How has your view of preparedness changed because of covid19

[Kevin29]

I will put it here since he deleted.

Dawn, I am still amazed at how hostile some here are when defending the Second Amendment, and I have had some tell me that their right to keep and bear arms is superior to all other rights or all other people. Ignoring the fact that all rights are equal… So I am amazed that so many stand idle and think it acceptable to have government curtail rights and liberties. Doing so, without the rule of law or any due process.
Perhaps USCCA should consider in their training, some information on the rights we have, and the Constitution, as we must be responsible and part of that is knowing our rights and the rights of others.

I must not be able to express the Constitution must come first. Far too many seem to think it acceptable for the government to deny rights, by simply saying ‘emergency’.

From the deleted post above.
(Do you suggest we just let the illness run rampant and repeat what has been seen in Italy and New York all around the nation? Based on those two places alone, quarantine has seemed more than rational. Next question: how many lives lost are acceptable, for this current situation (in which my personal freedoms have not been hindered as I sit on my couch ordering all kinds of food to my door with a gun on my hip, watching Star Wars with my wife and my kid safe) because people don’t want the government to tell them to stay home for EVERYONES safety (not just there own).)

The fact is, and I have provided the links, there has been Covid 19 in the US since about November, there has been more people infected than we knew… and the mortality rate is far lower than originally estimated. Why shut down the nation when only small areas are being hit hard… and I never said you can not shut down anything, I said it MUST be done with the Constitution and rule of law.
Also, you sitting at home eating is fine, so that means, as long as you are not inconvenienced or your rights, at least the two or three you are currently interested in are not a problem, you see no problem with a tyrannical government?
Italy has a major Chinese population with ties to Wuhan, and they have a healthcare system that is … a more socialized system.
Not everywhere was hit the same, and we did have a pandemic in 2009, and did not shut down the nation.

I am not trying to convince you of anything (except perhaps that the Constitution is always to be protected), but I am asking you and all others to consider the Constitution, the actions of the government, and if they are within the rule of law. To consider how the Second Amendment can be defended with jealous attention, yet other rights carry less concern, particularly if the words… virus and emergency are used. Also, if we shut down the nation for this virus, what other viruses or illnesses should we shut down our economy and put millions out of work.

I am also asking that people open their eyes, and not just take the fear mongering of a world ending plague to cause anyone to cower, and look at other information.

Covid 19 has been in the US since November by some reports, and some university reports are now saying over 400K people in California have been infected and this is only California, so we could extrapolate for other states and say far more are infected or have been, and those higher numbers would mean the mortality rate is lower (yes, some areas like New York and New Jersey have been hit hard, but others that are more highly populated have not been). If Covid19 has been here 8 months, and we have 47K fatalities, and the flu has been here for about 9 months and we have 60K fatalities, the numbers still are in line and not that significantly different. Yes, it is true we do not know the long term impact of the virus on health, but as it stands now, they are similar.

So, the millions of people harmed by the loss of jobs, the loss of their business, some of which may never reopen, and the tyrannical acts of the government, to deny liberty (stay at home is comparable to house arrest), deny freedom of movement (yes, some places have required ‘papers’ to move around, and some places have arrested people for simply being out of their home but not near anyone, and some places have prohibited fishing… even for food, not just fun… but food… are simply a sad consequence of government overreach?

At this, I think I also will sign off, and go elsewhere. I am not sure of those who scream government can not take their Second Amendment, but with a declaration of emergency, surrender their rights to freedom of movement, pursuit of happiness, liberty, speech, and every other right that has been curtailed or suspended.

An Edit to add, though I debated returning; To perhaps clarify part of my comment and argument in defense of the Constitution.
Under the Obama administration, there were efforts to fund the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), to study a public health issue, and declare a Public Health Emergency. Study ‘gun violence’ and firearms deaths… as a public health problem and emergency.
If the CDC and depending on who is elected to office, the President or Legislature, declares a Public Health Emergency for Gun Violence as they have declared a public health emergency for a virus …. we could very well see the Second Amendment suspended, due to the ‘public health’
That is in part why I have asked for others to open their eyes to other possibilities instead of simply being panicked by a virus (which is still showing similarities to the flu).

I also had someone on the USCCA site (the old commenting area) that attacked me with hostility because I pointed out the Second Amendment right was equal to all other rights. I still find it amazing someone can be so hostile about defending the Second Amendment, yet simply comply when the government says ‘emergency’ (Did Katrina suspend our rights?)

[Ouade5]

2 months after the question was asked here…
I have to admit that my daily posture has relaxed a little bit. Despite the uncertainty and a shortage of TP, people generally responded well. There weren’t millions of dead in overcrowded hospitals. There weren’t riots at Costco, lawlessness in the streets, or zombie attacks.

And then Minneapolis happened. Then that calmed down.

Then Seattle happened. Then Atlanta happened.

