The government has passed a policy that gives them the right if a state of emergency is declared by the CDC that the militia can come into the homes of Americans and vaccinate everyone with whatever experimental vaccine they want without your concent and if you refuse, you can be thrown into jail and all your possessions seized.
2006-08-25 06:41:47 · 37 answers · asked by writer2462000 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I would concede to that and pray it it wouldn't be a Jim Jones Cocktail.
2006-09-01 18:20:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question makes no sense and sounds like yet another internet myth. Let's try to apply just a little bit of logic here:
The government has passed WHAT policy? Is it a law passed by congress and signed by the president? If so, what bill was it and exactly what does it say? Please cite your source. Such a bill would be all over the front page of every newspaper in the country.
Exactly WHOSE "militia" can come into your home? Since "militia" is normally defined as a state's national guard, which state or states are we talking about?
What type of "experimental vaccines" would they be using and for what purpose? If it was a drug to minimize the damage of a biological or radiological attack, would you not be willing to voluntarily try it rather than being guaranteed a slow and horrible death from the attack itself?
If you refused to accept the vaccine, what would be the purpose of throwing you, in your un-vaccinated condition, into jail? Would that not defeat the purpose of any mandatory vaccinations?
Why would this "militia" take away all of your possessions? What would be the purpose? To whom would they be given?
OCO
2006-08-25 07:06:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is a often cited example of an exception to free speech. You can't yell fire in a movie theater if it is not true because in the ensuing panic someone can get hurt or killed. It has been recognized in the courts for years that the individuals rights end where the public good begins. If you have a contagious disease and refuse to be treated the government would have no choice but to isolate you. Forced vaccination takes that a step further but that should only be done if there is no other way to contain the epidemic.
2006-08-25 07:46:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No to the Question itself.
The commentary is some thought provoking. Thank you.
Your content of you commentary would not be an issue if the government had/has proven itself worthy of trust.
There is a long history from the beginning that shows that culture of governmental administration, is not worthy of trust.
Consider the 13th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution: "There shall be no slavery in the United States or its possessions, except in the case of convicted criminals.
The people as described in the law would be slaves due to the fact that they would be convicted criminals. If a group of citizens, can be jailed and therefore slaves, then we are in much trouble, and the citizens no better than slaves.
There are 2 instances in the USA when ownership of a Human is allowed.
1. Convicted criminals; they are property of the local or federal gov't.
2. Military soldiers; they are gov't issue and can be fined for destruction of gov't property, just for injuring themselves.
2006-09-01 17:35:57 · answer #4 · answered by LeBlanc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where did you hear this, it's a crock. During periods of national emergency the National Guard can be called out to keep order. If it was a massive epidemic, why wouldn't you want the vaccine. And if you refused they wouldn't throw you in jail and take your stuff, the looters would get it when you died because you refused the cure.
2006-09-02 03:15:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh my god some of these answers....some people are so trusting. And what if the government released whatever disease that people need immunization against? No they should not have the right to take away our civil liberties, but they dont seem to be working anyway.
Look at Africa for an example of experimentation.
Also Flouride and DDT in the US
Wake up people
2006-09-01 04:31:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it were a state of emergency, I would rather be given an experimental vaccination than catch some bioterroristic infection and have to receive experimental treatments or worse--DIE.
2006-09-01 07:34:09 · answer #7 · answered by kathy r 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government will not take away civil liberties beyond the point where we can be protected in a post-911 world.The liberal ilk would like to scare voters into thinking so! No Hillary!! You will not be elected!!
2006-09-01 02:15:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh! I did not realise we have a right until now!
Do we really have a right? If you take everything apart and look at it piece by piece, common men have no right at all. We vote for people whom we trust with our hopes, and after election ends, we find them turn their backs against us, abandoning everything they said.
For me, any form of government is communism all dolled up. Having said that, without a government people cannot prosper. What I'm trying to say here is that we abolish our own right when we cast votes - we gave away our right when we choose people to represent us.
2006-09-01 21:40:29 · answer #9 · answered by jarod_jared 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In an emergency, who cares about your rights. If it's an emergency, they don't have time to seize your possessions. They can just respect your refusal, and let you become infected and spread the infection, killing who knows how many. If the disease doesn't kill you, people will for spreading the disease.
2006-09-01 03:25:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They cannot do that. And besides it is a far better idea to bring people to a central location for such vaccination. Not only is it not the policy, but the very idea is infeasible
2006-09-01 14:46:15 · answer #11 · answered by illusionaryr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