# Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

> *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.


Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com



Good for the goose, good for the gander.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 1, 2011)

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Clapping for a new form of taxation?



Well not really.

Maybe SD wants to get rid of police..and their national guard.

Having an armed citizenry that is responsible for defense was original intent.

So I am sure they will be forming militias and receiving training and supervision from the Congress.


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 1, 2011)

What kind of extremist, gun happy bill is that?  

Taking time travel back to the wild wild West?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Feb 1, 2011)

So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....

Wait a minute....


----------



## xotoxi (Feb 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.



I was wondering the same thing.

Pretty soon, we'll be seeing a bill that ensures that every citizen shop at Walmart once each quarter.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 1, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



Close already since Wal Mart sells guns.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> What kind of extremist, gun happy bill is that?
> 
> Taking time travel back to the wild wild West?



Naw..it's not that unusual..



> Most male citizens of the American Colonies were required by law to own arms and ammunition for militia duty.[2] The Long Land Pattern was a common firearm in use by both sides in the American Revolutionary War.[3]
> Brown Bess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's the real reason for the second amendment..by the way.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> 
> Wait a minute....



I understand that this is difficult for some of you on the left to understand. But States have much broader power than the Federal Government.

You see the Federal Government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It can only act in areas where they are given explicit power. Mandating anyone purchase something is not within their powers.

A state government, on the other hand, is given extremely broad powers. Any power not given to the Federal Government is reserved for the States. Thus, unless their state constitution prohibits requiring people to purchase something, the state can pass such a law according to the desires of the people. 

Personally, I think requiring anyone to buy something is wrong, regardless of what level of government is requiring it. But simply because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

It's clearly unconstitutional at the Federal Level. I'm not familiar with South Dakota's Constitution, but if they have nothing prohibitting it, then it's clearly constitutional even if it's stupid.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> ...



Not at all true.

The Federal government doesn't have explicit enumerated powers.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



It was just a right wing apologetic attempt for a new type of tax.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Not at all true.
> The Federal government doesn't have explicit enumerated powers.


Have you aver looked at the Constitution?
See Article I section 8.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> That's the real reason for the second amendment..by the way.


So that the people would always have access to the means necessary to effectively exercise their right to self denese?
Why yes - you are correct.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Interesting responses from the anti-gun loons that support The Obamas mandate that everyoe buy health insurance.  
They know there's no way to argue against this and yet still support His mandate - so they obfuscate, deflect and misdirect.

How predictable.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.  



> The measure is known as an act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.
> 
> Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
> 
> Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance, he said.



They don't want to require anyone to buy anything and they know it will never pass.  They are making a point about the unconstitutionality of the hc mandate.  If this gun mandate is ridiculous and out of reach then so is the hc mandate.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 1, 2011)

Umm I am not an anti gun loon.  I have lots of guns.  concealed carry permit, etc.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all true.
> ...



And?


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh just more frivilous bill submitting, burning up govt dollars then?


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > That's the real reason for the second amendment..by the way.
> ...



Collective defense of the nation.

And don't project. There isn't a need for that.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 1, 2011)

The government should not force anyone to buy anything. If people are stupid enough not to want to learn to protect themselves then they deserve what they get.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> ...



It would seem so.  They know it won't pass and are doing it just to make a point which doesn't mean much because it's up to the courts to decide.


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 1, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> 
> Wait a minute....



Oh look, 1 person gets it...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


It describes the explicit enumerated powers of Congress - that is, the powers of federal government.
Some of them, anyway - there are many other powers specifically granted to various parts of the government.


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> ...



YES... Just like the HC bill... are you getting it yet?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



They are not "explicit" they are very board.

I will help out here:



> ex·plic·it&#8194; &#8194;/&#618;k&#712;spl&#618;s&#618;t/  Show Spelled
> [ik-splis-it]  Show IPA
> 
> adjective
> ...