We’ll see where 2020 takes us. Every time things calm down and I relax just a tad, something else comes up and I’m right back to zombie watch. For all the turmoil we’ve seen this year, though, my faith in about 80% of humanity has been restored. People are generally decent and want to help others. Unfortunately, it’s that other 20% that seems to be making all the decisions.

[MikeBKY]

I agree with you @Kevin29 that the Bill of Rights does not prioritize the Second Amendment over the First or vice versa.
I am also with you on what is going on right now. Unfortunately, everyone keeps saying the science says this or that but there is conflicting science as to what the real impact of this virus is.

[Kevin29]

There are conflicting science, however we can get a good grasp of the situation.
We know that Ney York and New Jersey and even some other states increased the fatalities by putting Covid-19 positive people in nursing homes. Not sure what science suggested that was a good idea.
We can also see South Dakota did rather well.

Part of the problem is the media, which unfortunately is not trustworthy and I do not believe and must review multiple sources. Look at the reports on the ‘peaceful protests’ and how the media while standing in front of a burning building stated ‘it is peaceful’… which brings another ‘unfortunately’… far too many people refuse to be well informed and simply follow what they are told.

If you see a burning building, and looters… and people being attacked, it is not peaceful.

However, it is more a class warfare issue, and the left seeks to collapse the system.

Sorry about branching off topic, but I needed to perhaps vent AND express an example of how the media reports conflicting stories and science, and in some cases it may not be factual, but it suits their purpose.

[MikeBKY]

This is a difficult issue @Kevin29, to say the least. State governments have what is known as “police power.” “The States’ traditional police power is defined as the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals, and such a basis for legislation has been upheld.” See, e.g., Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49. The police power is not without limits, but rights can be infringed at times due to communicable diseases.
The recent 6th Circuit case regarding in person church services discusses this. I love the judge’s opinion regarding the Constitution taking a nap during a pandemic.

We don’t doubt the Governor’s sincerity in trying to do his level best to lessen the spread of the virus or his authority to protect the Commonwealth’s citizens. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 27 (1905). And we agree that no one, whether a person of faith or not, has a right “to expose the community . . . to communicable disease.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166–67 (1944). But restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom. Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave delivery woman but not with a stoic minister? The Commonwealth has no good answers. While the law may take periodic naps during a pandemic, we will not let it sleep through one.

The entire opinion can be found here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0144p-06.pdf

[Dawn]

Tim is a firm believer in the 80/20 rule… it’s interesting that you’re even seeing it in humanity at this point.

[Harvey]

Pre-COVID, most of my preparedness was built around short outages (like a hurricane, flood, earthquake) where you cant get anything for a short period of time until the lights come back on (a few days worth of food/water, batteries galore, flashlights, etc). And some minor preparedness for longer outages (long term food storage… and thats about it ) .

But COVID has brought about not outages, but shortages of varying supplies for months now. Local to me, my grocery store finally has stocked shelves of TP! At various points things like cleaning supplies, paper products, produce, meats, power tools, masks, gloves, ammo, firearms, etc have either been on the shelves or not depending on the week. That type of thing is, IMO, really hard to plan for.

My daily EDC has also evolved. My two major concerns pre-COVID was either random crime or at worst a mass shooting. But during this crisis, I changed my EDC slightly to make space for less-lethal options such as pepper spray and tasers. Because now we need to account for crazy folks rioting over supplies (TP) or now rioting just because it’s Tuesday (really any day). I do not want to be that guy that shoots someone in a fight over TP, so a different option was needed.

I do agree also with @Ouade5 most of my neighbors & friends & family have been really good during the crisis, but it is that crazy 20% that is starting fights over TP or throwing molotov cocktails that has me worried.

[Kevin29]

Always good information.

I will point out one point I might view differently. The case, Jacobson v Massachusetts. I see a problem when a case is used as precedent or justification and the case is not exactly similar enough or they omit pertinent details.

Jacobson had been vaccinated in Europe, and there had been a serious reaction to it. If we are a free nation, the government is limited and based on freedom and even religious freedom as some religious faiths do not accept vaccinations, and he refused to risk another vaccine. There are many people who do not trust the Chinese made vaccines or the ingredients.
The court held that the state could in fact compel or force vaccinations, up to a point. There must be an option available, and in this case, Jacobson was fined for refusing, but he refused to pay the fine also.
The state can state they require vaccines, but they also must allow refusals and a reasonable fine for refusal.
That is how I read the decision. I may be wrong, but it does seem to make that assertion.

I do find it interesting, the police will issue tickets or citations, letters, notices of ‘attendance is criminal’, yet the police, the governors the mayors, all seemed to have no real concern over the ‘peaceful riots’… err… protests…, and said it was their First Amendment Right.

The Rule of Law, and Equality under the law as well as equal rights, brings into question any decision that prohibits church attendance, but there is no legal ramifications for gathering in large numbers at night to have bon fires in the cities.

I had not reviewed Prince v Massachusetts, but I am curious. If the law stated no selling of literature, but they were distributing it, in exchange for voluntary contributions, is that really selling? I will need to review that decision further. Thanks for the info.