Edmonds WA Mayor Mike Nelson
Edmonds, WA Mayor Mike Nelson
Previous Post
Next Post

Edmonds Mayor Mike Nelson said Thursday that the current [Washington State] preemption statute is overly broad, “tying the hands of all local governments in our state to do anything to protect our citizens.”

A previous effort by the city of Seattle to ban guns in parks was stopped by the courts under the same statute.

[Edmonds Mayor Mike] Nelson, who said he is a gun owner who keeps his firearm stored and locked, said he will push for the Legislature to make changes allowing local governments to have the authority to address guns in their communities.

“On the one hand we can prohibit someone from smoking in a park, but we can’t prohibit them from bringing a handgun into a playground,” he said in a phone interview. “Does that make sense?”

– The Associated Press in Gun Rights Ruling in Washington State Says City Rules Can’t Conflict With State Law on Firearms Storage

Previous Post
Next Post


    • How in hell can you protect your kids at the playground with a cigarette? The police aren’t there to do it.

  1. “[Edmonds Mayor Mike] Nelson, who said he is a gun owner who keeps his firearm stored and locked, said he will push for the Legislature to make changes allowing local governments to have the authority to address guns in their communities.”

    With any luck, a SCotUS ruling that carry outside the home is a constitutionally-protected right will go a long way to slap that kind of crap down…

    • How do people that stupid get elected dogcatcher, much less anything real. Feel free to prohibit shooting your gun in the park, just as you prohibit smoking your cigarettes, but you cannot prohibit keeping and bearing arms in that park because of 2A. Duh.

    • NO, that is not their RAL goal only stated YUUUUGE Difference. You see, after two years of the idiocracy submitting to the “protection” of government (which has never been their job description) has opened up the door to use the winge about “we will protect you” (no, we cannot nd will not but it sounds good and sells well). shold make the voting public quiet down and go back to their screens for another while.
      Tey have no intention, nor do they have any viable means, to “protect us”. They want our guns, and other liberties, taken up so they cn get on with using us s the pawns they think we are. We pay the bills, they get rich on both power nd money.

  2. this guy.
    if a criminal smuggles a player’s navy cut (ban high capacity hard packs) into the park and buries the hot ember in my navel, i will be prevented from extinguishing a smoldering tareyton (i’d rather fight than switch) in his eye.

    • “…and buries the hot ember in my navel,…”

      There are forums where that kind of kink is discussed, and sometimes acted upon, after textual and verbal negotiations.

      So I’ve heard, from reputable sources.

      *cough*… 😉

  3. edmonds mike nelson is the kind of pathetic “gun owner” who’ll drop to his knees and lay The 2A down at the feet of gun banning zealots in a heartbeat. In other words mike nelson is a worthless p o s who cannot wait to tell child molesters, kidnappers and perverts nobody in the park has the means to stop them.

  4. So I will say it again. He knew that the Edmond’s storage law violated the Washington state law. He did it anyway. He should be removed from office, he intentionally violated every gun owners second amendment rights. Class action civil suit with punitive damages. Until these leftist communists are held personally accountable nothing good can happen.

  5. I’d wager a week’s pay that cigarettes are NOT banned in the parks but SMOKING cigarettes is. Therefore, the equivalent would be to allow weapons in the park but ban people from shooting other people in the park. Which I’m thinking is probably already illegal.

  6. “. . . we can prohibit someone from smoking in a park, but we can’t prohibit them from bringing a handgun into a playground,” . . . .

    Yup, that’s the way it works. And it works that way whether you like it or not. Read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. You might understand.

    Let’s start from a 3’rd “evil” that you might wish to ban; alcohol in playgrounds. The 21st Amendment reads:

    “The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”

    It imposes no limit whatsoever on any state’s power to legislate about “intoxicating liquors”. There remains NO right to alcohol under our Constitution. Open-and-shut.

    Tobacco is an ambiguous case. Arguably, use of tobacco is a “pursuit of happiness”, an “unalienable right”. If you asked voters in the 18th Century whether they had a right to use tobacco you would undoubtedly be told: ‘Of course!’ Nevertheless, the 10th Amendment reserves to the states the “police power” (strange term to our ears) to legislate for public safety, health and morals. A state might not have power to ban smoking in the home but it almost certainly does have such power in a playground, especially a public playground.

    (A state might not have the power to erect a stop sign in your private driveway; however, it certainly does have that power on a public road.)

