do you?

[Most Lee Harmless]

You really are lost in the fog, aint ya?

[Lachlan]

i take what they have said in the past to heart i think they plan on killing a lot of us with vaccines, therefor i don't trust the vaccines.

the point is the have been lying about the deaths of covid..... what for is the question

so your a anti vaxxer? Vaccines are safe and have been used for many years with no problems. If they kill us their not going to get much profit are they? I mean that's literally what you said last year that they are making profits off us. Also show me where and when the vaccine manufacturers said they are going to kill people with vaccines.

[Lachlan]

well i noticed just as suspected the death rate dramaticly drops right after....? you guessed it the inauguration. lmao

probably it's due to so many people in your country getting it as well since you would have a greater amount of herd immunity due to so many people getting it. Also now you guys are at half a million dead. Are you still thinking it's not bad? Also the amout of cases per day had dropped a bit in your country but it's still quite high.

i still think they lie about what caused the death.. ive had 2 pass to "covid" do i think covid acually killed them, not at all.

how old where they? Where they in good health? Those have a factor. It might have been Covid related like they had a different disease that made their immune system weak and then Covid came along and then killed them. Or it could be solely due to Covid. You might even have it as well and just not have symptoms. You can speculate if there deaths were due to Covid all you want but unless your a medical professional you probably couldn't tell or be 100% sure it's Covid

[Mack]

that's my point they were old and in bad health before this covid crap then they finaly pass with covid and that's marked as a covid caused death... that type of stuff caused this uproar.. why did they blow it up like that is the question.

You really are lost in the fog, aint ya?

have you done any research?

why are they talking about manipulating the words of the 2nd amendment? I hope everyone fully understands it.. they want to take our rights to have a militia away they want to have no opposition to themselves...

[Lachlan]

that's my point they were old and in bad health before this covid crap then they finaly pass with covid and that's marked as a covid caused death... that type of stuff caused this uproar.. why did they blow it up like that is the question.

You really are lost in the fog, aint ya?

have you done any research?

why are they talking about manipulating the words of the 2nd amendment? I hope everyone fully understands it.. they want to take our rights to have a militia away they want to have no opposition to themselves...

Well I mean they could have died of Covid...

As for these militia it is not a good idea to have so many armed groups and especially ones run by idiots who think breaking into capitol hill and attacking policemen is a good idea. It's not that they don't want you to have militias but some have extreme views and then get funny ideas about overthrowing the democratically elected government and thinking they have the support to do it. Some also think spies have infiltrated the country, the communists are going to attack, attack 5g antennas because they cause cancer and people like you Mack who think vaccines kill you which they don't. That is why they want to shut down some armed groups.

[Most Lee Harmless]

that's my point they were old and in bad health before this covid crap then they finaly pass with covid and that's marked as a covid caused death... that type of stuff caused this uproar.. why did they blow it up like that is the question.

You really are lost in the fog, aint ya?

have you done any research?

why are they talking about manipulating the words of the 2nd amendment? I hope everyone fully understands it.. they want to take our rights to have a militia away they want to have no opposition to themselves...

The wording of the 2nd Amendment has been debated, argued and re-interpretted several times in US history. If there is one thing constitutional scholars and lawyers can agree on it is that none of them can agree on what the Founding Fathers actually meant in the wording that was used. It is ambiguous, even contradictory. Lawyers love those kinds of ambiguities... that's fat fees for generations of legal eagles.

The current interpretation on the right to bear arms, upon which the legal arguments around that right are based, is not even that old. (2008 : Supreme Court)

But I like your interpretation of 'death by covid' : so, as long as my victim is already old or suffering from some serious illness, I can freely bludgeon them to death cos, you know, they was dying anyway so no reason to start sticking murder down as a cause of death....

[Dmanwuzhere]

"well i mean they could have died from covid"
sure they could have or it could have been a million other things

dr jensen from minnesota reported the stats last year were mandated in such a way it would increase the covid death count
so i really dont pay attention to folks hypothesis based on feelings here

as for the militia kim jung un did you hear gunfire in the capital other than from the firearms held by security? no? then it wasnt a militia
but when it comes to stripping guns by force im betting you will hear gunfire from them then
anytime a government wants to be the only one armed especially when they start becoming more tyrannical im positive it isnt for the safety of the citizens

speaking of beating the elderly i guess since the attacker was recovering from covid and the elderly man died he caught covid from his attacker
and it had nothing to do with the beating itself ... guess he should have triple masked and he would still be here today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Miivc6kNpWE

[Mack]

that's my point they were old and in bad health before this covid crap then they finaly pass with covid and that's marked as a covid caused death... that type of stuff caused this uproar.. why did they blow it up like that is the question.

