Ammon Bundy Wants National Effort to Buck Coronavirus Rules

originally posted by: Centsay

originally posted by: Wildbob77
I think that he is a fool and will needlessly put people in harms way.

There are many people who are skeptical of the governments motives at a time like this.

With that said, I still think that it is prudent to shelter in place if your government deems it necessary until the pandemic abates.

Trying to encourage others to break the shelter in place rules to me seems like the wrong approach to this situation. If he gets many people to break the rules will he take responsibility for any deaths that occur from the virus?

Yeah, I agree...There should be a charge of inciting a riot, or counselling someone to commit a criminal offense.

A protest is not a riot. There's a difference in conduct during both that you seem to be oblivious of. The fact that you want them seen as one and the same is disturbing, and frankly is a manipulative viewpoint that should be discouraged from taking hold.

a reply to: Nyiah

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: MotherMayEye


I am an ardent conspiracy theorist, 911, JFK, etc.… and often accuse power of being misused for sinister intent.

It is something that is always there even in normal times

But this is a situation where certain things may be justified to protect the common good and the individual.

If their intentions are bad and this is actually an attempt to do some nefarious power grab of apocalyptic proportions then so be it, what are we going to do but wait for that certainty and then respond.

There are often no easy answers and this situation is a testimony to that.

Fauci is in it deep with Bill Gates and his foundation which is the biggest funder of WHO. Gates said at a TED Talk that he likes vaccines for population control. Gates is now pushing MANDATORY vaccination for people to go back to work. Seriously do you need any more evidence of bad intent ?

originally posted by: Gandalf77

I would love to be able to attend mass in person on Sundays again, but I understand why we’re being asked to do so online.

But you aren’t being asked, are you? You are being ordered at the barrel of a gun. And yes, it is a barrel, otherwise executive fiats have no teeth.

I don’t know about everyone else’s point, but this is mine. Our church leadership made this decision before our respective state governments did. I’m happy to do my part to limit the spread of this virus- but there are a few caveats.

One, I want honesty, not hyperbole.
Two, I want to be asked in a free society. Or stop calling it a free society.

a reply to: ThouArtGod

I hear you. Our parish started limiting activities and asking us to adjust our actions during mass (i.e., not shaking hands during the sign of peace) a week or two before the governor issued the stay-at-home order.

Most people that I see are being really respectful of the order because it makes sense. We're trying to keep ourselves and our community safe. Yes, it's a complete pain in the butt. Yes, it's causing a great deal of hardship for people. We'll get through it. If staying home means keeping the hospitals from being overwhelmed, that should be a no-brainer. I guess that's where I get irked by the Bundy's of the world choosing a pandemic to grind an axe about government overreach.

a reply to: Gandalf77

I guess that's where I get irked by the Bundy's of the world choosing a pandemic to grind an axe about government overreach.

But Bundy's not the problem. The government overreach is the problem. And it's even more irksome (to say the least) that government chooses a pandemic to force their overreach.

There is no rest for the wicked.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gandalf77

I guess that's where I get irked by the Bundy's of the world choosing a pandemic to grind an axe about government overreach.

But Bundy's not the problem. The government overreach is the problem. And it's even more irksome (to say the least) that government chooses a pandemic to force their overreach.

There is no rest for the wicked.

We may not like it, but the government can restrict freedoms during an emergency. In this case, it should be obvious why they’re doing so. I work for a health consultancy, & all of our doctors have been adamant about the necessity for people to isolate and maintain social distancing. The government orders aren’t without merit here.

Now if those restrictions aren’t lifted as the crisis abates, then we will have bigger problems to solve—either at the ballot box or the ammo box. I just don’t see that happening, though.

a reply to: Gandalf77

We may not like it, but the government can restrict freedoms during an emergency.

Only at the barrel of a gun. And there was no reason why the government couldn't have used their legitimate powers to take preventative measures, and to use incentives rather than punishments for voluntary compliance.

Because the bottom line is that no matter what laws are in force, people will violate those orders, and the virus will spread.

In this case, it should be obvious why they’re doing so.

Yup, government overreach... power grab...

I work for a health consultancy, & all of our doctors have been adamant about the necessity for people to isolate and maintain social distancing.

No, not necessity. We cannot stop the spread, we can only slow the spread, and the spread can be slowed through legitimate and voluntary measures.

Just as important, the medical establishment has been wrong before and will be wrong again. And they are basing their knowledge on faulty and falsified propaganda, so there is good reason to think they are wrong again to one extent or another. In fact, we already know that projections have been wrong, the very excuse for the orders.

The government orders aren’t without merit here.

Merit is a relative, subjective, weasel word.

Now if those restrictions aren’t lifted as the crisis abates, then we will have bigger problems to solve—either at the ballot box or the ammo box. I just don’t see that happening, though.

If their intentions were temporary, the criteria for lifting the restrictions as well as time limits would have built-in.

The proof is in the pudding.

If Sweden's numbers continue to go this way, they might very well put the lie to the "necessity" of lockdowns:

Sweden sees just 77 new deaths from coronavirus and number of new infections drops by a quarter to just 544 as nation continues to resist lockdown

• The 77 new deaths, down from 106 yesterday, bring the total from 793 to 870
  
• Another 544 cases - a fall from yesterday's 722 - take tally from 9,141 to 9,685
  
• Bars, restaurants, cafes and primary schools remain open with no lockdown

a reply to: Boadicea
They will get herd immunity by mixing.

Lockdown countries will have it reoccur because we have been prevented from allowing nature to do what it does naturally.

originally posted by: Kharron
Whatever he feels his reasons are, these fools are going to be the end of us all. No wonder we have as many cases as the next few countries combined.

It's becoming painfully evident that us being ~40th in the world in education has an unfortunate side effect of a massive collective IQ loss.

In other words - we're screwed.

40 in education that is caused by our failed government plans, so lets listen to the government now, that makes sense.
Here's an article about how 4 times as many people might have than expected. If they want you to wear a mask cause it can spread by talking it is air born. Blows on the wind. You will get this viruss sooner or later and might already have had it and recovered
nypost.com...

Having trouble getting link to work

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Thank you for the video -- that's just what I expect will happen.

With herd immunity, fewer infected persons will also lower chances of contagion, as well as viral overload, which will mean fewer serious complications.

And as folks catch it and get over it, they will also be able to pass along tips and info to others on what to expect and how to treat their symptoms, also reducing severe complications.

Time will tell, eh?