    Now, as to guns in playgrounds. Unlike tobacco, “arms” are an enumerated right. Little room remains for ambiguity here. And it includes the rights to both keep and bear. “[K]eep” seems to imply the home while “bear” seems to apply outside the home. SCOTUS has opined that self-defense is at the core of the right to arms. And, one is just as apt (if not more so) to need to resort to arms for self-defense outside the home. Perhaps most importantly, in defense of one’s children in a playground.

    Prior to the 14th Amendment, and the McDonald decision, I would have (reluctantly) conceded that the states’ police power would have rendered the 2A nearly a nullity vis-a-vis state legislation. But we have the 14th Amendment; we have McDonald. Today, the states have no more power than the Feds; in some circumstances, they might have less power than the Feds over arms.

    No one may read the Constitution and its surrounding documents and discover, at pleasure, what is there and what is not-there. It was nonsense when the 9th Circuit read the 2A and declared that they couldn’t find the word “bear”. (Especially odd when seated in the State of California whose flag includes a bear.) We, as individuals, have no right to render the Constitution a nullity. Nor by simple majority. Only 3/4ths of the State legislatures can alter the constitution. This Constitution is there for a reason and we have to accept that it exists. To restrain the power of the governments we consent to be governed by.

    And it is clearly an anti-majority scheme. If the Founders had intended that a simple majority of any body could rule at pleasure then they would have drafted for us a constitution text which would have been trivially simple. “Simple majority rules!” They did not. Instead, they gave us a system rich with checks-and-balances. They acquiesced to a Bill of Rights (which was extended by the subsequent Amendments. This is our system and we are obliged to worth within its constraints.

    Else, we revert to politics “by other means”.

    • There are plenty of places in America where I would CERTAINLY be armed anytime I took my children unto a public park. Let’s not get stupid!

  7. If preemption statutes are successful in keeping such turd tyrants under control then obviously they function and should be kept in place.

  8. A better comparison to the potential threat of second hand smoke would be somebody firing a gun in all directions while in the park.

    That is banned.

    Anybody can walk into a part with a pack of cigarettes in their pocket or even a high-capacity carton under their arm.

    • A better comparison to the threat of secondhand smoke would be somebody walking his puppy. Since secondhand smoke is not a real problem. It’s been demonized stupidly using the same methods as used against guns, except who is going to defend smoking?

  9. He can’t even come up with a valid analogy.

    Yes, you can ban smoking. And guess what, you CAN BAN SHOOTING!!

    You can’t ban someone from CARRYING a pack of cigarettes. And neither should you be able to ban someone from otherwise lawfully carrying a firearm.

  10. More importantly, he needs to be asked the question: Do you think criminals are going to abide by a gun ban in ANY area? Or would it be better to have armed citizens IN CASE a criminal who has disregard for the law decides to shoot up a park?

  11. To the best of my knowledge both smoking in most public spaces, and shooting a firearm in those same public spaces, are both illegal. However, carrying a pack of cigarettes, or carrying a firearm are both legal. Especially if either are in a pocket or otherwise concealed.
    My point being, as a society, we have already and for many years, have agreed that committing murder, or attempting to do so, as well as using a weapon of any kind to commit a felony crime is not acceptable and a prohibited action. Punishable by law. We have also agreed that being able to defend ourselves from those who would harm us by whatever means available, is permissible. You have a right of self defense. So, my question is why would anyone want to deny the law abiding the means or tools to defend themselves?

    • ‘We have also agreed that being able to defend ourselves from those who would harm us by whatever means available, is permissible.’

      Sadly ‘we’ does not equate to ‘all of us’ (see Kyle Rittenhouse trial). Which explains why some would want to deny law abiding citizens the means in which to defend themselves. I believe it was Dr. No who once said, ‘No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.’

    • Yet this dweeb woud be fine wiht allowing some rowdy yoots to carry large size baseball bats and roab about terrorsing the smaller/weaker they find in the park. But for ME to carry the same handgun (along with my Mother May I Card) into his Edmonds parks gives him the screming fntods…. or is it more matter of HE is not able to control MY LIFE in this spect?

  12. Can we ban your protection details for your family and yourself, Mayor?…Gun Free Zones make everyone sitting ducks…

  13. Yes but you shouldn’t be able to ban cigarettes in the parks either.
    Second hand smoke is a joke.
    Another liberal take your rights away bandwagon.
    Tobacco is addictive, bullsht. I used to smoke 20 packs of cigarettes a day but since I lost one of my lungs I’ve cut my smoking in half.
    You can take that harmful addiction crap and shove it up yur ass.

