Previous Post
Next Post

Screen Shot 2015-10-15 at 4.18.45 PM

Reader Pete G. writes:

Dear TTAG, saw this today and it reminded me of a conversation I recently had with a friend of mine who is board certified pediatrician, constitutionalist, and a gun owner. He also has the lowest vaccination rate in our state for his patients. Like Mr. Perloff’s tweet, my friend, and most gun owning, constitution respecting individuals that I know also believe in the sovereignty over a person’s body, and that an individual has a God-given or innate right to protect themselves from what they deem as a threat. My pediatrician friend was unable to believe the gun community in general would support mandatory vaccinations for the obvious contradiction this presents . . .

I realize that you have no control over the comments people post on your site, but as people who allegedly respect and understand the constitution enough to exercise their Second Amendment rights, there seems to be a glaring contradiction with the comments when it comes to other Constitutional issues other then the Second Amendment.

I have seen numerous posters use the exact rhetoric/propaganda/language when attacking other rights (especially concerning mandatory vaccines) that are often used against the Second Amendment and gun ownership. If the state can dictate what medical procedures you or your family are to take, the Second Amendment becomes a meaningless artifact.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Well honestly I just don’t care about this kind of stupidity. These anti retards have lost this war in every way but officially. So far this kind of crap the only think any of them can manage to do anymore is to post Facebook posts about how awful gun owners are. It’s childish and stupid to even comment on them.

    • The wars are won in the courts and in the ballot box.
      Have you seen what ballot measure is being proposed in CA?
      It’s not over ’till it’s over. And even then. it’s not over.

      • Well of course. Hell the legislative fight is the only fight that matters. I was referring to this general lame duck ‘turn the culture against guns’ crap.

      • Have you seen the extremely low numbers of people who complied up in Connecticut and New York after they past those last round of laws? Did you see how many Sheriffs refused to enforce those laws, and publicly said as much? And that’s in the “liberal” northeast. I do understand that the antis haven’t given up by any means, but I think a LOT of people are sick of it, way more than the mass media will ever admit.

  2. Less dependence on public schools might help with this issue. Folks should send their kids to schools that meet their criteria rather than the state’s.

    • As I tell parents today, “Increasingly, it is clear and unequivocal that sending your kids to public schools is parental malpractice.”

  3. Awesome post!

    Pete G’s friend is quite right. It seems the majority of the armed intelligentsia is only interested in protecting rights when it line sup with their agendas and they’ll contort themselves into whatever position it requires to justify it.

  4. Anti-vacciners are found across the political spectrum but the most vocal are typically on the Left.

    It is my observation that most “constitutionalists” have no idea what the Constitution says beyond the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

    • Equating vaccinations with firearms is nonsense. A properly carried concealed weapon is no danger to anyone. An unvaccinated child from some third world hellhole can be a danger to everyone.

      • I agree 100% this is a fact. But if you do not want your child to get vaccinated that should be left to the parent. Of course they have to be quarantined until the proven time they are not able to pass on the disease. So if they want to pass on vaccines, you have to be quarantined, simple. If they get sick and need medical care they are required to pay the full amount without help from the hospital or government. It should work both ways in terms of having total independence and having a compromise with the government for the good of the whole. As gun owners we did compromise with the government, the 4473 form and background checks, we’re even as far as I’m concerned. I took my vaccinations as a child, we’re even there too, I did what I had to do as a citizen. With those 4473 forms they have their background check and a paper trail, what more do they need? All these laws have done nothing to stop crime. Criminals are not the type of people to be concerned with laws, they will do what they think they need to do to be a successful criminal. If that means SBRs, suppressors & full auto they will find a way to make or get them. If parent wants to go against basic science and not take care of their children it’s up to them to pay the consequences of their actions.

        • unequivocally NOT 100% fact. IF, and I repeat IF, vaccines work, then you should have nothing to fear from an un-vaccinated individual whatsoever.

        • @BurleyOleBear – The problem is that vaccines don’t last forever. They are given to the group(s) that are at risk of being exposed to the disease, with the goal of eradicating it at the source.

