Here is another source that says Germans easily pay twice as much as the US, which puts it at 24 cents (or more).
It also says that one of the reasons most Germans can absorb this is that they only consume about 1/3 as much total power as the average American, so the actual bill isn't so bad.
Of course, it also says that the average German home is 1,000 square feet, compared to 2,400 square feet, and air conditioning is standard in the US, where it is rare in Germany.
So you are not going to get the US consumption down to German levels.
It appears that Germans are willing to pay more, and make do with less. That is their choice, but that choice isn't going to work over here.
Sure, and how many non-violent uprisings have been put down violently?
You can't just take the successes and ignore the failures.
Ask yourself another question. WHY is there a civil war in Syria? What started it?
Answer: There were protests against the government, largely non-violent. The government started to use force and started shooting protesters. That is when they responded with violence.
There are a whole pile of votes there. Granted, the March 1933 election can be disputed due to various violent intimidation tactics.
The prior ones were far more open however.
It is true that Hindenburg appointed Hitler to Chancellor, however that was after he won a whole lot of seats in the Reichstag.
Hitler did not take over by force. He tried that in the 1920's and went to prison for it. In fact, he ended up fighting with the brown shirts over his switch to non-revolutionary practices and ended up killing the leadership of the SA over the dispute.
Suppose you deliberately avoid vaccination, and endanger people. Or, suppose you go to a bar, have a few, and haven't made other arrangements for transportation, so you drive home. In both case, you have made a decision that endangers people. It is likely that, in either case, you don't really harm someone. One is already illegal: it's legal to drive, and it's legal to drink, but it's illegal to drive under the influence. One is merely banning unvaccinated people from where they can do serious harm.
I understand your point, but you actually make my point for me...
In the drinking case, the government is telling you what you MAY NOT DO.
In the vaccinated case, the government is telling you what you MUST DO.
I see that is a really big difference. You may not, but I do and I think it is a really important difference. It ALSO involves the forced injection of "stuff" into everyone's bodies, which is another can of worms. Maybe you think MMR is fine today, but there will always be new vaccines tomorrow, ones that you may or may not agree with for X or Y reasons.
---
In other words, you're not harmed by NOT drinking and driving. You can drink at home and not drive. Drinking hasn't been taken away from you, just in one situation that can harm both yourself and others.
I can be harmed by being vaccinated. I'm not talking about autism, there are in fact people who have been hurt and killed by them. Not millions, but the risk is above zero and no amount of cash makes up for the loss of health.
On this one you have no argument, yet you are arguing as if you do.
You're welcome to that opinion.
I am also welcome to the viewpoint that you're completely wrong. You're mistaken to think that your viewpoint is a fact when your only defense is your point of view.
I laid out my thinking quite clearly. Allowing governments to order you around is a really bad idea. It is one thing to have them tell you what you can't do, such as rob banks, hit people, etc.
Allowing them to tell you what you must do is verging on slavery.
You should probably keep your childish "Hitler" comparisons to yourself
Hitler was elected, he didn't even take over by force. We should always be mindful that we never allow that to happen again.
All this is saying is that Windows 8 is no longer going to be supported.
That isn't any different than Windows XP no longer being supported.
If you install Windows XP RTM, then patch it all the way to April 2014 EOL, the UI doesn't actually change THAT much. Service Pack 2 was the really big change, but that was a long time ago.
Windows 8.1 is a different OS than 8.0. 8.1 is not a "security update", it is an OS upgrade.
As for Windows 7, it largely looks the same RTM vs fully patched.
So really, I'm not sure what your point is.
---
Side example, since you bought up cars... Look at Ford MyTouch in 2011 era cars. It looks very different to the one in 2014 cars. You can actually patch and upgrade the 2011 cars to look like the 2014 cars, and it works MUCH better overall, far fewer bugs. (I know, I owned a 2011 Explorer and MyTouch was a mess the first year or two until it got fixed).
But you DO lose features in the upgrade, there are some things that it did at launch that they had to remove to make it more stable.
95% of the gun deaths in America are via handguns.
Not rifles, not assault rifles, not machine guns... handguns...
70% of those are gang related...