    • I positively hate cigarette smoke, but banning it outside is stupid. Banning it indoors makes sense regardless of the dangers of second hand smoke since it’s an irritant, but outdoors it’s like banning farting in parks. The smell will pass soon enough.

      • And the smell lingers indoors forever, so for most people ruling out tobacco indoors makes sense. But there is no basis for a law in that regard. Personally, I quit smoking in the house more than 20 years before I quit smoking altogether.

        • ‘…no basis for a law…’

          Consider this, what if OSHA declared that second hand cigarette smoke was an occupational hazard? While to a degree, I respect that I have a choice to hang out at a smoky bar all night or go home, the waitress and bartender don’t. And often finding another job would involve a significant reduction in income. If society hadn’t already removed cigarette smoke from public life, OSHA could do it overnight.

        • Yeah, Gov, they could sure try! Using, as you point out, EXACTLY the same reasoning they would use to ban guns, if they thought they could get away with it. Clearly, guns are an occupational hazard, along with conservatives.

    • Smoking is definitely not addictive–or harmful! I know because I also smoke 20 packs of cigarettes a day and have done so for 20 years and I can quit anytime! In fact when I got emphysema and COPD and erecticle dysfunction I never stopped smoking! That proves it doesn’t cause cancer!!! Those damn liberals who claim cigarettes cause cancer are peddling fake science because they just hate people having fun!

      • Nobody except the nutbars on social media actually claim that smoking *causes* cancer, doofus! Smoking is correlated to cancer, but there is not any proof of causation, or we would have had tens of millions more cases than we ever did. And I would be one of them.

  14. I live in a city that’s adjacent to Edmonds. Fortunately, Lynnwood hasn’t tried any of this nonsense. Edmonds is a lovely city on the Puget Sound coastline. I go there frequently. Too bad it’s run by pompous idiots.

  15. Perhaps a ban on drugs and crime in the public parks would solve all of their problems?

    I understand laws against murder, rape and robbery always work also…..🤔

  16. If you ask me (no one did) he should not be able to ban cigarettes either, especially not in parks which are both public and outside.

    • Old news, dweeb. AFTER this article was published in 2020, Utah DID ban exploding targets after the fires that were started. And they banned them notwithstanding the claims of the producers that these binary explosives cannot cause a fire. California has banned them as well. Moreover, a civil liability for fire suppression costs attaches to the individuals who started the fire.

      Meanwhile hunting, which can but rarely causes fires through ricochets, continues on public lands. Without hunting, an environmental disaster would occur in the absence of enough predators to keep the population of game animals in check. Oh, by the way, Obama expanded the areas where guns can be carried on federal lands. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      • Put “Fast and Furious” in your pipe, stick it up Eric Holder’s ass and smoke it. Obama was the shortest lived “worst president ever” in our history, it only lasted 4 years, as opposed to Jimmy Carter had to wait from 1981 until 2009 for relief. To his credit, Obama tried his best to pass it to Hillary immediately in 2017, but no success, we dodged a bullet.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead Grapes and oranges, Dunderhead. Just because a small number is idiots do dumb things, should not preclude rest of us from enjoying our rights. But then with you Leftists, it’s really all about control, isn’t it?

  17. “If I Can Ban Cigarettes In Parks, I Should Be Able to Ban Guns, Too”

    Wonder why it took so long for this question to pop-up? The proposition easily resonates with anti-gun mobs, and we should have a direct, non-nuianced answer. “RTKBA” is not an effective response, because we then generate the response, “My right to life supercedes your right to have a gun.”

    Even if we claim, “Smoking is a privilege, the Second Amendment protects a fundamental natural, human and civil right.”, we persuade no one.

    We hate it when someone demands we give up a fundamental right; the opposition reacts the same when we tell them that logic and data supercede emotions. The end result is the chains are not moved in our favor.

    If the best response we can come up with is, “Fork ’em; I got my rights”, the issue is intractable, and we should stop complaining about it.

      • “Where is a “right to life” articulated in the Constitution or BoR?”

        Refer to 9th and 10th amendments.

        The DOI identified the right to life as preexisting government. The constitution is the means by which the people of the nation retain “certain unalienable rights” (not defined in total), among which is the right to life. The Constitution, and the first 8 amendments do not define the only natural, civil and human rights of being human.