          Children are snotty-sleaved germ factories and have little (if any) sense of good hygiene practices. So it makes sense to vaccinate them for common diseases and prevent them from bringing viruses back to their parents/grand-parents/aunts/uncles etc. …all of which whose own childhood vaccines will have long since worn off (or the virus has mutated enough that the vaccinated immune-system no longer recognizes it).

        • Steve, you’re missing the point. If one vaccinates according to the schedule and one professes faith in their efficacy, why would one have fear of those who don’t?

          I understand how vaccines are intended to work. I also understand Liberty. The issue really isn’t vaccines.

      • Does a parent have the right to decide that his or child should die from a preventable childhood disease? Even if the child survives, the sequella of polio can be a lifetime disability due to paralysis or an inability to breath? (I know a polio survivor.) Heart disease, infertility, blindness, this list goes on. Yet the same anti-vaccers on the left who will claim that a parent has the right to decide whether his child lives or dies claim the “moral high ground” that a woman doe not have the right to choose an abortion. And then they claim the right to inflict these childhood diseases, like chicken pox, on other children or adults who may suffer death as a result. Yes, they are hypocrites.

        • I believe the question at hand is NOT does the parent (do the parents) have the right to decide, but does the government have the right to decide for them, and then enforce that decision at the end of a gun?

          I believe that in the larger scheme vaccinations are a great thing and a huge benefit to society. More effort should be spent to educate parents as to the risks/rewards of having their children vaccinated. No one wants their children to be harmed by vaccines, which is a possibility, though relatively rare, but huge numbers of children and adults were damaged or killed by those same diseases before the vaccines were developed. THAT is the thing too many people are ignorant of. Many of those disease are not just childhood annoyances that pass, they can be and were frequently deadly.

          Education is the key, not ceding more power and authority to the nanny state.

        • If they want their kid to win a Darwin award, that is their business. But if you allow your kid to be infectious and a danger to others, sorry, your kid should be cured on their dime and then the parents should be sterilized because it’s obvious they are not fit to be parents or reproducing as it weakens the genetic pool.

        • Funny how the same “anti vaxxers” will demand pediatric ICU treatment for their children with a full accouterment of labs x-rays, CT scans, etc while espousing their ability to “choose”. Well, we all pay for their ignorance and hypocrisy, both in medical expenses for their young, and the untold amount of people they infect due to the inability to immunize due to either an allergy to the immunization or ignorance to the importance. As a nurse, I really would not like to see a child die in my hospital for any reason, but if you are going to flaunt your “freedom”, you might as well support “gun free zones”. You are in public with the masses, and you are infecting people that would love immunizations, but cannot due to being health compromised, allergic, or ignorant.

          I would like to see the people that fight for vaccine freedom also give up their right to Obamacare and also pay higher taxes to pay for the treatment of victims over their “choice” because the rest of us sure as hell do.

          BTW, go ask people in 3rd world countries about passing over immunizations, freedom of speech, or gun rights, and see what type of response you receive.

      • A properly carried concealed weapon is no danger to anyone.

        Actually, it is a very large danger to any violent criminal who would attack you. More to the point, there is always the possibility (albeit an extremely remote possibility) that an otherwise mentally healthy person could suddenly and unpredictably suffer a psychotic break. Such a person’s concealed weapon would be quite dangerous to the people around them.

        The real problem, however, is establishing go, no-go thresholds. Who establishes them? What criteria do they use to establish them? The only answer that is compatible with liberty is that the individual rather than the state determines go, no-go thresholds. Individual parents determine what benefits of a vaccine offset the risks — or not. Likewise, individuals of responsible age determine what benefits of being armed offset the risks — or not.

        The state has no legitimate authority to determine whether free people carry firearms. Similarly, the state has no legitimate authority to determine whether free people vaccinate themselves (or their children).