> broad&#8194; &#8194;/br&#596;d/  Show Spelled
> [brawd]  Show IPA
> adjective, -er, -est,  adverb, noun
> adjective
> ...



Lets check out the first few powers for Congress:


> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



Thats about as broad as you can get.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Because they didn't write "person" they wrote "people" as in Collective. And some have pointed out that at the time, people and militia were concepts that were interchangable.


----------



## konradv (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



How so?  I thought the righties were all happy today, because forcing someone to buy something was declared unconstitutional.  I guess it only matters whose goose is being cooked!!!


----------



## uptownlivin90 (Feb 1, 2011)

Every law abiding citizen who has sense in their head should own a gun and should know how to handle, secure, and fire this weapon. 

There shouldn't be a law to mandate it. There should be a law that the feds can't restict people from doing it though.

Oh wait... there's a constitutional amendment about that, huh?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Only to someone that wants the government to do someting it was not given the power to do.
:roll:


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.

And so, the question stands.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> ...


I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.


----------



## xotoxi (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*.



Is Basil Marceaux.com the governor of SD?


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



He is so busy being a smart ass he does not even know how dumb he looks.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> I understand that this is difficult for some of you on the left to understand. But States have much broader power than the Federal Government.



This is not true.  Completely unfounded. There are many powers that the federal government has that states do not have.  Likewise, there are many powers that states have that the federal government does not.  But overall, it is the federal government that has the broader powers (mint money, make treaties, establish diplomacy, provide copyrights and patents, make war, etc.) while the states have more narrow powers, and are inferior to federal law.  Additionally, the constitutionality of government requiring a citizen to purchase a product is irrelevant to whether it is state or federal government doing it.  If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional.



> You see the Federal Government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It can only act in areas where they are given explicit power. Mandating anyone purchase something is not within their powers.



This is completely untrue, and the entire history of law in this country rejects this idea.  The "necessary but proper" clause gives the federal government broad power to pass laws as long as they do not violate a protected right, and serve a legitimate government interest.  On the other hand, if we look at the constitution of Texas for comparison, that constitution does require explicit power be granted for the state to act in a given area.  Thus, amendments to the state constitution are proposed every election cycle, for rather menial things as building railroads.  The federal constitution is not as restrictive.



> A state government, on the other hand, is given extremely broad powers. Any power not given to the Federal Government is reserved for the States. Thus, unless their state constitution prohibits requiring people to purchase something, the state can pass such a law according to the desires of the people.



Just like the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not limit the rights of the people nor the states, the "necessary and proper" clause gives broad powers to the federal government beyond those that are enumerated in the constitution.  The constitutional test when this concept comes into play is whether a legitimate government interest is served.



> Personally, I think requiring anyone to buy something is wrong, regardless of what level of government is requiring it. But simply because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.



On this, I agree.  This law is not unconstitutional just because some people may not like it, nor is the health care bill unconstitutional because people may not like it.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Lemme help you with that..



> Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the *people *to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.





> Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their *persons,* houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the *persons *or things to be seized.



The thing about a "gotcha" is you actually have to know what the heck you are talking about.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



You are applauding a law telling people what they HAVE to buy?    Aw Lawdie!  The Irony in this!


----------



## bodecea (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, I'm laughing at the OP.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm shaking my head over people arguing over person, persons, or people.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Lemme help you with that..


Yes.  Allow me.


> Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people *to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.





> Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> *The right of the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


You may now admit your error, and then address the question:
If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> ...


I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

gekaap said:


> I'm shaking my head over people arguing over person, persons, or people.



It's a very important concept..and not at all trivial. Soon enough, the sooner the better, someone will accurately advocate this before the Supreme Court.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I'm laughing at you applauding this Bill.


----------



## Jackson (Feb 1, 2011)

Mubarack says he is stepping Down at the next election per Fox News.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Lemme help you with that..
> ...



The error is yours my friend.