        You should know, already, that the Constitution grants no rights to the people. The constitution is a contract where the people grant rights to government…one of which is that government exist at all.

  18. Interesting that, even on this site (which seems to be generally more libertarian in outlook – excluding dacian the idiot and MajorStupidity, who are full-on Leftist/fascists), people seem to understand the Constitution backwards.

    Starting point – there was a huge and vigorous debate over the BoR. The “anti” BoR people’s basic argument was “if we list out the things the government SHOULDN’T be able to do, we’ll surely miss something”. The “compromise” was Amendments 9 and 10, which were SUPPOSED to make it clear that we had limited government. And how’s that workin’ out for us????

    No, smoking is not a “privilege” just because it isn’t listed in the BoR. Show me the part of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to mandate or control smoking??

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    I’m sorry, is that too complicated for y’all????? Let me make it simple – if the Federal government is not EXPRESSLY granted the right to do something, in the Constitution? It doesn’t have that right. PERIOD. And Marbury v. Madison was a stupid decision, and we’ve been paying the price for it ever since. One only need take a brief look at our execrable “Commerce clause” jurisprudence to see that writ large. T. Jefferson is known among his graveyard compatriots as “Whirligig Tom”.

    Why are all of you so anxious to let bureaucrats and politicians tell you what to do????

    • To the demented Lamp that went out in his head

      Wrong as usual. Smoking is a public health hazard that does indeed cause cancer with secondary smoke. That has been know for decades so therefor laws against murder would be quite appropriate here and cover bans on smoking in public places.

      Covid rules requiring mask wearing also prevented irresponsible people from infecting people in public places and killing them.

      Of course only a sane person would be able to understand these simple rules.

      • There are people who smoked their entire lives and never got cancer, respiratory or otherwise. There’s people who never got a whiff of any tobacco smoke, secondhand or otherwise, or any other kind of claimed respiratory carcinogen, who died of lung cancer. Therefore you cannot call smoking a cause of cancer. You can at best call it a risk factor. Your devotion to propaganda and smug intellectual dishonesty is unwavering.

        • sorry but just because dacian is wrong about lots of stuff, this is not one of them. ciagarettes obviously do cause cancer and denying that is pretty bizarre and makes gun owners on this site look kind of kooky

        • Fred: No. You wrote what is known as a logical fallacy. Not everyone who drives a car gets killed in a car crash but driving is still extremely dangerous and is the leading cause of death.

        • To be a definitive cause it must happen 100%. It obviously doesn’t, therefore it can only be validly called a risk factor. That is my objection and a perfectly valid one. If that’s “kooky”, then we need more kookiness.

        • This is one of those arguments where it might be helpful if the people engaged in it actually knew what cancer is.

          It’s a collection of mutations picked up by cells over time which lead to uncontrolled cell division and random malfunctions. This multiple mutations requirement is known as the “two-hit hypothesis” which is extensively researched and obviously at least mostly correct since many of your really good cancer drugs these days are kinase inhibitors that came from this line of research.

          For example, proto-oncogenes (which can become oncogenes, whence “oncologist”) pick up mutations that enhance their expression, some commonly known ones exist in BRCA1 which leads to an increased risk of breast cancer. Mutations that decrease their expression, or silence the gene cannot cause cancer. Meanwhile you need mutations to affect tumor-suppressor genes in a manner that decreases their expression. Such a thing can happen in p53, which normally functions at the G1 checkpoint, stopping the cell cycle if DNA damage is detected and not repaired/repairable. HPV encodes a protein known as E6 which will bind to and deactivate p53, leading to an increased risk of cancer, mostly in women.

          The exact cause of the mutations is the question and that varies from person to person and their individual circumstances. Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy specifically because she found out that she had a mutation in one of the copies of her BRCA1 gene which meant that 1/2 of her tumor suppression capacity was deleted. If she picked up mutation in the other copy, she’d almost certainly develop breast cancer. She didn’t want to take the risk, so she had the tissues that express BRCA1 removed.

          So, technically speaking, referring to smoking as a “risk factor” in the macro sense is correct because you can’t know the cause of cancer until after it happens, there are simply too many factors involved. Some things raise the risk, some by a large margin. Smoking does this.

          But some people will repair the damage done by smoking or chewing just fine. Others won’t. Some people will smoke and end up with a cancer they’d have had anyway and some people will get those cancers without ever touching tobacco. For some of these people it’s genetics+smoking. For others it’s circumstances+smoking. For some it’s just smoking.