The vast bulk of gun crime has nothing to do with what the media harps about over and over.
As for machine guns, they cost thousands of dollars and require a more extensive background check and the payment of a $200 transfer fee to the government. People who go through the process are not criminals.
A friend of mine imported 3 Mi-24 Hind Helicopters from the former USSR. Yes they fly, and yes it is legal.
Click on the picture on the left, it is getting work done to the engines, but that helicopter does fly. Burns a crap load of fuel, up to 200 gallons an hour.
Yes, average citizens should be able to buy those types of things.
Side note, the Mig-21 in the middle isn't yet airworthy, but they are working on it.
Oh right, in that case you should also be able to drive a tank, as those are the vehicles of the modern army.
Actually, you CAN do that... You can import tanks from overseas, and even the US Army sells surplus M-60 tanks. Last time I looked, they started at about $300k, in fair condition.
A crap load of paperwork is required, but sure you can own them.
And yes, you can even get them that shoot. The shells are very expensive however and each one has a $200 stamp transfer tax on it.
How many machine guns used in crime, I haven't got a clue but it's more than one and that's too many.
Let me help you out...
The answer is zero...
People who legally own such weapons, do not commit crimes with them... They really don't...
These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.
When I buy a car, I don't expect that I wake up one day and the steering wheel moved to the back sit. Yet that's what Microsoft expects me to do to simply keep using my computer and running same apps and games as I always have.
And if you say "it's for security", wrong again.
Nope, not wrong. Your computer will work just fine without updates...
You don't have to update anything, you can run RTM Windows 8 to your hearts content.
Just don't complain if you get infected/botted or other stuff on the web no longer works.
Typhoid Mary was isolated to the Brother Islands, part of New York City. Uninhabited islands still exist, and arguably could be pressed into service at substantial public expense. That's a very generous treatment for a willful public danger.
She was actually sick, was she not?
If I actually was sick and could get you sick tomorrow, I could understand that.
Your viewpoints are not justified based on the fear that I could maybe become sick at some point in the future. Or not.
Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi had this to say:
"Every year Chicago Police recover more illegal guns than officers in any other city, and as more and more illegal guns continue to find their way into our neighborhoods it is clear we need stronger state and federal gun laws," Guglielmi said.
Wait a minute... So how is it that stronger gun laws are needed, when they are already taking ILLEGAL GUNS?
You can't ban them twice, banning them three times won't change a thing.
What is sad is that people will buy into that crap and think that somehow more gun laws will make a difference.
Well, that's at least logically consistent, and I agree that it would reduce the "adventuring" that our leaders seem to do.
If anything, I try not to be a hypocrite... And yes, we get involved in way too many things, easy to do when you have this huge military just sitting around...
What is the old saying, "if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail."?
That was rather the point, in Vietnam and Afghanistan the "weaker" side had a large and powerful nation-state assisting it. Most other times the result is simply massacre. The Nazis had resistance groups spring up everywhere they went, and in the vast majority of cases these groups accomplished nothing -- certainly they had no strategic effect. David versus Goliath makes a lovely story but I completely disagree that it is a principle on which to found a national defense.
Like most things, it isn't quite as black and white, but yes, you do have a fair point.
Two examples:
1. The French Resistance: While they didn't get rid of the Nazis outright, they did accomplish a number of key goals.
First, they kept large numbers of troops in France at a time when they were badly needed in Russia and North Africa. While the troops were able to largely put down any armed resistance in France, it did keep nearly 25% of the German Army away from the real fighting.
Second, they provided key intelligence to Allied planners when preparing Operation Overlord, and they were key in helping Allied soldiers to land and move in the first few hours. They took out telephone and telegraph poles, they sabotaged trains and other key points to buy time for the Allies to land. By themselves, these actions wouldn't have changed much, but they gave the Allies a better foothold.
2. The Poles in Warsaw in 1944 fought for 63 days in what was called the "Warsaw Uprising". They fought with little outside support, sadly they were not helped by the Russians and as you point out, were largely wiped out.