        • While reading your post it also just occurred to me that people in civilized countries who decide not to vaccinate their children are benefiting from the actions of those who have vaccinated their children (and themselves), just as a large number of people who do not carry a weapon benefit from the actions of those of us who do.

          In the case of the vaccines, in our current society the chances of your child being exposed to any of the formerly common diseases of childhood, or smallpox, or polio, are exceedingly rare unless they are in the company of children from third world countries where vaccinations are not common. They are therefore in large degree protected by those very vaccinations they decline to take themselves. Hypocrites.

        • So do you then agree to holding the anti-vexers legally liable for their stupidity? You don’t vaccinate your kid and mine gets sick, we charge your ass with reckless endangerment? Deal?

        • “You don’t vaccinate your kid and mine gets sick”
          Do the vaccinations work or not? How is an non-vaccinated child a danger to a child all caught up on vaccinations?

        • I explained that not all kids can be vaccinated. Worse, even those that are can still transmit the disease.

      • My first born son would love to discuss how safe the vaccines are, but alas he lost speech, and became locked at about a one year old cognitive level the day after his shots.

        So come on by and babysit my 12 year old. You folks shoving this stuff wouldn’t last a day seeing the results.

        • Redfoot, who said anything about banning? Geez.

          Also I’m glad you have my son figured out and the underlying causes, you are amazing.

          What I’m saying is that as belittling as you are to the “statistically insignificant” and with all the folks above who decry my choice not to vax my other two kids, you can FU before I will risk doing the same to them as I did to my first.

          I’m sorry if you don’t see the logic in that. Had you seen first hand what I did, you would either do the same, or you are willfully blind.

        • Sorry Bob, but that’s as stupid as not wearing seatbelt because you saw someone choked by one. In any case, given the burden of proof for vaccine cases is to prove that the vaccine DIDN’T cause the injury rather than the other way around (how’s that for due process?), your claim that the vaccine “caused” the disability should be treated skeptically.

        • Perfectly normal, babbling and speaking words. Developmentally ahead of the curve.


          God awful night, fever, sweats, vomiting

          Next day, laughing hysterically while gaze locked out the window. chasing and biting people. Screaming uncontrollably at full volume. Balance gone.

          Hell of a coincidence, huh?

          Stop thinking you know what is best for everyone and that your “feelings” should be imposed.

          You know far, far less than you think you do. You sound like a Obama voting grabber with your “for your own good, and the good of everyone else” mentality.

          Arrogant ignorance.

        • Interesting to see a username I’ve not seen around here before just so happens to have a case of one of the statistically insignificant bad reactions to a vaccine. What vaccine was it? What is the name of the syndrome? How about you provide some actual data rather than emotional personal anecdote? That’s an anti-gunner tactic.

      • What danger does an un-vaccinated person present to those who have been vaccinated?
        Not much different than seatbelt or helmet laws, it’s nanny-stateism.
        Except in this case the government has decided that sacrificing a few kids is worth it for the safety of the many and taken the decision away from the parents entirely. That isn’t what the founders intended.

        • No vaccine is 100% effective and that effectiveness varies over time. All vaccines have some chance of detrimental side-effect. Of course most scheduled vaccines have effectiveness rates well above 80% effective within a few years after they are administered, and the chances of long-term adverse side-effects are usually less than 1%.
          From a rational, statistical, point of view it seems obvious that the best option, when available, is to get the vaccines.
          Not everyone is rational, especially when it comes to their own kids. There are a statistically insignificant number of people who actually understand statistics.
          I don’t think the government has the right to force people to get their kids vaccinated, even though I get my son vaccinated on schedule. I do, however, think that parents have a right to know if their child is associating with unvaccinated children, and to limit that association. I think that is where one’s right to throw a punch reaches the other’s nose, so to speak.
          I would go so far as to even offer to have “vaccinated-only” classrooms as schools, just like they have peanut-free classrooms. Only, instead of just dumping it on parents (sorry, your kid is in a peanut-free classroom, or worse every classroom is peanut-free), the parents should get to request that their child be in a vaccinated-only classroom. Likely there would have to be exceptions made for children who medically cannot take the vaccinations, as those kids usually are at higher risk than even average unvaccinated children for contracting the diseases; for their safety they should get to join the vaccinated classrooms.

