Interesting point that it is unrealistic...it has been happening in Australia as I referenced.

The scientific data which was accurate until there was a narrative switch and is again being proven in the lab is that a mask is effective against, relative to the virus molecules, HUGE spittle, blood etc droplets that fall rapidly from bodily openings....thus the 6 feet social distance guidance. Where almost all transmission occurs is via aerosols followed by touch. A mask covers a tiny piece of the transmission vector but creates additional spit, snot, blood soaked surfaces that are constantly touched by peoples' hands and spread via touch. The net effect of masks as the current (actually scientific data not the the orthodoxy of "The Science" as a sentient being) indicates is null or possibly harmful due to the added viral load at the greater transmission vector of touch.

This stuff is EXTREMELY complicated. That is the problem. When it is simplified at the cost of nuance and specificity things are lost. So when you hear absolutes like "masks work" full stop there should be all sorts of logical follow ups.



I see what you are saying on Santa Cruz data site now but also says there is 2 people in the ICU with COVID and 3 beds available...doesn't match Santa Cruz County's own data, is this a city vs county difference? Why so few ICU beds or why so few COVID usages? Genuinely asking why this data seems so weird not trying to lead the witness or be silly/argumentative.

FYI - read this article...it presumes that only unvaccinated people are infected and only unvaccinated shed the virus and only unvaccinated people serve host to viral replication. And that evolution is purely random and coincidental and that no pressure causes any specific punctuated equilibrium. SO what I'm seeing is again if I assume unvaccinated people are the problem it proves that unvaccinated people are the problem. done and done.

This is not science

I'll take That never happened for 200.

Dilemma:
I would love to join the fun here but also, I don’t want to read all the long posts that would anger me.
Oh well. I’m going back to Newsy and his death wish.

Try skimming it, thats what i do, the crazy just pops off the page

This explains a lot about you. Skip the skim try full fat; life is better if you read.

Also breaking news...CALI now invoking civil lawsuits for the legal ownership of "assault rifles" with a 10k bounty to any citizen who sues another citizen. This is known as unconstitutional as well as McCarthyism.

I have a riddle for our Cali Boy - What is a mandatory precursor for slavery and tyranny?

If you answered disarm the populace you win! A pretty key reason for the right to bear arms in British Common Law that was adapted to become America's 2A.



Before the "....but...but cuz Texas did it" rebuttal; abortion is not covered as a right in the constitution thus it can be legislated at a state level, the constitutional rights are above and inalienable by state law.

JFC just go be a terrorist already
 

Nope. It's for "...gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of assault weapons or ghost gun kits." Which is an excellent idea, because mass shootings are, and I don't know how you missed this, bad.

Nope. This is an old lie that gun manufacturers use to get you to buy their products. If it were true, most governments would be totalitarian states by now, since no one has the lack of gun restrictions that we do. What we see across Europe, etc are governments much more responsive to the needs and demands of their citizens than in the US. So much for that.

Politicians use that old lie to fire up their ignorant, paranoid base about the impending "evil gun grabbin' commie takeover" just around the corner, even though every leftist victory I can think of has been an armed peoples' struggle.

The reason for the 2A was because we didn't have a real military yet. Are you a member of a "well regulated militia"? No? Then you have no right to bear arms. No one does. It's only through judicial activism and gun manufacturer lobbying that anyone believes in the comically-wrong-on-its-face conservative interpretation. All you have to do is read the damn thing. Thing is, even if the 2A actually said what ammosexuals pretend it did, so what? It's quite obvious where that has led us. It would have been a very bad idea.

The right to an abortion was settled in Roe v. Wade, like how gun rights have been largely settled by other cases. While legislation has been used to chip away at women's right to bodily autonomy in order to please a magical man who lives in the sky, that right is protected (but not for long). That's why these challenges keep coming to the Supreme Court. Liberals don't want human beings to violently die for no good reason vs. conservatives who want to be able to kill people en masse and protect the "lives" of pre-humans to please an ancient desert god.

Know what though? I've been thinking I need to buy a gun fairly soon anyway. After all, there's too many people like you running around out here. We're headed for a nationwide Irish Troubles type situation and I don't like the idea of being unarmed during that. I haven't bought one yet because statistically it's much more likely that me or someone close to me will be hurt or killed rather than anything good happening.

Let's start with first things first...it is illegal to posses, sell, fire, etc. an assault rifle in California. Full Stop. They are talking about "assault rifles" which are currently any semi-automatic weapon long gun with barrel rifling.