You really are lost in the fog, aint ya?

have you done any research?

why are they talking about manipulating the words of the 2nd amendment? I hope everyone fully understands it.. they want to take our rights to have a militia away they want to have no opposition to themselves...

Well I mean they could have died of Covid...

As for these militia it is not a good idea to have so many armed groups and especially ones run by idiots who think breaking into capitol hill and attacking policemen is a good idea. It's not that they don't want you to have militias but some have extreme views and then get funny ideas about overthrowing the democratically elected government and thinking they have the support to do it. Some also think spies have infiltrated the country, the communists are going to attack, attack 5g antennas because they cause cancer and people like you Mack who think vaccines kill you which they don't. That is why they want to shut down some armed groups.

are you talking about blm because it sounds like it....

these militias are what has made us who we are.. we would not be the USA with out that right..

that is what has kept the eliets in line... thats the whole reason the founders created the damn thing

that's my point they were old and in bad health before this covid crap then they finaly pass with covid and that's marked as a covid caused death... that type of stuff caused this uproar.. why did they blow it up like that is the question.

You really are lost in the fog, aint ya?

have you done any research?

why are they talking about manipulating the words of the 2nd amendment? I hope everyone fully understands it.. they want to take our rights to have a militia away they want to have no opposition to themselves...

The wording of the 2nd Amendment has been debated, argued and re-interpretted several times in US history. If there is one thing constitutional scholars and lawyers can agree on it is that none of them can agree on what the Founding Fathers actually meant in the wording that was used. It is ambiguous, even contradictory. Lawyers love those kinds of ambiguities... that's fat fees for generations of legal eagles.

The current interpretation on the right to bear arms, upon which the legal arguments around that right are based, is not even that old. (2008 : Supreme Court)

But I like your interpretation of 'death by covid' : so, as long as my victim is already old or suffering from some serious illness, I can freely bludgeon them to death cos, you know, they was dying anyway so no reason to start sticking murder down as a cause of death....

it is only debated when there are people in charge that want to take things from us.. other wise they would be fine with having a free army type group protecting thier assets right

who was leading in 08?

[Most Lee Harmless]

You aint arguing for a militia under the Bill of Rights, you are arguing for the right to use armed force to resist your governement when it makes lawfully arrived at decisions that you disagree with. Well, I doubt there are any Constitutions written anywhere that include and preserve the right to engage in armed rebellion.

Whether any guns get fired is not the test of armed rebellion : possession of and stated intent to use are the tests and both were proved by the statements made by the perps themselves.

And still there is no justification found for these packs of armed men to describe themselves as 'militias' under the Bill of Rights. Their protection regarding the bearing of arms comes under the Supreme Courts view that individuals are protected, not that they are a 'militia.'

Again, a 'militia' is a disciplined body of armed men raised and acting under the authorities control in time of war or in preparation for war.

A bunch of yahoos running around in camo waving their fire-arms is not a 'militia' except in their own minds.

[Mack]

You aint arguing for a militia under the Bill of Rights, you are arguing for the right to use armed force to resist your governement when it makes lawfully arrived at decisions that you disagree with. Well, I doubt there are any Constitutions written anywhere that include and preserve the right to engage in armed rebellion.

Whether any guns get fired is not the test of armed rebellion : possession of and stated intent to use are the tests and both were proved by the statements made by the perps themselves.

And still there is no justification found for these packs of armed men to describe themselves as 'militias' under the Bill of Rights. Their protection regarding the bearing of arms comes under the Supreme Courts view that individuals are protected, not that they are a 'militia.'

Again, a 'militia' is a disciplined body of armed men raised and acting under the authorities control in time of war or in preparation for war.

A bunch of yahoos running around in camo waving their fire-arms is not a 'militia' except in tgeir own minds.

no im fighting for the rights we are entitled to so we have a chance to prorect ourselves, dont twist my thoughts and words