NightSG

While I agree that we're not in a "police state", the argument you used to arrive at that conclusion is faulty.
What the founding fathers went through would not be at that level.  But they freely called it tyranny. 
Tyranny is not an all-or-nothing condition.  It is a sliding scale. And I think it right and proper to have some people cry out every time a bona fide right (especially those enumerated in the Constitution) is infringed.  And when only a few people cry out, then we're pretty safe believing that we're not in a police state.  But as more and more people cry out, there is more credibility that we are in a police state.  When a great number of people are imprisoned or executed for political statements, then we KNOW we're in a police state.

I agree that we are far from the level of tyranny of other nations. I’m not sure that I have seen anyone claim otherwise; on these forums, at least. 

I realize you probably already recognize this, but just because things could be worse doesn’t mean that people are left without reason for complaint. 
 
Just because @Vort isn’t punching your nose doesn’t mean that you can’t complain about him spitting on you. 

When people call putting illegal immigrants in detention facilities as Nazi, it is right to call them out on their ignorance.
When people call government who are preventing people from exercising constitutionally protected rights as tyrants... you're calling a spade a spade.

Here's a memo from the US AG to all US Attorneys:
Excerpt:
Many policies that would be unthinkable in regular times have become commonplace in recent weeks, and we do not want to unduly interfere with the important efforts of state and local officials to protect the public. But the Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis. We must therefore be vigilant to ensure its protections are preserved, at the same time that the public is protected.
 
https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1271456/download

The problem is that the closure is not a law it is a "decree" from the governor and mayors. They are unconstitutional commands, and they must muzzle the business owners who are resisting the dictators. Constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with this one in a couple months.

Every business is essential to the business owner and employees.

No, it is not.
https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/bodycam-winslow-business-owner-cited/75-b82c8b47-a973-4e09-9f84-18be7bf3dcc2
What you are seeing are not actual gas pumps.  It appears that the lot used to be owned by a gas station.  It closed.  And this souvenir shop opened up with a "shaded area" for customer parking.

He thought that he was  getting around the law by registering as a different type of store (which would be considered an essential business).  The police were asking when that registration was changed --  ex post facto (on the business owner's part).  Then they asked what he was selling at the time that qualified.  He named them.  But they looked around and didn't see anything that qualified.
That said, I don't like the idea that we close "non-essential" businesses.  Who decides what is "non-essential"?  Yes, I know.  From a short term perspective, only that which is essential to sustain life.  But this has the potential to extend into a very long time.  After a while, we must acknowledge that man does not live by bread alone.

This is a tyrannical response to a person dressed and was pretending to be a police officer and who also had a car made up to be like a police car, who murdered over twenty people in many different scenarios.  People would let down their guard because they thought he was law enforcement.  As we all know more citizen gun laws would not have stopped this evil murderer.  He died in a shoot out with Canada law enforcement.

But tyrants will continue to exercise their authority over their subjects and blame Canada citizens with privately owned firearms when all the blame should be placed on who did the killing.

If people would demand a reason for regulations we wouldn't have 3/4 of the regulations on the books.
All schools are closed - summer vacation starts on Palm Sunday.  In the Philippines, if you're 18 and still in high school, you've been a bad boy and had to redo a grade or 2.
There's no difference between an 18 year old spreading disease and a 21 year old spreading disease or even a 45 year old spreading disease.

There where two officers. One was apologetic and the other one was barking orders, and following orders that appear contrary to the law.

Let's see...
False.
Also false.
True.
I think that answers the question.

"I'm following orders" and then they arrest a mom for letting her kids play on a playground. Satan is certainly having a fun time wrapping up our freedoms. Welcome to the Fascist States of America. Peaceful Rebellion is what we need to do now.
 

MG, you know I like you. I hope you know that, anyway. But this is just absurd. You can't possibly believe this without discounting the baker's convictions.
The reason the baker didn't bake the homosexual couple's special cake for them is because, at least in the baker's mind, IT'S A CELEBRATION OF IMMORALITY. The baker refuses to use his God-given artistic gifts in celebration of immorality; to do so would compromise his principles. He will not sell his soul for $100 profit. His soul is worth more than $100, even if he turns around and donates the $100 to some conservative group.
If you sell yourself, you're a whore. If you sell yourself for $100, you're a cheap whore. The baker refuses to whore himself out. He certainly won't do it for whatever the profit is on baking a cake. There would be nothing "smart" about that.

And you've also made it clear in the past that you see no problems, legally or morally, with homosexual "marriage". So you fundamentally do not see this as a moral issue, which is why you pooh-pooh the baker's courageous efforts and see him as grandstanding.
So change it to something you don't pooh-pooh. Suppose the baker had refused a demand to create a dead-fetus-shaped cake in celebration of a woman's elective abortion, and were being sued for that refusal. Would you then say what he really should have done is bake the dead-fetus-shaped cake, complete with "Congratulations on your freedom!" icing, and then donated the $100 to a pro-life group?
Do you believe that the mortal Jesus would gladly have made crosses to crucify Palestinians who refused to worship Caesar as a god, and then just donated the proceeds to his local political group urging Romans not to crucify Jews for not worshiping Caesar?

Actually, this is even worse. 
Before, it merely said that gay rights were more important than religious rights.  Now you're saying (or the argument is saying) that gay rights are SO important, that it takes ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS COMBINED to justify overruling gay rights.
No, methinks I like it not.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? I mean, how could it NOT account for that? But human stupidity and irresponsibility know no bounds, so the possibility is not off the table.

Aren’t many hospitals treating it as a last-line medication?
I mean, the mortality rate of COVID-19-positive folks who went to the hospital is much higher than the mortality rate of COVID-19-positive folks who didn’t go.  But we don’t extrapolate, from that, that hospitals have no benefit for (or are even detrimental to) COVID-19 patients.
One wonders if the study accounted for that.  

Of course, but that is always the case.  If the government outlawed alcohol and cigarettes, the death toll from them would be less.  Those are choices, though.  I still can choose not to smoke or drink, just as I could choose not to go out in public.   

My point about Hitler was that he took advantage of an “emergency “ to obtain power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933. He then arranged things to rule as an absolute dictator for twelve years, even though he was not technically a dictator at all. Mostly his decrees had a legal basis. 
 
Even though we have a supposed emergency here in the US, we must be cautious about giving up any of our God guaranteed rights. 
 
Actually we should be adamant about not giving up any, including church attendance.  AFAIK there is no legal basis to arrest anyone attending church. 

Occasionally, good sense gets the better of me.

The short answer to your question is no. 
 
Let’s keep this in perspective. Covid 19 is not the bubonic plague that wiped out 1/3 of Europe in the Middle Ages. Most people that get it recover. And the ones that don’t tend to have serious health issues anyway.
This lock down is ridiculous and a way that the elites are trying to control people. Just because they think they can. 

We don't even know if it's 3%.  Many people are asymptomatic.  We don't have any idea how many people actually have it or died from it.  That doesn't mean I'm claiming "it's just like the flu".  
The answer is never.  The government shouldn't ever take away my liberty to protect me from myself.

You don't pose a threat of infecting my family, unless I choose to enter your space or you choose to enter mine.  In the former example, that is my choice.  In the latter, the government can't protect me and I have the right to protect myself.

There are.  And we choose whether or not we enter them.

Be it that be the government's actions but it is NOT.   Rather, they take away your liberty and mine regardless of whether I'm infectious or not.  If you pose a threat to my family then you must be stopped - for example, you have tested positive of the virus and you go to a grocery store licking all the ice cream.