      • under no circumstances can that be even remotely true, if vaccines work. Check your logic or admit you aren’t using any.

        • Like all Statists everywhere, Redfoot and pswerge or whatever are all about forcing their feelings on the rest of us.

  5. It’s natural to in any culture to use “shaming” to attempt to persuade groups of people to get in line with the rest of the herd so to speak. I shame anti-vaxxers at just about every opportunity I get to do so because I don’t think their fears are rationale and it could potentially have an effect on me or somebody else I know. But as somebody who routinely and typically always says no when a doctor asks me if I want a flu-shot (irony much?) I also never support MANDATED vaccinations. I’ll support public policy that promotes vaccines but not mandates for it.

    But speaking on constitutional hypocrisy and the second amendment… one thing that drives me nuts is the ACLU supports the 4th and 5th Amendment in any and every way they can, but stays mute on or opposes 2nd Amendment rights issues. The interesting thing there being that we’d actually save lives if Government had the right to do just peak in on gangbangers phones, homes, cars, apartments, etc whenever they wanted to and force them to rat out their friends. We’d get rid of pretty much all crime and most violence in about a years time. They support all the Amendments that protect criminals, but they oppose the one amendment that can actually save us from those same criminals protected by the other amendments. I support the 4th and 5th amendments fully, I’m just pointing out a hypocrisy that was on my mind. That’s all.

    • Roy it’s human nature to be hypocritical, I think you know that. Everybody has beliefs and one might contradict the other. The ALCU does piss me off because as far as I have thought all these years they are supposed to be for all rights and not pick and choose them. So obviously there are few groups and individuals who practice what they preach.

    • +1 my kids are vaccinated. I think anyone who doesn’t is an idiot, but like helmet laws and seat belt laws, I detest mandatory personal safety. their unvaccinated kid is no threat to me or mine. think of it as evolution in action.

    • “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free sate, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis mine).

      I fail to see any part or portion of those 27 words giving the government the authority to establish age restrictions on the RKBA. If we concede that authority ( which we apparently have), how do we prevent the government from simply creating an arbitrarily high (e.g. 65 or older?) limit? We’ve already told them the decision is theirs to make and enforce.

      The Second Amendment is, and was intended to be, in my opinion, exceptionally arbitrary. The government has absolutely NO AUTHORITY to infringe on the RKBA.

  6. Indeed… insisting on the “second amendment” being sacred, and then allowing oneself to become a slave of the state in everything else… true hypocrisy.

    The “constitution” clearly sets out to give some people control of other people and their property. This has been accomplished at all level of the non-voluntary government, not just the feds. There is no “opt out” for those who insist on owning and controlling their own lives.

    Civic Belief #1: The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.

    Civic Belief #2: The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.

    If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

    “The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”. Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)

    • “the cost of Liberty shall be eternal vigilance” – Jefferson
      Let us not forget that the Founders did not secure our independence by trusting in Law and Juris Prudence.
      The Crown had violated its own laws in attempting to extract money and influence from the colonists and was unresponsive to their knowledgeable and well-stated arguments.
      Our very own GOV has entered into the same arrangement and shows no inclination to self-correct.
      The founders, instead, killed(with GUNS!) a sufficient number of those who would subdue them so as to send a clear message that it was simply too costly to continue in their attempts to govern them.
      “the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots, it is its natural manure” also Jefferson.
      If we have not the will to execute, we have not the will to retain Liberty.

  7. I’m not sure how the two issues are related…
    Common sense should mandate that you get a vaccine to defend you from disease. Common sense says you own a gun to defend yourself from tyranny. Common sense says you own a fire extinguisher…

    …and while the state dictates that you must have a fire extinguisher and must get a vaccine, it does not dictate that you must own a gun.

    I find that more interesting than the argument that not-protecting yourself from disease is analogous to not-protecting yourself from violence. Neither of those is really a right.