          Autosomal cancer is a roll of the dice in more regards than can usually be measured looking forward.

          Sunlight doesn’t cause cancer. Excessive exposure resulting in sunburn does. Only lunatics say “don’t get any sun!” because your Vitamin D production is linked to this and Vitamin D is necessary in more ways that I’m going to type out or which our species even knows. Yet, skin cancer happens in people who’ve never burned. Same deal as smoking, a ton of factors go into it.

        • The leading cause of unnatural death (not of old age, iow) is Doctors. Specifically malpractice and malfeasance. To the tune of several times the deaths from all cancers and firearms combined. To state that driving (not just automobiles but DRIVING them!) is the leading cause of death is just scary stupid. The leading cause of death is old age, just as it has been for a million years. Automobiles sometimes reach 50,000 a year, I believe, malpractice is rarely under 10 times that.

      • Patent BS. During 40 years of smoking 2 packs a day, I was subjected to a LOT of second-hand smoke, if it caused ANYTHING, then I would have had it. Since I have never had cancer, your statement is plainly untrue. Whether that is because you are a liar, a fool, or both is a different question.

        • to Larry

          You Far Right people really live in your own little fantasy world. As far back as the 1940’s Doctors discovered that smoking caused cancer and later in time that second hand smoke did to.

          Of course the uneducated Far Right scream about people they know that smoked and did not get cancer while ignoring the fact that for every smoker that did not die of cancer there were thousands that did. I have know legions of friends , family and co-workers who died of cancer directly caused by smoking or by exposure to second hand smoke.

        • Dacian, you dingbat, just what did my post (or this subject) have to do with right or wrong(left)? And most of those claims were clearly flat-out lies, not even subtle.

      • So, dacian the idiot, quote me the part of the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to regulate smoking, then.

        Or are you as stupid as you regularly sound??? I guess I answered my own question – you ARE as stupid as you sound. Perhaps you should follow Samuel Langhorne Clemens’ brilliant advice, and quit posting.

      • The CDC’s study confirming the dangers of secondhand smoke was not a study at all but an opinion poll that proved nothing. Look at real studies and you find no connection or effects caused by secondhand smoke.
        74% of lung cancer is caused by or linked to asbestos etc. 26% of cases MAY have a link to smoking. The whole scenario was invented by govt to be able win lawsuit against tobacco companies since there had to be “victims”, those that don’t smoke. Billions of dollars are now paid to the states by tobacco and that was the goal. So cigarettes are still available and profits go to government and tobacco companies.
        You are obviously lying about knowing people dying of cigarette related cancer. I have known smokers and none died from it, that is 67 years of my life. One heroin death but that death was caused by using alcohol and heroin. That is what they don’t tell about OD cases:alcohol.
        It is easy to catch liars in comments, easy. Your red flag was “You Far Right people really live in your own little fantasy world”, Far Right? Really? What the hell does far right have to do with anything about smoking? But it does show you are a dem/leftist control freak butt kissing parrot and idiot.

  19. Seems that the (DUMBA$$) mayor can’t differentiate between a privilege (smoking in a park) versus a RIGHT (owning/possessing/carrying a firearm). Luckily, the State Supreme Court has laid it out for him in black & white. If ONLY he can get it through his thick skull (doubtful). Maybe someone should pound it into his brain with a State Law Book?!?

  20. Oh, in case you might want to “tweet” the honorable Mr. Nelson, you can hang that up…his tweets AND account (with all TWO followers 😂😂) are “protected”. Methinks he’s had a tad bit of push back over his stance. Also, if you believe him when he says he’s a “gun owner”, well I’ve got some nice grass land in Arizona to sell you! 😂

  21. I guess my starting point would be to ask where he gets the authority to ban smoking outdoors in a public space.

    If it’s public then members of the public are part owners of the “commons” and as such, should be allowed to smoke in that common area.

    This is exactly the kind of bullshit these people love. “Oh, well it’s a health issue so we can issue diktats”. Which is exactly why they want to talk about gun violence (and everything else) as a “health issue”.

    If you let them have the “health issue” argument they’ll just move to view everything “through the lens of public health”. It’s a catchall, just like much of environmentalism. The last two years make this pretty damned clear.

    If someone lights up and you don’t like it then use that freedom of association you have to disassociate from them, step away.

