Does The Vaccine Thread Give Insight Into Gun Confiscation...

[kickbacked]

I just am missing it. At its core, I just asked if folks would stick to their convictions because I saw what could be construed as evidence they would not. Nothing more, nothing less...

The question your asking isnt something people want to answer. People joke about boating accidents but there is some stuff that simply put should never be put in writing.

Some people will, some people wont. That is the answer. It doesnt have correlation to the vaccine. Opinions and plans change based on the current circumstance of the exact moment.

 

[Ingomike]

The question your asking isnt something people want to answer. People joke about boating accidents but there is some stuff that simply put should never be put in writing.

Some people will, some people wont. That is the answer. It doesnt have correlation to the vaccine. Opinions and plans change based on the current circumstance of the exact moment.

Interesting that I didn't see this that way though I often think that on threads I see.

 

[jamil]

Good post. I'm still at you first, as the virus reality has not even come close to the hype.

Are you implying that even pondering if those that were vocal as to not taking the vaccine giving in and doing so is analogous to giving in to gun confiscation is crazy thinking?

No, not crazy thinking. I was getting at that one must think of the covid vaccine skeptics as people who sort of betrayed, for lack of a better word, their original stance. So something like betraying team skeptical. But it’s more likely that what caused people to change their minds was new information about the vaccine.

 

[Ark]

I'd definitely call the vaccine a clear compliance test. If you can be bullied and harangued into getting an untested, experimental drug injected into you when the state is telling you that you can't sue if it injures you and you still can't eat indoors or take off the muzzle, then it's a pretty safe assumption that you'll give up your guns when told to do so by the same people who just obtained your vaccine compliance. If you won't even stand up for your right to integrity and autonomy in your own body, I don't think you'll be standing up for 2A. Once the media targets you and people start bullying you on Twitter, you'll fold just like you folded on vaccines.

The lesson of the past year is that the people who volunteer to hunt down and narc on gun owners will outnumber the gun owners who actually resist confiscation. I mean LMAO, just go to a store and look at how many people were bullied into wearing the muzzle. Americans will overwhelmingly comply with ANYTHING as long as the mass media butters them up first.

 

[Tombs]

No, not crazy thinking. I was getting at that one must think of the covid vaccine skeptics as people who sort of betrayed, for lack of a better word, their original stance. So something like betraying team skeptical. But it’s more likely that what caused people to change their minds was new information about the vaccine.

I think it's great that Trump got vaccines available without the red tape, for people who are truly that terrified of the virus. I think it was made very clear at the time that these were being released in a relatively rushed way and media was very vocal in being skeptical of the vaccine.

The problem came when the world suddenly did a 180 once biden got in office and now everyone is pushing for mandatory usage of an experimental vaccine that is only made available due to an emergency.

I don't think that's a betrayal at all. It's the context that matters.
There's a clear distinction here, one path respects individuality, the other admonishes it.

 

[NKBJ]

Context matters a lot, especially seeing as plans get published ahead of time. The question of why plans get published ahead of time, that should be examined in context as well if one wishes to understand process in terms of motivations.

 

[Ingomike]

I'd definitely call the vaccine a clear compliance test. If you can be bullied and harangued into getting an untested, experimental drug injected into you when the state is telling you that you can't sue if it injures you and you still can't eat indoors or take off the muzzle, then it's a pretty safe assumption that you'll give up your guns when told to do so by the same people who just obtained your vaccine compliance. If you won't even stand up for your right to integrity and autonomy in your own body, I don't think you'll be standing up for 2A. Once the media targets you and people start bullying you on Twitter, you'll fold just like you folded on vaccines.

The lesson of the past year is that the people who volunteer to hunt down and narc on gun owners will outnumber the gun owners who actually resist confiscation. I mean LMAO, just go to a store and look at how many people were bullied into wearing the muzzle. Americans will overwhelmingly comply with ANYTHING as long as the mass media butters them up first.

WINNING!!!

 

[Tombs]

Dropping like flies, lol.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'd definitely call the vaccine a clear compliance test. If you can be bullied and harangued into getting an untested, experimental drug injected into you when the state is telling you that you can't sue if it injures you and you still can't eat indoors or take off the muzzle, then it's a pretty safe assumption that you'll give up your guns when told to do so by the same people who just obtained your vaccine compliance. If you won't even stand up for your right to integrity and autonomy in your own body, I don't think you'll be standing up for 2A. Once the media targets you and people start bullying you on Twitter, you'll fold just like you folded on vaccines.

The lesson of the past year is that the people who volunteer to hunt down and narc on gun owners will outnumber the gun owners who actually resist confiscation. I mean LMAO, just go to a store and look at how many people were bullied into wearing the muzzle. Americans will overwhelmingly comply with ANYTHING as long as the mass media butters them up first.