      • I wouldn’t be opposed…

        Some people see guns as a problem rather than a benefit, so in their attempt to play HOA to the national culture they put disarmament up there with forcing people to get vaccines when that is inconsistent thinking. Allowing a vulnerable node, even if its by their personal choice, weakens the nation as a whole. It creates a breeding ground for crime and violence.
        Children should be taught self defense. People should be armed. We shouldn’t have to force anyone to buy a gun or a fire extinguisher or to vaccinate their children because common sense would have already driven them to do these things.

  8. Most constitutionalists, including myself, oppose the “mandatory” part of mandatory vaccinations. I keep up my vaccinations as a way to be responsible for my own health. I mock anti-vaxxers mercilessly, along with the anti-GMO crowd, but I’ll never force my opinion on them. I will, however, tell them how dumb they are.

    • This right here ^ I do feel however they should be held responsible for any negative aspects of not vaccinating.

      • This sounds good as a quick comment, but look at the deeper implications: Should we also hold people who have decided to go unarmed accountable for the damage inflicted by others that they could have prevented if they carried a weapon? Seems a stretch.

      • “I feel…..”

        Great, I’m glad. Now are you going to take responsibility for the results when things don’t go so well? What time can you be over to babysit?

    • I agree about the “mandatory” part… I even used to believe it was foolish to buy the anti-vaccine position – until I heard some troubling stories by Sharyl Attkisson about possible collusion between Big Pharmacy and the CDC to hide vaccine injuries. I used to trust Science, because science… but alas, scientists are human, and prone to human failings. “Money’s the key”, and there’s always an agenda. I’m finding it harder and harder to believe anyone anymore, at least when the info comes from the MSM or blogosphere.

      Oh well. YMMV.

    • I understand where you’re coming from, but there is real societal benefit from compulsory vaccination that cannot be achieved without sufficient herd immunity, especially where the diseases are in principle eradicable because humans are the only viable hosts. The GMO case is not really related. There would be no reason to compel people to consume GMO crops. As long as there is a market for non-GMO crops, they’ll be produced. There’s no similar social moral hazard of people refusing to consume GMOs.
      Herd immunity is NOT a myth, it is NOT only applicable to natural immunity, and it HAS BEEN USED TO ERADICATE DISEASE. Please at least consider the history of smallpox eradication if you doubt any of that.

  9. I’m all for people refusing to get them selves or their kids vaccinated. But having said that, they should not be allowed to have their unvaccinated kids in public schools, or use/work in some public services where them being unvaccinated puts them or others at risk. Vaccination is VERY important for society.

    • Vaccination is VERY important for society…..

      Some would say~ “gun control is VERY important for society “.

      Slippery slope, no?

      • No, it’s not. These two things are qualitatively and quantitatively different. Infectious disease is a living organism, and that you believe that folks have an inherent right to parade around whatever infectious disease they’d like, in any fashion or place that they’d want, is stupid. Guns are lifeless/inanimate and do nothing of their own accord. Your liberty ends where mine begins and I have a right to self defense whether it’s against tigers, bears or polio. If you have ebola or the plague, you don’t get to come into a communal area and infect everyone else. Sorry, we can take collective action to stop this kind of stupid and we can take collective action to prevent this kind of stupid and still do so in a libertarian fashion.

      • So I take it you oppose mandatory quarantines as well then? Should we just allow Ebola patients to go gallivanting around major population centers?

        • In case you weren’t paying attention, that is PRECISELY what happened in the early 80s with HIV, not only were the carriers not quarantined, it was illegal to let anyone know who they were! So they were free to transmit the absolutely 100% fatal (at the time) disease as often as they wished, and they did exactly that. Claiming that is unthinkable now is sort of burying your head in the sand.