    • “If you let them have the “health issue” argument they’ll just move to view everything “through the lens of public health”.”

      The past 2 years have shown what they can do under that aegis.

      Literally grind an economy to a near halt, and explode inflation by handing people buckets of money and giving them express permission to not pay their rent to the landlord.

      It’s pretty much an ideal way to kill a nation… 🙁

      • IMHO, the issue here is that “public” anything has now been abused to the point that I think we need to admit that pols are drunk on power and take away the keys to the country. Permanently. They’ve shown that, as a class, they cannot be trusted.

        Public Health and Public Safety are terms that cover issues that should be rationally debated with regard to the limitations on government power. They’re not. The second word in both phrases grants unlimited power.

        I’ve pointed this out with regard to DUI before. “Public safety” trumps all your rights. Apply the exact logic of a DUI checkpoint to guns and watch the gun community howl with indignation and start blathering about “rights” and “privileges” again.

        The reason for that is because you’d already lost as soon as you allowed this argument to be an argument.

        This is part of why I’m not down with the “rights vs. privileges” argument any longer because it’s been demonstrated for two decades now that everything becomes a privilege when .gov decides something is a “common good”. They fall back on the refrain “You don’t have the right to put others at risk”, which is an argument for banning everything and these people know this which is why they deploy the argument in the first place.

        Which, of course, necessarily gives them the authority to go looking for infractions regardless of what other rights this may violate. It’s a license to run fishing expeditions to find any and all violations of any other rules that may or may not apply (Tell it to the judge, son). Heck, there need not be anything illegal going on. Hit a DUI checkpoint and they might just jack you for your cash and call it legal under Civil Asset Forfeiture. Try to stop what amounts to an armed robbery and they’ll legally murder you on the spot.

        These people will lie about anything and everything to get what they want. Just look at the way they flip shit about Twitter and Musk. Literally saying “OMG! He might do to us what we did to other people!” with no hint of irony.

        There is no Truth but Power.

        Fuck that.

        If you say “Smoking’s a privilege, not a right” then they’re just going to argue (by which I mean “use government power to act as though”) everything not explicitly listed in the BoR is a privilege. Of course, they’ll ignore the BoR too, when they feel like it.

        You like food? Too bad, that’s a privilege and other people are starving somewhere so we’re taking your food. Public health.

        The Slippery Slope Fallacy isn’t a fallacy. It’s a damned law of the universe when dealing with Big Government types. They’ll straight up rob the ant to pay off the grasshopper and do so openly and with a smile on their face while going on TV to talk about “public something something” to the wild applause of the trained seals in the US public.

      • to Geof

        Quote————-Literally grind an economy to a near halt, and explode inflation by handing people buckets of money and giving them express permission to not pay their rent to the landlord.———quote

        And save millions of lives because of strict covid rules, but the Far Right Consider peoples lives expendable because of blind greed. Now you know why the Far Right is the most dangerous group of people in the U.S.

        • Not only do you not know much of anything about guns, you apparently know even less about communication of respiratory diseases.

        • dacian, the Dunderhead Prove that the “strict covid rules” saved even one life?

          I have a RED HOT NEWS FLASH for you. The masks don’t stop Covid. Covid is a VIRUS which is 10 times smaller than bacteria. A three ply mask is only effective 26%. As most masks are ONLY two ply, that means they are even less effective. Those surgical masks that some place make you wear are totally ineffective. The surgical mask is to prevent the surgeon from accidently dropping spittle into the incision. My source? A cardiac surgeon.

        • You need to demonstrate these “millions of lives saved”, given that some states were extremely controlling while other states quickly dropped the stupid restrictions, and their results do not show any difference. Turns out that, apparently, unconstitutional “mandates” made no difference at all, except convincing dictator-wannabes such as yourself that NOW’S MY CHANCE!!

  22. Take it to its logical (and absurd) destination: “If you don’t have a right to put others at risk, then you have no right to life. Your being alive puts others at risk of not being alive. You might murder them! Eat as they starve. Drink as they thirst! Breathe as they choke! We must protect others from the public health risk that is your existence!”

    • “We must protect others from the public health risk that is your existence!”

      I think you broke the code.

  23. Criminals don’t follow laws. Understand? Criminals don’t follow laws. Let me say that again. Criminals don’t follow laws. Didn’t hear me? Criminals don’t follow laws. One more time. Criminals don’t follow laws.