I think it just means (as others have mentioned in the thread) that the person just has a different threshold than you of when they consider the vaccine to be sufficiently tested. Also you can't sue any vaccine manufacturer for the damages incurred from any vaccine (there is a government program that provides payouts for that instead) and mask mandates and other lockdown measures are unrelated to the vaccine's efficacy or safety (personally I think the best argument to keep wearing a mask is because the alternative is the "vaccine passport")

Unless you can point to a person here who is a principled anti-vaxxer (no vaccines at all) who has been convinced to take this one vaccine after refusing all others, then this isn't really comparable to someone who is a principled opponent of gun confiscation suddenly wanting to comply

 

[Ark]

(personally I think the best argument to keep wearing a mask is because the alternative is the "vaccine passport")

So accept one government imposition on your liberty because otherwise the same government will impose something worse? Kinda sounds like the same logic of giving up your ARs because you think they'll let you keep your shotguns and hunting rifles.

How about just...none? Neither? The government just butts the hell out and leaves us alone? If you prove willing to accept the lower level of tyranny, the higher level will come eventually. Appeasement doesn't work.

The market for the vaccine and the vaccine passports was entirely created by the government terrorizing and stomping their boot on the American people for an entire year. Absent the government treading on everyone, nobody would be lining up for the promise of the government lightening the pressure on the boot. Government is a fire department setting your house on fire and then selling you access to a garden hose so that maybe you can put out a small corner of the fire while the rest of it devours your house.

 

[jamil]

Does The Vaccine Thread Give Insight Into Gun Confiscation...​

Will the same people that proclaimed they wouldn't get vaccinated but folded, do the same when confiscation begins? Was the topic

It seemed to me that the discussions kinda stopped on the topic. And as often happens, the conversation drifts into different topics. I think the question has been answered.

 

[jamil]

I just am missing it. At its core, I just asked if folks would stick to their convictions because I saw what could be construed as evidence they would not. Nothing more, nothing less...

Folks weren’t making their decisions on conviction about not taking the vaccine. It was a big unknown. Well, it’s getting to be better known and people are simply deciding maybe it’s not that dangerous.

It’s not like they were making a blood pact with INGO, that they pledged not to take the vaccine. They’re not caving in on a promise.

 

[Ingomike]

It seemed to me that the discussions kinda stopped on the topic. And as often happens, the conversation drifts into different topics. I think the question has been answered.

That was a direct answer to a question.

 

[Lex Concord]

Brother, I suspect we all have rather thick FBI/Homeland security files.
Might be interesting to request a copy?

Looks like it's rather easy to check...

Home - FOIA Mapper

There is a universe of government records hidden away in file cabinets and offline databases. With FOIA Mapper, much of that information is now searchable.

foiamapper.com

Of course, that request would then go in your file

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So accept one government imposition on your liberty because otherwise the same government will impose something worse? Kinda sounds like the same logic of giving up your ARs because you think they'll let you keep your shotguns and hunting rifles.

How about just...none? Neither? The government just butts the hell out and leaves us alone? If you prove willing to accept the lower level of tyranny, the higher level will come eventually. Appeasement doesn't work.

The market for the vaccine and the vaccine passports was entirely created by the government terrorizing and stomping their boot on the American people for an entire year. Absent the government treading on everyone, nobody would be lining up for the promise of the government lightening the pressure on the boot. Government is a fire department setting your house on fire and then selling you access to a garden hose so that maybe you can put out a small corner of the fire while the rest of it devours your house.

Its almost as if reality is a thing and sometimes you have to be pragmatic about stuff

One question though, if a business owner asking patrons to wear a mask on their property is tyranny, then what isn't tyranny in your opinion? Seems like you're just mad at anything that slightly inconveniences you and demand everything be according your wishes, which kind makes you the tyrant here

Remember, businesses started requiring masks before the government mask mandate was imposed, and they continue to do so now that the government mandate is expired (at least in this state)

 

[Tombs]

Its almost as if reality is a thing and sometimes you have to be pragmatic about stuff

One question though, if a business owner asking patrons to wear a mask on their property is tyranny, then what isn't tyranny in your opinion? Seems like you're just mad at anything that slightly inconveniences you and demand everything be according your wishes, which kind makes you the tyrant here

Remember, businesses started requiring masks before the government mask mandate was imposed, and they continue to do so now that the government mandate is expired (at least in this state)

Should they be allowed to put up a "no blacks" sign on their business, too?

 

[DadSmith]

Should they be allowed to put up a "no blacks" sign on their business, too?

My position is if they have a sign up I cannot comply with some other business will get my money. All this forcing businesses to comply with all these regulations imo is unconstitutional. If I can't get service at said company I'll go to one that will. Free enterprise, capitalism will provide companies and stores to cater to customers needs.

 

[Tombs]

My position is if they have a sign up I cannot comply with some other business will get my money. All this forcing businesses to comply with all these regulations imo is unconstitutional. If I can't get service at said company I'll go to one that will. Free enterprise, capitalism will provide companies and stores to cater to customers needs.

That all made sense before the government decided to allow small businesses to be burned down or put out of business by international rootless corporations.

The game has changed in regards to just being able to let it fly. I think some form of compromise is acceptable though, if the business owner also owns other businesses outside of the US their ability to deny citizens service should be severely limited. If the business owner is a small local business, then sure, let them bar who ever they want.