The new law is aimed at anyone who "manufactures" (which is stupid there is no firearm manufacturing in California probably in decades), distributes (i.e. any person as well as FFLs), or sells (i.e. any person as well as FFLs) or ghost gun kits (this is the biggest boogie man ever invented...with tens of laws already designed around 80% lowers etc., it's just another scary word to get to say) and any parts (this is the teeth of the legislation - as we have already seen with the slippery slope that has been "assault weapons" what qualifies as a "part" will rapidly change and grow).

Good point about mass shootings, no one has ever been shot in any other country. It is completely an American problem.

Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019

1 El Salvador (36.78)
2 Venezuela (33.27)
3 Guatemala (29.06)
4 Colombia (26.36)
5 Brazil (21.93)
6 Bahamas (21.52)
7 Honduras (20.15)
8 U.S. Virgin Islands (19.40)
9 Puerto Rico (18.14)
10 Mexico (16.41)


We didn't make the list. Think we actually fall around 26th. We just have a media that loves to fetishize blood shed and use it to push gun laws.


Holey Crap! Did u seriously just non-ironically use politifact? You are so much further gone than I thought. This is not an old lie, strict gun laws that were loosened for Non-Jude and tightened specifically on Jude...See weapons laws loosened on Catholics and tightened specifically on Protestants....see loosened on plantation owners and tightened on slaves and black freemen south of mason dixon...see a pattern?

Just to be specific to the specific instance you choose to play politifact: 1928 - Firearm registry and Ammunition registry (sound familiar California)...all firearms and all ammunition owners are known to the government with specifics of what/how much. 1931 Nazi v Communist street violence allows for the passage of law to confisgate without cause firearms (and many other types of weapons). This is an important year. 1933 effectively through no longer allowing certain groups (communists and Jews) to get firearm permits they are effectively disarmed. 1935 Nuremberg Laws - Jews loose civil rights which now prohibits even trying to get permits for firearms and strips them of the right of even manual self defense. 1938 additional Jew specific weapons laws evolve, by the end of 1938 it is now explicit that Jews cannot be in possession of anything that could be used as a weapon (Nazi Weapons Law, think this was enacted just about the end of the year).

Holey Crap! I though politifact was going to be the craziest made up bullshit in this post, then you drop this gem.

Do you see the sillyness in saying everyone should be disarmed then arguing for the leftist victories that required "armed peoples' struggle". You see how disarmed people aren't typically armed.

With that said...Leftists voted in Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc...

Serious point, would you like me to give you some history book recommendations? There seems to be a giant blind spot in historical knowledge.

While there are whiffs of reality in the first point that the desire to dissuade a standing army is correct, the acting like person defense and militia vs standing army are somehow binary ideas is patently ridiculous!

Are you a member of well regulated militia? Yes because it is my duty as a free citizen of the United States.

There is no "interpretation". It is as simply written of all the amendments. The militia and the people have a right to bear arms. The militia piece was added when moving from British law to adapt it to US constitution to make explicit the right of the people via a militia to oppose a Governmental Standing Army. I have read the "damn thing" many many times and have read the pamphlets from the framers as well as the writtings of the original framers from the Great Revolution and the British Civil War...it is unbelievably and exhaustively clear the intent.

I hate to make a habit of disagreeing with you since I tend to have personal beliefs that align with yours on abortion but a point of constitutional law that is important to clarify. Roe v Wade at the constitutional level was a 14th amendment ruling based on privacy that ruled in favor of the 14th amendments application thus overruling state/local law because the constitution has legal authority above state and local law. Thus using the same application of the law (which is how the law is designed to work) the second amendment would override local and state laws related to the infringement of the right to bear arms.

Saying liberals don't want death for no reason and conservative want to be able to mass kill people is fucking stupid. This is absolutely absurd reductionist thinking that makes people play victim and justify horrible actions. Everything else here is silly and misinformed but this statement is fucking dangerous. You are better than this.

I feel this is a veiled threat, I don't appreciate that. I am 100% in support of you exercising your rights if you understand the flip side of rights is responsibility. If you are a responsible gun owner I think you will come around to my side of thinking but if you exercise the shit thought process outlined just above you may find yourself part of that cherry picked statistic you presented that is more about mental health and suicide.

Why are you still here? Usually cars get towed away after they're completely wrecked.

You know you cherry picked the first stat. Even just copying and pasting "Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019" shows that the US is in 2nd place in overall gun deaths. There's even a map at the top of the page that shows that Europe, where there are strict laws, doesn't have a high number of gun deaths. Everywhere you listed doesn't have strict gun laws. You proved my point. Welcome to Keith's "weird liars" list.

The rest of this is even more tedious and exhausting. Unlike you, I got shit to do. Stop watching Fox. Stop making excuses for your gun fetish and just say "I want to easily kill people." Realize that conservative ideas always end up embarrassing to the conservative movement just a few years later. I'm done here.