The tragedy of that event underlines why we had an alliance of convenience with the USSR, but that Stalin was just as evil as Hitler was, as soon as Germany was defeated, we should have rearmed and requipped them and turned East to remove Stalin as well. Or perhaps in 1944 we should have made a deal with Gerd von Rundstedt to remove Hitler in exchange for Germany changing sides and joining the allies. We could have simply provided the assurance that all non-SS officers would be treated as befits members of a nation's military, with only the SS to be prosecuted for war-crimes (which is largely what happened anyway).
It is possible that von Rundstedt would not have accepted that offer, since he refused to take part in the July Plot, but there are other Generals who could have been approached. von Choltitz, the commander of Naxi-occupied Paris who surrendered it to Free French Forces and refused to carry out Hitler's last instruction to level and destroy the city, understanding that Hitler had gone completely insane.
In many ways, The World War started on January 18, 1871 with the Formation of the German Empire and didn't really end until March 15th, 1991 when Germany became a whole and sovereign state again with no foreign claims against any of her lands. WWI and WWII were just parts of an overall path that started even before the German Empire was formed, dating back to the middle ages even before the formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 962. We can all just be thankful that we avoided WWIII before we could get it all sorted out.
Well; you could indeed first fine them for every day they are not vacinated.
You could, I suppose... but you are missing the slippery slope...
You're suggesting that the government order people to do stuff. This isn't about passing laws about what you SHOULDN'T do, but instead telling people what they MUST DO.
You must pray 5 times a day.
You must eat only healthy food.
You must work where we tell you to work.
---
I get why we have laws against robbing banks and killing people, those are laws restricting behavior.
Now you want laws requiring behavior.
Oh sure, you think: "but, but, this is ONLY vaccines, we're not talking about that other stuff..."
No, not now, but it'll come if you think this is acceptable, because someone else will think those other things are acceptable.
On the flipside I don't think armed means quite the same now as it did then. They were talking about hand loaded muskets taking a minute to reload and all that, not semi automatic handguns that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and reload in seconds, and that's just the bottom rung so to speak.
Being armed of the day back when meant being armed with the same weapons the military carried. Actually, in many cases the arms that private citizens owned were better than what the average army carried.
So it is perfectly reasonable that average citizens should be able to own machine guns, as these are the tools of the modern army.
It is perfectly legal for me to own a machine gun, even today. Remind me how many machine guns have been used in crime in the past 30 years?
True, but then nobody denies the US government the right to draft, arm and train however many soldiers it needs
I do, and plenty of other people do.
The draft is evil and wrong, just like slavery was... I do not accept and do not acknowledge the right of any government to "draft" me into any kind of service. That is slavery and any government that does it should be fought against, not supported.
If you're a woman, they're not protected.
Women couldn't own property or vote back then either, and black men were slaves. What's your point?
That the amendment grants only protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the militia. The other is that the first half is simply a prominent reason for the last half, like if the first amendment read "A free exchange of information being necessary for democracy, the freedom of speech and the press shall not be infringed." If that doesn't abridge the freedom of speech, then neither does the militia abridge "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
I think we should alter the 2nd amendment to read what is in the New Hampshire State Constitution:
"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."
Simple, straight forward, clear as glass (or should be).
Slashdot Mirror
http://energytransition.de/201...
Here is another source that says Germans easily pay twice as much as the US, which puts it at 24 cents (or more).
It also says that one of the reasons most Germans can absorb this is that they only consume about 1/3 as much total power as the average American, so the actual bill isn't so bad.
Of course, it also says that the average German home is 1,000 square feet, compared to 2,400 square feet, and air conditioning is standard in the US, where it is rare in Germany.
So you are not going to get the US consumption down to German levels.
It appears that Germans are willing to pay more, and make do with less. That is their choice, but that choice isn't going to work over here.
Weapons are useless against the government.
Almost every government in the history of the world would like to have a word with you...
The rabble that was the American Army in 1776 stood up to the most powerful military in the world, and won...
Vietnam vs. US Military
Afghanistan vs. USSR Military
What was your point again?
---
Tanks and bombers are very effective against nations and enemy armies, they are far less effective against civilians.
Says the person living in a small pox free world
Sure, and the price paid to get there was obviously worth it.