In no way does the 2nd Amendment advocate for the private ownership of guns. None.

It doesn't even explicitly say "Guns".

And this whole notion of the keeping of arms to "defend against the government" is also incorrect.

The Constitution takes a dim view on rebellion, revolt and secession.


----------



## editec (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...


 
I would but I'm saving up to buy that health care insurance that I'll have to buy in 2014.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> The error is yours my friend.


If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.



> In no way does the 2nd Amendment advocate for the private ownership of guns. None.


You're right -- it -protects- the right of the individual citizen, regardless of his relationship to or with any militia,  to own and use guns, for any legal purpose.



> It doesn't even explicitly say "Guns".


It says "arms".  
There's absolutely no sound argument that this term does not include every class of firearm.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

gekaap said:


> This is completely untrue, and the entire history of law in this country rejects this idea.  The "necessary but proper" clause gives the federal government broad power to pass laws as long as they do not violate a protected right, and serve a legitimate government interest.


Incorrect.

The Elastic Clause gives the federal government broad power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper* for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution *in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The relevant text. bolded.



> Just like the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not limit the rights of the people nor the states, the "necessary and proper" clause gives broad powers to the federal government beyond those that are enumerated in the constitution.


Incorrect.  See above.



> The constitutional test when this concept comes into play is whether a legitimate government interest is served.


Incorrect.  See above.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The error is yours my friend.
> ...



First off..I showed you where you were wrong. The second amendment makes no provision for "persons", the fourth does.

Second off, initially defense was to be handled by Militias and a permanent navy. The Constitution expresses that in several clauses. However, after disbanding the Continetal Army, the government found that solution to be un-workable, hence, a standing permanent army was created. Which, is not Constitutional.

Third, the government makes many forms of arms, illegal. I showed in another thread where Nunchucks are banned. So are switchblades, blackjacks, brass knuckles and a host of other "arms". There are no lobbyists for those weapons..and a big one for guns. That's what drives this irrational and completely Unconstitutional drive to keep guns in the hands of citizens..to the determent of the country.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but this bill is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> What kind of extremist, gun happy bill is that?
> 
> Taking time travel back to the wild wild West?






Amazingly enough the Wild West was safer than New York (and all other eastern cities of the time for that matter) of the same time.  Bodie California long spoken of as the toughest place to live in the west for a period of five years (hence the term Bad Man From Bodie) was also safer if you were a regular citizen.  Violent crime among criminals and the murders that result were indeed higher than New York.  But if you were a regular citizen the murder rate was 35 times LESS than New York.
Burglary was over 50% less, all personal crime was around 65% less and rape was unheard of.  There were two instances where innocent people were killed over a period of 10 years and in both cases vigilance committees banded together, apprehended the culprit and hanged them within days.  Then disbanded.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...






US Vs. Miller 1934 "Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed *BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE*"


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Irrelevant.  Both rights belong to "The People".
According to you, "The people" denotes a collective right that cannot be exercized by an individual outside that collective.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as the right of the people is collective,  not individual.



> Second off, initially defense was to be handled by Militias and a permanent navy. The Constitution expresses that in several clauses. However, after disbanding the Continetal Army, the government found that solution to be un-workable, hence, a standing permanent army was created. Which, is not Constitutional.


Utterly irrelevant to anything I said.  



> Third, the government makes many forms of arms, illegal. I showed in another thread where Nunchucks are banned. So are switchblades, blackjacks, brass knuckles and a host of other "arms". There are no lobbyists for those weapons..and a big one for guns. That's what drives this irrational and completely Unconstitutional drive to keep guns in the hands of citizens..to the determent of the country.


Utterly irrelevant to anything I said.  

Thus, as you have yet to address what I what I -did- say, what I -did- say  stands:

-The 2nd protects the right of the individual citizen, regardless of his relationship to or with any militia,  to own and use guns, for any legal purpose.
-There's absolutely no sound argument that the term "arms" as used in the 2nd does not include every class of firearm.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

All in all though I am not in favour of ANY law where the government REQUIRES you to buy anything...it's none of their damned business.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> In no way does the 2nd Amendment advocate for the private ownership of guns. None.