        • Sorry Larry, again qualitatively different. First, HIV cannot be transmitted by casual contact, while small pox, measles, rubella, chicken pox, typhus, tuberculosis and any number of influenza viruses can. Millions died in Europe and here because of these diseases, tens of millions of Native Americans were wiped out, not by guns, but by the diseases imported by the Europeans to the “New World.” Quarantines have been imposed for infectious breakouts for hundreds of years, with the recognition that one infectious person can kill dozens. Carrying a gun around carries no risk that casual contact will start a killing spree. there is no logical connection between one and the other. And it should also be noted that the man accused of bringing HIV to the US and Canada was eventually arrested, convicted, and incarcerated, because he refused to modify his behavior to prevent the spread of the disease. Typhoid Mary was locked up for life because, being an incurable carrier, she was a risk wherever she went.

      • Vaccinations are demonstrably beneficial. Gun control is not demonstrably beneficial. Slope has high coefficient of friction. Risk of slippage nil. Slippery slope arguments are garbage. Argue points on their merits.

  10. I got vaccines. My kids got vaccines too. I’m not into the random flu vaccine and never get it. That said, I think people should have the right to refuse vacines if they want to. And not all vaccines are the same. I, personally, am not into Mercury injections of any quantity. I prefer the much more expensive vaccine without it. Also, parents are entrusted to care for their children and should be able to refuse vaccines for their kids if they want.

    • I agree. However, right along with that assertion, I also believe that treatment for any disease or condition which could have been prevented by a vaccine which was refused, should not be covered by any insurance, if you can’t afford the treatment, then you can die, go blind, have your dick fall off, whatever, it’s nothing to me.

      • So, if your diet causes you to suffer from Diabetes, Heart disease, colon cancer, we can just harvest whatever organs are still useful for the greater good, rather than treat those issues? Same thing.

        • Yep. If we’re going to do it that way, if you smoke, drink, eat a poor diet or don’t exercise enough your insurer should be allowed to drop you.

  11. Which part of the constitution talks about the body’s integrity or vaccines? I missed that in civics back in the day?

    • No, no you didn’t. The idea of mandatory medical procedures has a legal history going back to the Roman Empire. There is no right to refuse treatment when said refusal puts another person at risk.

        • You talk as if selective breeding is not something humans have been doing since we were a species.

          Again. When your “freedom” comes at the expense of another person, you have no right to it.

        • A straw man followed by circular logic… I’ll bite though!

          Since you’re clearly new to the concept, breeding is voluntary. Selective breeding happens through cooperation, not force.

          Secondly, your “right” to feel safe from imagined woes and ills doesn’t trump any given person’s right to be secure in their own bodies and do with it what they’d like. Therefore your freedoms end where mine begin. Yours is the same logic that antis use to justify the abolishing of our second amendment rights.

          Thanks for playing though.

        • Not really. If you’re talking about actual Eugenics rather than pulling a Godwin so early in the discussion the argument is quite apt.

          As for you “circular argument” nonsense… A gun is inherently harmless. A plague carrier is not.

        • Thank you so much for proving the point I made early on in the comments right, I knew I could count on some of the regulars to do it.

      • There is no right to refuse treatment when said refusal puts another person at risk.

        Please elaborate how a risk exists if a person who doesn’t want the vaccine doesn’t get it and a person who does want the vaccine gets it. ??

        The person who wants and gets the vaccine is not a risk by the person who didn’t get the vaccine. If a person doesn’t want the vaccine they should acknowledge the risk of not having the vaccine. The person that wants the vaccine and gets it should also acknowledge the risk of having the vaccine.

        Also, with your statement made above… where is the line drawn? How can you draw a line? IMO, the statement above is not indicative of a free society.

        It could be applied to: A person owning a gun is putting others at risk of being shot by that gun simply because they own one, Right? “Risk” and “Freedom” go hand in hand.

        • Their safety is their parents responsibility – not mine, not my neighbors, and not society as a whole. “Everyone” shouldn’t have to get a vaccine because that person “might” get sick.

        • The risk is to children who may have compromised immune systems. There is a school near me where two children of elementary age have been through chemo. They can’t have an immunization right now. An unimmunized child contracts something contagious and risks the lives of those kids or the very young.