If there were 10 cases of polio in my kid's school, I'd vaccinate my kids in a heartbeat.
But there aren't, and there isn't going to be. Had I had kids back when that was a concern, I'd be all over it.
Sure, and how many non-violent uprisings have been put down violently?
You can't just take the successes and ignore the failures.
Ask yourself another question. WHY is there a civil war in Syria? What started it?
Answer: There were protests against the government, largely non-violent. The government started to use force and started shooting protesters. That is when they responded with violence.
Also, Hitler was not elected. I'm not sure he was ever elected to anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are a whole pile of votes there. Granted, the March 1933 election can be disputed due to various violent intimidation tactics.
The prior ones were far more open however.
It is true that Hindenburg appointed Hitler to Chancellor, however that was after he won a whole lot of seats in the Reichstag.
Hitler did not take over by force. He tried that in the 1920's and went to prison for it. In fact, he ended up fighting with the brown shirts over his switch to non-revolutionary practices and ended up killing the leadership of the SA over the dispute.
Suppose you deliberately avoid vaccination, and endanger people. Or, suppose you go to a bar, have a few, and haven't made other arrangements for transportation, so you drive home. In both case, you have made a decision that endangers people. It is likely that, in either case, you don't really harm someone. One is already illegal: it's legal to drive, and it's legal to drink, but it's illegal to drive under the influence. One is merely banning unvaccinated people from where they can do serious harm.
I understand your point, but you actually make my point for me...
In the drinking case, the government is telling you what you MAY NOT DO.
In the vaccinated case, the government is telling you what you MUST DO.
I see that is a really big difference. You may not, but I do and I think it is a really important difference. It ALSO involves the forced injection of "stuff" into everyone's bodies, which is another can of worms. Maybe you think MMR is fine today, but there will always be new vaccines tomorrow, ones that you may or may not agree with for X or Y reasons.
---
In other words, you're not harmed by NOT drinking and driving. You can drink at home and not drive. Drinking hasn't been taken away from you, just in one situation that can harm both yourself and others.
I can be harmed by being vaccinated. I'm not talking about autism, there are in fact people who have been hurt and killed by them. Not millions, but the risk is above zero and no amount of cash makes up for the loss of health.
On this one you have no argument, yet you are arguing as if you do.
You're welcome to that opinion.
I am also welcome to the viewpoint that you're completely wrong. You're mistaken to think that your viewpoint is a fact when your only defense is your point of view.
I laid out my thinking quite clearly. Allowing governments to order you around is a really bad idea. It is one thing to have them tell you what you can't do, such as rob banks, hit people, etc.
Allowing them to tell you what you must do is verging on slavery.
You should probably keep your childish "Hitler" comparisons to yourself
Hitler was elected, he didn't even take over by force. We should always be mindful that we never allow that to happen again.
Don't think you can fight the state with violence though, you will never win.
So you don't think the American Revolution can happen again?
You don't think there have been any revolts in the last 50 years that have lead to an overthrow of the existing government?
Who says it does?
All this is saying is that Windows 8 is no longer going to be supported.
That isn't any different than Windows XP no longer being supported.
If you install Windows XP RTM, then patch it all the way to April 2014 EOL, the UI doesn't actually change THAT much. Service Pack 2 was the really big change, but that was a long time ago.
Windows 8.1 is a different OS than 8.0. 8.1 is not a "security update", it is an OS upgrade.
As for Windows 7, it largely looks the same RTM vs fully patched.
So really, I'm not sure what your point is.
---
Side example, since you bought up cars... Look at Ford MyTouch in 2011 era cars. It looks very different to the one in 2014 cars. You can actually patch and upgrade the 2011 cars to look like the 2014 cars, and it works MUCH better overall, far fewer bugs. (I know, I owned a 2011 Explorer and MyTouch was a mess the first year or two until it got fixed).
But you DO lose features in the upgrade, there are some things that it did at launch that they had to remove to make it more stable.
So this does happen in cars sometimes.
95% of the gun deaths in America are via handguns.
Not rifles, not assault rifles, not machine guns... handguns...
70% of those are gang related...