You're welcome to your opinion, even if the USSC and intelligent people everywhere disagree with you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> US Vs. Miller 1934 "Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed *BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE*"


Incorrect.


> The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.



All this means is that no one illustrated to the court that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.  

Anyone who has seen even the slightest bit of combat, personally or through the media from WW1 to today, knows that the shotgun, with a barrel less than18", is well-represented in military use.


----------



## DaGoose (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> It says "arms".
> There's absolutely no sound argument that this term does not include every class of firearm.



As well as tanks, flamethrowers, laser guided missiles, war planes, battleships, fully automatic rifles and cannons. 

If we're gonna say that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the individual to possess "arms" then by golly let me buy some serious weaponry!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it any more ridiculous than the mandate requiring vaccinations for school or travel????
If a vaccination can be mandated, why not HC????


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 1, 2011)

Rightwingers can force you to buy a gun

But you can't force them to buy Health Insurance?  What happens when you get shot?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> ...



You can opt out of 'mandated vaccinations'.  Can you opt out of health care?


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> ...




Has the *federal* government mandated vaccines?

I honestly don't know, but it sure makes all the difference regarding the point you're trying to make.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


Not if you want to send your children to school or if you want to travel abroad. Without a vaccination the government has the power to limit your freedom!!! So there is a "price" to pay if you don't obey the mandate. How is the HC mandate any different from a vaccination mandate?


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Not sure if it was federal off the top of my head. But in school I got all sorts of vaccines.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


It is a GOVERNMENT mandate in all 50 states that has not been declared unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > It says "arms".
> ...


You can argue that if you want, but in doing so you concede to my position.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Which supports my point of view..rather nicely.

Thanks.


----------



## WillowTree (Feb 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.



You izzzz vewy vewy denze.. vewy


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


The vaccination 'mandate' is from the state, not the federal government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Except that, as previously noted, he's wrong.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Bullshit.  My youngest hasn't had any vaccinations since she was five.  She's 14 tomorrow and in the eighth grade, public school.

Any more shit you want to spew?

You don't want to get vaccinations and uncle says you can't travel.  Peachy.  Do they fine you for not getting those vaccinations?

Again . . . can you opt out of the health care mandate?


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So no then, the *federal* government has never imposed mandated vaccines.

Therefore your comparison is invalid and your point is moot.

Better luck next time 

You're welcome,
manifold

PS:  If you can get all 50 states to pass Obamacare you'll have yourself a winner


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


That seems like a distinction without a difference, it is still a GOVERNMENT mandate that is not unconstitutional and can carry a penalty for noncompliance.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Just because you call an argument "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.

The right to arms..is a collective one meant to the protection of the nation by the citizen soldier. The word "Militia" appears all over the Constitution. That was the beginning and end of the "right". You have the right to own arms to defend the nation. If you are not defending the nation..there is no such right.

Pure and simple.

You are engaging in all sorts of gymnastics to twist it.

I've buttressed my argument with the Constitution..and your very own rebuttals.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ignorance of the US Constitution is not a particularly compelling argument.

The distinction makes all the difference sparky.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > US Vs. Miller 1934 "Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed *BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE*"
> ...






Here is the ruling and while you are technically correct the meaning is what it is.  The trench broom (1897 Winchester) of WWI is a 20" barreled weapon with a bayonet lug.  Sub 18" weapons still are not used in the military.  All shotguns used by the military are 18" and above.  The only users of sub 18" weapons are SWAT teams and very rarely a special forces military unit.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Bullshit, there is no penalty for not getting your kids those 'mandated vaccinations'.  I've already stated as such; my youngest is proof of such.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...