          The issue is will that unimmunized child teen adult quarantine themselves when there is an outbreak? Or will they say I have a right to go to the mall or school. We saw that nurse take a plane from Texas to Ohio after being with a patient who had Ebola.

        • The difference is that a gun will sit there and do nothing barring a criminal act. With diseases, there is no such guarantee. A better analogy would be someone firing randomly from his front porch.

        • Getting a vaccination is not proof against that disease or it’s transmission. Efficacy of a vaccination is 40%-60%. Statistics offers no comfort if you were vaccinated early and still get the disease. Also, you can still spread the disease even if you were successfully inoculated. If you know this information, why would you risk your chemo patient child to exposure to any other person who has likely been in contact with the population, inoculation or not?

      • And which then brings on the suspect (like everything the progressive libtard “knows”) Herd Immunity THEORY.

  12. The difference is that mandatory vaccination is required to keep a society functioning. Allowing any significant portion of the society to be vulnerable to easily preventable disease is just plain stupid. Add to that the fact that there is zero evidence of any statistically significant harm coming from vaccines and you’ve got the recipe for weapons grade stupidity.

    The two issues are not in any way equal.

    Gun ownership threatens no one without intermediate criminal acts.
    Anti-vaxing threatens the entire human race simply by existing.

        • Perfect visual example. The risk of vaccinations is far lower than the risk of the diseases it protects you from. By not vaccinating yourself you are consciously putting yourself at greater risk and on top of that putting others at risk due to your own stupidity. The key difference is that, unlike gun ownership, it’s down to blind luck. Death from these diseases requires no intermediate criminal act.

    • By the way, try telling the parents of vaccine damaged children that their cases are “statistically insignificant”. You’d better damned be sure to have a gun on you when you do. 🙂

      • I challenge them to prove that said damage came from the vaccine. It’s damn near impossible which is why the feds had to set up a special “vaccine court” where the burden of proof is “possible” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”…

        • The reason there is a court, vetted SOLELY by the FEDERALES, is to stifle any opposition to the agenda.
          Don’t think for a second that your beloved government won’t FUCK YOU UP just for giggles. IF you do, then you have NO idea how history has walked itself out. THIS is the reason it can’t be proven legally(there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a serious problem). THE powers that be, (big pharma and the patrons of the ACA) will remain in power until we remove them. Any other position is bad philosophy. Big Pharma IS government, in case you haven’t noticed, we are a Mercantilist system, which is probably only one or two more elections from straight up fascism. Go ahead, crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you in your fear of something you should be (but obviously don’t believe you are) protected from. You do not deserve what little Liberty you have left. Franklin knew what he was talking about when he stated that you will also lose it.

        • Well, you are free to not vaccinate as you feel necessary. Just be sure to move to a deserted island where none of the rest of us are exposed to your stupidity.

          The vaccine courts are intended to prevent a tiny handful of cases from causing a national catastrophe. Or do you want to go back to the days when your kid had an excellent chance of dying from polio?

          At the end of the day, the anti-vexers are just selfish hypocrites who rely on herd immunity provided to them by the people who DO get vaccinated. IF any significant portion of the population believed in their stupidity, we’d be having major outbreaks every week.

      • That would be my son. No I won’t hurt you, I’d have you watch my son screaming as loud as he can for a few hours straight while I explain the timeline of what the vaccines did to him. Starting the day after he got them.

        So yeah, that.

        • Sad piont, but it needs to be said. The difference between parents with Autistic children and those with Down Syndrome Children is that there is a test created to determine if your kid has down syndromes-related to chromosome issues-and the one for Autism has yet to be finalized.

          While I do not diminish the challenges for parents of Autistic children, I hypothesize that the future will hold a test determining that it is a chromosomal disorder, much like Down Syndrome or Tay Sachs.

          Bottom line: do not endanger the larger populous due to bad research and an emotional component.

        • Actually you dismiss these children very quickly.

          You say you understand, but you are ignorant.

        • I dismiss these children rather quickly for a few very good reasons.