The vast bulk of gun crime has nothing to do with what the media harps about over and over.
As for machine guns, they cost thousands of dollars and require a more extensive background check and the payment of a $200 transfer fee to the government. People who go through the process are not criminals.
A friend of mine imported 3 Mi-24 Hind Helicopters from the former USSR. Yes they fly, and yes it is legal.
http://www.coldwarairmuseum.co...
1 was damaged in transit and is used for parts, the other 2 fly.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/cold-w...
Click on the picture on the left, it is getting work done to the engines, but that helicopter does fly. Burns a crap load of fuel, up to 200 gallons an hour.
Yes, average citizens should be able to buy those types of things.
Side note, the Mig-21 in the middle isn't yet airworthy, but they are working on it.
I seriously doubt the average voter will care about it as an issue.
Sadly the average voter doesn't care because the average voter is an idiot...
Who neither knows about such things, nor actually wants to learn. Most people are happy to be ignorant and rant at the TV.
Pick your poison, you have to put your faith in something, or you'll end up standing for nothing...
As a side note...
You seem all worried about machine guns, tanks, and even assault rifles...
Let me put this challenge to you... What type of gun causes 95% of the firearm deaths in the United States?
What percentage of those deaths are gang related?
Oh right, in that case you should also be able to drive a tank, as those are the vehicles of the modern army.
Actually, you CAN do that... You can import tanks from overseas, and even the US Army sells surplus M-60 tanks. Last time I looked, they started at about $300k, in fair condition.
A crap load of paperwork is required, but sure you can own them.
And yes, you can even get them that shoot. The shells are very expensive however and each one has a $200 stamp transfer tax on it.
How many machine guns used in crime, I haven't got a clue but it's more than one and that's too many.
Let me help you out...
The answer is zero...
People who legally own such weapons, do not commit crimes with them... They really don't...
How did humankind get into such a sad state of affairs?
Too many people seem happy to turn over responsibility for their lives to government and just accept being sheep?
These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.
When I buy a car, I don't expect that I wake up one day and the steering wheel moved to the back sit. Yet that's what Microsoft expects me to do to simply keep using my computer and running same apps and games as I always have.
And if you say "it's for security", wrong again.
Nope, not wrong. Your computer will work just fine without updates...
You don't have to update anything, you can run RTM Windows 8 to your hearts content.
Just don't complain if you get infected/botted or other stuff on the web no longer works.
Typhoid Mary was isolated to the Brother Islands, part of New York City. Uninhabited islands still exist, and arguably could be pressed into service at substantial public expense. That's a very generous treatment for a willful public danger.
She was actually sick, was she not?
If I actually was sick and could get you sick tomorrow, I could understand that.
Your viewpoints are not justified based on the fear that I could maybe become sick at some point in the future. Or not.
Yep, and the city is run by complete idiots...
Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi had this to say:
"Every year Chicago Police recover more illegal guns than officers in any other city, and as more and more illegal guns continue to find their way into our neighborhoods it is clear we need stronger state and federal gun laws," Guglielmi said.
Wait a minute... So how is it that stronger gun laws are needed, when they are already taking ILLEGAL GUNS?
You can't ban them twice, banning them three times won't change a thing.
What is sad is that people will buy into that crap and think that somehow more gun laws will make a difference.
Well, that's at least logically consistent, and I agree that it would reduce the "adventuring" that our leaders seem to do.
If anything, I try not to be a hypocrite... And yes, we get involved in way too many things, easy to do when you have this huge military just sitting around...
What is the old saying, "if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail."?
That was rather the point, in Vietnam and Afghanistan the "weaker" side had a large and powerful nation-state assisting it. Most other times the result is simply massacre. The Nazis had resistance groups spring up everywhere they went, and in the vast majority of cases these groups accomplished nothing -- certainly they had no strategic effect. David versus Goliath makes a lovely story but I completely disagree that it is a principle on which to found a national defense.
Like most things, it isn't quite as black and white, but yes, you do have a fair point.
Two examples:
1. The French Resistance: While they didn't get rid of the Nazis outright, they did accomplish a number of key goals.
First, they kept large numbers of troops in France at a time when they were badly needed in Russia and North Africa. While the troops were able to largely put down any armed resistance in France, it did keep nearly 25% of the German Army away from the real fighting.