Actually not true but nice try.  They were referring to the militia (which is made up of the body of the people, in other words the citizens) and more importantly the decision specifies that hunting weapons AREN'T protected...military weapons are.  Make's all those anti assault wepons null and void due to case law alone.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Its not.  The state has the power to mandate such a thing, whereas the federal government does not.

Long and short of it is that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


Obviously she had her vaccinations up to 5 years old as ALL states require them to attend public school, either that or you are breaking the law.

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Laws/State Requirements

They deny you a Visa.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.

That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Just because you call an argument "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.


Correct.  That fact that it doesnt address anything I said does.



> The right to arms..is a collective one...


This statement is demonstrably incorrect, in historical, legal and constitutional terms.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you call an argument "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.
> ...



I've shown you the verbiage of both amendments and illustrated why one is collective and the other refers to the indivdual.

You've done nothing..absolutely nothing to dispute this except dismiss it.

That's not a good argument.


----------



## 8537 (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The Federal government passed "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" that created government medical care and required private seamen to purchase health insurance.

This act was passed by congress and signed by president John Adams.  I'm pretty sure Adams and his friends in congress were aware of what the founders might find constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Here is the ruling...


I quoted the ruling.



> and while you are technically correct...


I am correct, period.  
The court did not rule that Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed because they have no military purpose,  but that it could not say that they fell under the protection of the 2nd because no evidence to that effect was presented.
The difference is clear.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That is not necessarily true. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it and the Federal Government can set a minimum standard for vaccinations that each state must meet, while each state is free to set higher standards but not lower.

The long and short of it is if the state government can require you to get vaccinated they can also require you to buy a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.
> That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.


No matter how many times you say this, it is still historically, legally and constitutionally incorrect.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> I've shown you the verbiage of both amendments and illustrated why one is collective and the other refers to the indivdual.


Both rights belong to The people.  That, according to you, is the deciding factor and necessarily describes a collective right.  The fact that the specifics of the right are spelled out is meaningless - the right is still collective as the right belongs to the people as a collective.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Feb 1, 2011)

Avorysuds said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> ...



Yeah, I saw the mandate as being the most corrupt and illegal part of that bill hands down.  And lookey lookey, it's running into legal problems.

For the record, I think folks would all be a lot more polite if they knew everyone was packing a gun.  I personally don't own a gun as I'm the single most clumsy person you will ever meet when it comes to such things, but I support the right of people to own and carry.

The only thing I'd ask is that a person has to get training before they carry concealed weapons, and as is that's the law in most states.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


More correctly, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal govermnent the power to set such a standard.



> The long and short of it is if the state government can require you to get vaccinated they can also require you to buy a gun.


OK... but that doesnt change the fact that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, she received vaccinations up to age five and NO MORE after that, including the ones they 'mandated' for her to enter kindergarten.

I'm not breaking any law.  I signed a form stating our objections to the shots, everything is on the record.  The school is well aware that she is not 'up to date' on her shots.

Know something else?  When she was five we had her titers checked and with the exception of whooping cough (which was low immunization), she was fully immunized for everything.  When I asked the doc if getting more vaccinations would protect her any further, the doc said no.  Surprise, surprise.   How's the pharma industry doing, uncle sam?

Three times . . . can you opt out of the heath care mandate?

Peachy on the Visa denial.  Do they fine you for NOT getting vaccinations?


----------



## rikules (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



there goes my freedom to NOT own guns

forcing me to buy something I don't want.....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Peachy on the Visa denial.  Do they fine you for NOT getting vaccinations?


I once wrote a bill for a a new militia act - the militis act of 2002.

Like the militia act of 1792, it required all able bodied citizens aged 18-55 that were legally able to own a gun to buy one - specifically, a rfile similar to an M1903, M1, M14 or M16 - and qualify with it each year by achieving an NRA Marksman rating at a NRA/SRA sanctioned highpower match.