          1. There is very little evidence that vaccines cause these particular cases as no increase in the rate of these cases was observed over the past century.

          2. Even if vaccines DID cause this, it beats the thousands dead every year that the vaccines prevent.

          3. One case does not a solid basis for public policy make.

        • What id the vaccine do? What vaccine? What syndrome? Unless you provide details, this is as much BS as those “I cut up my gun” articles. Oh, you wouldn’t know about those, since you’re not a regular here.

      • I’d tell them the same way I’d tell parents of school shooting victims. In fact, you’re more likely to be shot in a school than to have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

    • The human race existed for millions of years before vaccines were introduced in the last, what, 100? “The sky is falling” is rather over the top, don’t you think?

      I’m happy to get vaccines, saw to it my kids did, but that isn’t the question, here. The question, like 2A, is “Where did the government get that authority?”, and the answer is they just took it, it doesn’t really exist.

      • Sky isn’t falling, but given modern population densities a plague like the Spanish Flu could wipe out a gigantic chunk of the human race. The minor inconvenience of a shot or two is a small price to pay to prevent that. Don’t forget that as recently as the 19th century “plague” was a thing.

        • My “minor inconvenience” is named Tommy. He had a very bright future. Now he is 12, screams at the top of his lungs, can not form words, and needs someone to wipe his butt every time he goes.

          Don’t dismiss the dark side of your miracle cures.

        • Would you prefer he had polio? Because, statistically, without vaccines the chances of that are orders of magnitude higher.

      • You’re right – we lacked vaccinations before the late 19th century. And yet, the human race survived.

        But… child mortality was much, much higher than it is today.

        My wife and I like to walk through graveyards in small towns all over the west as a way of learning who settled the area, in what time frame, and seeing immigrants crossing the US in “waves.”

        When you walk through old west graveyards (say, the ones that go back to the 1870’s), the one thing that leaps out at you is the number of children who died before the age of 10. It isn’t a small number. You often see the heartbreak of parents written there in stone in front of you – you’ll see the date of death of the first of several children from the same family, usually an infant to one-year-old, then you see the progression into the older children.

        Sometimes, you see these children buried under the same grave marker, they died so closely together.

        In the most heartbreaking cases, you then see the mother’s grave market next to the children’s, dated about a year later. Often, you won’t see the father’s grave marker anywhere in that graveyard – they would pick up and move away, trying to re-start their lives somewhere else.

        Now, do-gooders want to make vaccinations mandatory to prevent these sorts of outbreaks of (insert name of high-mortality disease here). I’m of a mind that it should be left to the parents, but if death come calling upon a family that doesn’t vaccinate, well, there’s a) not much that can be done to prevent the spread within the family, b) don’t expect the health care professionals to be able to pull rabbits out of hats, and c) certainly do not do this at public expense. The last issue is where the issue of mandatory vaccination gains so much traction.

        If we made everyone responsible for their own medical expenses, no exceptions, then these problems would solve themselves. Socialized medical spending is the root of much that is offensive to liberty in this country.

    • “The difference is that mandatory vaccination is required to keep a society functioning.”

      That’s just silly. Human society managed to stay functioning for thousands of years before vaccines were discovered.

      • You’re right, it certainly did. Except up until the 20th century, disease routinely wiped out hundreds of thousands of people in slow agonizing deaths every few decades.

      • Or possibly millions of years. The lack of vaccines made the remainder and the next generation of the populace strong (Depending on what you believe in). I’m certain there are plenty of bacteria and viruses that we are completely immune from which perhaps we once were not.

    • pwrserge, reading your posts makes me suspect you have a financial interest in pushing these pharmaceutical products. Even the most the pro-vaccine professionals I know do not use the language that you use here. Your language is identical to the trolls/astroturfers seen on NPR, Yahoo!, ect,….emotionally based rhetoric and thin on the facts, the exact same propaganda/rhetoric being waged on the 2nd Amendment gun owners to attack that freedom as well. Thanks for making my point with this article.