Second, they provided key intelligence to Allied planners when preparing Operation Overlord, and they were key in helping Allied soldiers to land and move in the first few hours. They took out telephone and telegraph poles, they sabotaged trains and other key points to buy time for the Allies to land. By themselves, these actions wouldn't have changed much, but they gave the Allies a better foothold.
2. The Poles in Warsaw in 1944 fought for 63 days in what was called the "Warsaw Uprising". They fought with little outside support, sadly they were not helped by the Russians and as you point out, were largely wiped out.
The tragedy of that event underlines why we had an alliance of convenience with the USSR, but that Stalin was just as evil as Hitler was, as soon as Germany was defeated, we should have rearmed and requipped them and turned East to remove Stalin as well. Or perhaps in 1944 we should have made a deal with Gerd von Rundstedt to remove Hitler in exchange for Germany changing sides and joining the allies. We could have simply provided the assurance that all non-SS officers would be treated as befits members of a nation's military, with only the SS to be prosecuted for war-crimes (which is largely what happened anyway).
It is possible that von Rundstedt would not have accepted that offer, since he refused to take part in the July Plot, but there are other Generals who could have been approached. von Choltitz, the commander of Naxi-occupied Paris who surrendered it to Free French Forces and refused to carry out Hitler's last instruction to level and destroy the city, understanding that Hitler had gone completely insane.
In many ways, The World War started on January 18, 1871 with the Formation of the German Empire and didn't really end until March 15th, 1991 when Germany became a whole and sovereign state again with no foreign claims against any of her lands. WWI and WWII were just parts of an overall path that started even before the German Empire was formed, dating back to the middle ages even before the formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 962. We can all just be thankful that we avoided WWIII before we could get it all sorted out.
Well; you could indeed first fine them for every day they are not vacinated.
You could, I suppose... but you are missing the slippery slope...
You're suggesting that the government order people to do stuff. This isn't about passing laws about what you SHOULDN'T do, but instead telling people what they MUST DO.
You must pray 5 times a day.
You must eat only healthy food.
You must work where we tell you to work.
---
I get why we have laws against robbing banks and killing people, those are laws restricting behavior.
Now you want laws requiring behavior.
Oh sure, you think: "but, but, this is ONLY vaccines, we're not talking about that other stuff..."
No, not now, but it'll come if you think this is acceptable, because someone else will think those other things are acceptable.
On the flipside I don't think armed means quite the same now as it did then. They were talking about hand loaded muskets taking a minute to reload and all that, not semi automatic handguns that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and reload in seconds, and that's just the bottom rung so to speak.
Being armed of the day back when meant being armed with the same weapons the military carried. Actually, in many cases the arms that private citizens owned were better than what the average army carried.
So it is perfectly reasonable that average citizens should be able to own machine guns, as these are the tools of the modern army.
It is perfectly legal for me to own a machine gun, even today. Remind me how many machine guns have been used in crime in the past 30 years?
True, but then nobody denies the US government the right to draft, arm and train however many soldiers it needs
I do, and plenty of other people do.
The draft is evil and wrong, just like slavery was... I do not accept and do not acknowledge the right of any government to "draft" me into any kind of service. That is slavery and any government that does it should be fought against, not supported.
If you're a woman, they're not protected.
Women couldn't own property or vote back then either, and black men were slaves. What's your point?
That the amendment grants only protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the militia. The other is that the first half is simply a prominent reason for the last half, like if the first amendment read "A free exchange of information being necessary for democracy, the freedom of speech and the press shall not be infringed." If that doesn't abridge the freedom of speech, then neither does the militia abridge "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
I think we should alter the 2nd amendment to read what is in the New Hampshire State Constitution:
"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."
Simple, straight forward, clear as glass (or should be).
No, of course not, you're attacking a strawman with that one...
A better example along your lines would be making it illegal for me to go out and intentionally infect other people.
Guess what? That ALREADY IS ILLEGAL...
My not being immune to a disease is not a crime, your desire to make it one is the actual crime here.