You could opt out of buying the rifles and the quals by paying into a fund that would assist low-income citizend in the purchase of a rifle and donating time each year to the qualification events.

Failure to do so would have the same efffect as a man failing to register for the draft.


Not suprisingly, the liberals that read it whined and cried to no end.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Again, there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a vaccinations mandate solely to the states. It clearly is constitutional for government to mandate vaccinations and limit freedoms for noncompliance.

And I made no argument against a state government requiring you to buy a gun, in fact, I said it was just as valid as requiring vaccinations. I also argue that if vaccinations can be mandated then HC can also be mandated.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



When was Article 1 Section 8 removed?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Again, there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a vaccinations mandate solely to the states. It clearly is constitutional for government to mandate vaccinations and limit freedoms for noncompliance.


Which clause of the Constitution gives the federal government this power?



> And I made no argument against a state government requiring you to buy a gun, in fact, I said it was just as valid as requiring vaccinations. I also argue that if vaccinations can be mandated then HC can also be mandated.


10-4.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Again, there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a vaccinations mandate solely to the states. It clearly is constitutional for government to mandate vaccinations and limit freedoms for noncompliance.
> ...


The same clause that gives the state government this power.
Which clause of the Constitution limits this power ONLY to the state?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem is that mandating people own guns at a state level would not pose a problem for constitutionality.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

Avorysuds said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> ...



Actually, no he doesn't. Which i explained in detail in my response to him.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I think you do not understand how these things work.

The federal government has certain powers granted to it by the constitution.
Any powers not gtanted to the federal government by the Constitution are retained by the states or the people.  The power you describe here is found nowhere in the Constitution, and so the federal government does not have it.

The powers of the individual states are gratned to those states by their respective constitutions, not the federal constitution.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> ...



I thought the Federal Government DID have explicit authority in the area of Defense?  That's what you idiots jabber about constantly.  Requiring everyone to buy a gun for defense is perfectly in keeping with your Constitution.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but this bill is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.



How would it be a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution for the State of South Dakota to require all citizens to purchase a firearm?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> All in all though I am not in favour of ANY law where the government REQUIRES you to buy anything...it's none of their damned business.



I quite agree. However, that said, the state governments clearly have power to do this unless otherwise excluded by their state constitution.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> The problem is that mandating people own guns at a state level would not pose a problem for constitutionality.



States are not allowed to violate the Bill of Rights any more than the federal government.

Geesh! You really should know that!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Rightwingers can force you to buy a gun
> 
> But you can't force them to buy Health Insurance?  What happens when you get shot?



This isn't an issue of left versus right.

This is an issue of state versus Federal. Something you clearly know nothing about.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that mandating people own guns at a state level would not pose a problem for constitutionality.
> ...



There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that would make said bill unconstitutional, excluding the 10th amendment which, of course, wouldn't apply to the states.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but this bill is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
> ...



As I already responded to you, States cannot violate the Bill of Rights any more than the federal government can.  If they could, Mormonism would be the state religion of Utah.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



This bill violates the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 1, 2011)

The Federal Government is already 'forcing' you to buy guns.  What do you think our troops are using?  Who do you think paid for them?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Federal Government is already 'forcing' you to buy guns.  What do you think our troops are using?  Who do you think paid for them?


What's really sad about this is that I am reasonably sure that you really do need to be told the difference.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 1, 2011)

So this is M14 Shooter's world - 

1.  As he has affirmed before, he thinks it's unconstitutional to ban convicted gun felons from buying guns.

2.  As he has stated here, he supports the idea of a state requiring everyone to own a gun...

...see, if people like this ruled America, gangbangers convicted of felony gun crimes, once they served their sentence, 

would be REQUIRED to own a gun.

See how easy it is, when you put the puzzle together?


