sneezing -- then, no, I'm not worried. And if I am coughing or sneezing, I'd be using my handkerchief -- but more to the point, I wouldn't be out In the first place.
The danger the masks pose is greater than the danger they prevent.
J doesn’t understand how diseases spread. He thinks masks turn everyone into to racists. He’s confusing a medical precaution with a criminal in a balaclava. He apparently doesn’t mind random strangers coughing and sneezing on him. Asian countries have been wearing masks in public for years now.
Saying masks don’t stop the spread of covid is like saying you don’t need bug spray when you go into the amazon because bug spray doesn’t kill malaria. Which is true. But bug spray repels the things that spread malaria. Just like masks don’t “catch” individual viruses, they trap the things that carry the viruses.
^ definitely a white guy.
All the Karens and Chads are losing it with this pandemic. Shit is comical.
The Karens are the ones pushing fear and snitching on their neighbors for going to the playground or the beach
probably you
They people in the photo up top are not military or police who will defend my freedom. These are chicken shit crazies who'd rather play dress up rather then actually take a risk and signup for the military.
I sincerely doubt that they would defend my freedom. These are people who just fantasize about it.
You're correct: they won't defend you. They can't even do something as simple as wear a mask that would accomplish the same thing. They are interested in THEIR rights, not YOUR rights, or OUR rights.
Hello! All the people in the picture are wearing masks!
In one pic where they were posing. Very few wearing masks in the pics from the actual protest. Especially the guys yelling in the troopers' faces.
Will they defend my freedom to kneel during the anthem?
While you can find a few people who suggested he didn't have the "right" to kneel, they're few and far between.
Far more you'll find people saying he A) Shouldn't, B) shouldn't be using a platform that isn't his to protest from, and C) is protesting against the wrong target.
So - yes, they actually mostly will. They'll just tell you why you're wrong to do so afterwards.
They are both being manipulated using the same psychological techniques
You can put up pictures of the outliers in terms of people opposed to continued emergency action all you want to try to discredit the sentiment, but a relatively large percentage of Michigan residents see Whitmer's actions as a substantial overreach, almost entirely politically motivated, and basically null and void. This board has become a large echo chamber that is quite out of sync with evolving public opinion. Numerous other states are taking executive and legislative action to begin taking steps forward while keeping health concerns in mind. Michigan is not one of those states because its governer has decided to engage in a political game of "chicken" for going on two months and the populace is growing rightly and legitimately restless. Michigan officials are "boosting" new coronavirus death numbers by including old cases in new daily death counts to justify her actions. That is crazy.
Setting aside US constitutional issues for a moment, it is very likely that what she did last night was unlawful under Michigan law. Frankly, as somebody who has studied issues like this my entire life, I do not believe the emergency orders she passed last night are enforceable. I believe that the Michigan legislature will file suit today and seek a stay of implementation of the orders as they are unlawful, and that it likely will taken up on an emergency basis by the Michigan Supreme Court. She wants ultimate, unchecked control, but that does not mean she has it. There are numerous legitimate legal problems with what she did last night and I do not believe you have heard the last word on the matter yet.
Governor Whitmer is not opening the State of Michigan because we are the 7th or 8th largest state in population yet we have the 3rd highest rate of known Coronavirus infections and the 3rd highest death count. What’s wrong with that picture? You think you have rights? With so many A Symptomatic people running around infecting innocent people it’s a wonder we aren’t all sick. You make it political so let me say this. You disregard the order and knowingly infect someone in my family with total disregard then I’ll hold you accountable. That’s not political, that’s a fact.
You are very, very tough.
Look, people are moving on. At work, doing business, got some good plans for the weekend. Disney reservation for late June, it looks like those might work out as Disney now has guidelines that should allow them to open, hopefully by then. If you are worried about getting sick, stay home. But life is going on.
Good luck to you.
You are one dumb motherfucker, john.
K tx.
You were an extreme dumbass when this all started and then it looked you might be less of one for a bit, now you’re back to being one dumb motherfucker again. Ignorant people like you are the reason we have to all stay inside
You are staying inside because you are lazy. It has nothing to do with me.
I would be very interested in any polling you have to support that assertion. The most recent I could find was about two weeks ago, which could certainly be a bit stale.
‘The poll, which surveyed 600 Michigan residents between April 15 and 16 with a margin of error of ± four percentage points, found that 57% of Michiganders approved of Whitmer's handling of the crisis compared to 37% who disapproved, giving her a net approval rating of +20 percentage points.
While Republicans predictably disapproved of Whitmer's handling of the crisis by a margin of 89% to 8%, self-described independent voters approved of Whitmer's performance by a margin of over 20 percentage points, 56% to 35%. ‘
I suspect that the vast majority of republicans have disapproved of Whitmer since day 1, so that’s probably not evidence of your assertion.
The masks they're wearing aren't meant as protection from Covid-19, they are only to block facial recognition of who they are. Which makes them cowards - full stop. What's the point of trying to look like a tough guy if you hide behind a mask so you can't be identified?
The only point there can be is that you are too cowardice to stand behind your words and actions. I have no sympathy for their 'cause', nor do I have any shred of respect for their words or actions. They are cowards, I have no respect for cowards.
Can we please stop saying "full stop?"
Full stop.
They might as well have been wearing Pussy Hats. Both types.