    • “Criminals don’t follow laws.”

      Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah?

      You can know that only if you are a criminal, and you know all the other living criminals.

      Somewhere there must be a few criminals obeying many laws. Somewhere.

      • “so what is your point? have no laws?”

        Law is the leading cause of crime; no law, no crime.

        Sometimes life is just simple to understand.

      • His point is that simply adding laws doesn’t work.

        The assumption that “laws = good” is a driving factor behind people wishing to create them but laws are not necessarily good.

        Since we know that criminals will, by definition, break laws we should be cautious in what we make illegal.

        The law doesn’t stop a crime it only prescribes a punishment for getting caught. Ergo, laws that curtail useful, non-damaging, or minimally damaging behavior have a greater effect on the law abiding and therefore do more to repress the ability of the ethical/moral than they do to curtail the behavior of criminals.

        Therefore, excessive law/rulemaking harms society by slowing productivity, reducing respect for the Rule of Law and reducing the capacity of the moral/ethical to behave in moral/ethical ways without fear of government reprisal.

        There’s a happy medium where those who are a problem can either have their behavior corrected or can be removed from society with minimal damage to that society. Going too far in either direction harms society.

        To paraphrase Paracelsus, “The poison’s in the dose”.

      • The point is, don’t have laws you refuse to ENFORCE! They only restrict the freedoms of the good, law abiding citizen, while leaving the criminal completely free to continue his crimes unfettered.

      • Enforce laws that need enforcing. 2.3 million in prison here and that should mean we are safe. I am safe because I can have firearms, not totally safe but waiting for protection from government, hold your breath.
        “Preserve and Protect The Constitution of The United States” they cannot even do under oath. Get real.

        • Blue laws come to mind immediately.

          Of course, you can just look up “strange laws that are still on the books”.

          Five hours 2x a week for bingo in North Carolina… Bans of fortune telling… A federal prohibition on “fake” weather reports… North Dakota bans serving beer and pretzels at the same time… In Oklahoma it’s punishable by law to make strange faces at someone’s dog… Michigan bans women from cutting their hair shorter than a certain length without their husband’s permission… Memphis, TN still has a law that says women can only drive if preceded by a man waving caution flags… cities in Utah ban having an unleashed dog on even numbered days…

          The list is nearly endless if you actually value your time.

        • strych9, I don’t know what state you are in, but we have no “blue laws” left in NYS.
          The Bingo laws in NC are a local issue. It’s up to the North Carolinians.
          I favor bans on fortunetelling. There are quite a few charlatans out there bilking people of money with “fortunetelling.”
          The “strange face law” in Oklahoma sounds a bit extreme but if you think about it, you can “turn a dog on” with weird looks at the dog. Think about it a second or two.
          Michigan’s hair cutting law might be a bit extreme. I’ll give you that one.
          The Memphis law requiring a flag man when a woman drives does not seem like such a bad idea sometimes. LOL.
          Utah’s leash law should be every day. But that is up to them.
          I would favor a review of all laws on the books in each city and state every ten years. But that is my opinion and is really up to the individual states.

  24. Well, he’s clarified why the 80s-90s obsession with banning cigarettes everywhere was a bad idea. Give them an inch and they’ll try to make it a precedent.

    • If the nation wished to ban cigarettes everywhere, that would be fine. Pretending there was some health reason to do so was despotism at its worst. Have any of us ever seen a graph demonstrating decreased rates of anything at all after all the restrictions against smoking? All that sound and fury signified nothing, not a single life was saved.

      • Yes. I’ve seen a chart on the decreased tax revenue cities and states generate when people quit smoking.

        • Smoking is a vile habit which is repulsive to many people. I have no problem with banning smoking in Restaurants. The smell of cigarette smoke is repulsive. Second hand smoke is a KNOWN cause of cancer.
          That cities are loosing tax revenue by people quitting smoking is a problem they will have to deal with.

  25. The whole purpose of a preemption law is to ensure state-wide consistency of the law. Allowing home rule for gun laws is just a method of ensuring that thousands of people, particularly those traveling, inadvertently violate the law and at the least lose the gun they were carrying at the time, and perhaps get convicted of a more serious crime that could result in the loss of all gun rights.

    Let me suggest that Nelson knows this full well.



  26. Cigarettes are not banned in parks. The restrictions are against smoking them. I wonder if there’s restrictions against shooting guns in public places like the park. Anyone know?

Comments are closed.