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

This bill violates the 2nd Amendment for exactly the same reason that a bill requiring people to recite the Pledge of Allegiance would violate the 1st Amendment.  Forced speech is an infringement of free speech, and forced gun ownership is an infringement on the right to bear arms.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

rikules said:


> there goes my freedom to NOT own guns
> 
> forcing me to buy something I don't want.....



Oh, so _now_ you have a problem with forcing people to buy things. This wasnt a problem when you wanted the Feds to pass Obamacare.

So to summarize:

It's alright to force people to buy health care at the Federal level despite the Federal Government lacking the Constitutional power to do so.

It's not alright to force people to buy guns at the State level despite the fact that the States have authority to do so (Assuming the State Constitution has no ban on it).

I oppose mandating anything on any level. But I am not going to pretend as though the Federal Government has power the State government doesn't when it's quite the opposite on this matter.


----------



## McDowell's (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There is no mandate that all school age children must be vaccinated. Wtf are you talking about?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Federal Government is already 'forcing' you to buy guns.  What do you think our troops are using?  Who do you think paid for them?
> ...



Defense is an enumerated power.  If it's constitutional to draft someone and put them into servitude, not to mention at risk and/or loss of their life,

it's certainly fucking constitutional to require someone to own a gun, in defense of the nation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> So this is M14 Shooter's world -
> 1.  As he has affirmed before, he thinks it's unconstitutional to ban convicted gun felons from buying guns.
> 2.  As he has stated here, he supports the idea of a state requiring everyone to own a gun...
> ...see, if people like this ruled America, gangbangers convicted of felony gun crimes, once they served their sentence,
> ...


Psssstt...  
Before you embarass yourself further, read the story.  The link is in the OP.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> So this is M14 Shooter's world -
> 
> 1.  As he has affirmed before, he thinks it's unconstitutional to ban convicted gun felons from buying guns.
> 
> ...



Chances are those people will own guns whether or not the sate allows them to.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The US Constitution doesn't _give_ the States any power whatsoever. It does however reserve any authority not explicitly given to the Federal Government to the States only. It's called the 10th amendment.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > So this is M14 Shooter's world -
> ...



I'm not talking about the story I'm talking about what YOU believe.  

Will you remind everyone that yes indeed you do think it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny a person convicted of a gun crime the right to own a gun?

Do you want to deny that so I can pull up your post saying just that?  Go ahead.

While we're at it, how many of you gun rights people, like myself, have the guts to step up and say that M14 Shooter is fucking nuts?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 1, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > So this is M14 Shooter's world -
> ...



Yeah, and chances are pedophiles will molest children even when it's illegal.  Are you retarded enough to use your own logic to thus believe that sex with children should be legal??


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Vaccinations would fall under the general welfare clause of the Constitution, just as they do in state constitutions. There is nothing enumerated specifically naming vaccinations in any state constitution either. Compulsory vaccination laws have been passed, challenged in the courts and upheld as constitutional by the SCOUS.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> I thought the Federal Government DID have explicit authority in the area of Defense?  That's what you idiots jabber about constantly.  Requiring everyone to buy a gun for defense is perfectly in keeping with your Constitution.



The Federal Government does have explicit authority for National Defense. State, or individual defense, is another matter altogether. Having explicit power doesnt mean or imply that they have _exclusive_ power.

But as this is a South Dakota Bill, the US Constitution doesn't even come into play. The States have the power to pass this law, even if it's not right, unless specifically outlawed by the *State* Constitution.

I'm not entirely sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Well in that case, you're simply self-sodomizing your credibility as a sentient being.
To wit:



> Will you remind everyone that yes indeed you do think it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny a person convicted of a gun crime the right to own a gun?


I have never, ever said any such thing.



> Do you want to deny that so I can pull up your post saying just that?  Go ahead.


I -defy- you to do so.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Wrong.  The states are given power via the Supremacy Clause.  They get what's left over.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Um...  no.  This is a common misconception among those that want the federal government to be able to do just about anything.  Either you don't knoe any better, or you do and simply don't care.  Either way...

The "power" you cite states that the federal governent has the power to tax and spend.
It grants no other power, especially the power to create the legislation thru which revenue is spent - the remianing powers specified in Article I Sec 8 do that.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



First, the Bill of Right is irrelevant to whether the State can mandate the purchase of firearms. The Second amendment has absolutely no effect on this legislation and the 10th amendment specifically says that the powers not given to the Federal Government reside in the States.

Second, The Bill of rights were never applied to the States prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. And even since then, not every right expounded in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to states as well. 

Even before the Civil War, Utah was a territory dedicates to religious tolerance. Since settling the Salt Lake Valley the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has helped fascilate those of other faiths worship according to the dictates of their hearts by letting them use our buildings for worship purposes and helping them build their own places of worship.

So your assertion is wrong on both points.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Perhaps the best way for you to stop embarassig yourself is to simply not post...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No it doesn't. As the mandate doesnt infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. Quite the opposite. The law would facilitate all citizens' right to bear arms. And there is nothing in the Second amendment prohibiting any government from facilitating the right. only infringing on it.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



You're clearly out of your depth here.

This bill is blatantly unconstititional as it's a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But I can see that it would be a colossal waste of time to try to educate you of this fact since you'd much rather wallow in ignorance.

Enjoy your bliss and have a nice day, I have to go shovel snow now.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> This bill violates the 2nd Amendment for exactly the same reason that a bill requiring people to recite the Pledge of Allegiance would violate the 1st Amendment.  Forced speech is an infringement of free speech, and forced gun ownership is an infringement on the right to bear arms.



Not at all. Owning a gun doesn't force you to use it.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



If the right to choose is taken, the right is infringed.

It's that simple.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Wrong.  The states are given power via the Supremacy Clause.  They get what's left over.



I guantee you are the only person on earth who thinks that the State gets power from the Supremacy Clause.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the Federal Government DID have explicit authority in the area of Defense?  That's what you idiots jabber about constantly.  Requiring everyone to buy a gun for defense is perfectly in keeping with your Constitution.
> ...



Yep, I agree.  If the legislature of South Dakota agrees that gun ownership is important for South Dakotans, they can certainly pass a law requiring gun ownership.

Just like states can pass laws concerning auto insurance, etc.

I do disagree with the idea that the Health Care bill is unconstitutional, as I believe the Welfare Clause covers it, as it covers Social Security, etc., but there is no denying that S Dakota certainly has the right to do this.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Actually, Article I Sec 8 does not end where you do. There is no denying that promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Article I Sec 8 clearly does grant the power to create legislation to carry into execution that enumerated power.



> *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers*, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Actually, Article I Sec 8 does not end where you do. There is no denying that promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Article I Sec 8 clearly does grant the power to create legislation to carry into execution that enumerated power.
> 
> 
> 
> > *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers*, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Word.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Funny thing here is that I would have to conclude from your response that you are "clearly out of your depth here."

I've already explained to you multiple times how 2nd amendment does not apply to this law. I've also explained to you that the doctrine of incorporation, which the courts adopted after the 14th amendment to apply certain aspects of the Bill of Rights to the States, does not apply to every right in every circumstance.

Your response has been to simply ignore it and start with insults. And that's really uncalled for since I haven't insulted you at all.

If you want me to except what you are saying, make a good argument for it. You haven barely even attempted to do so. So why should I ignore the clear text of the 2nd amendment which does nothing to ban the facilitation of the right only the infringment? 

How is anyone's right to bear arms infringed by requiring people to own guns? You aren't forced to use it. You arent prohibitted from using it. There is no infringment. The Second Amendment doesn't apply.

Your use of parallels notwithstanding, the First amendment does allow laws facilitating both speech and the freedom of religion according to various case law of the United States.

You're free to disagree and argue for your point, but you are going to need something more convincing then saying "you're ignorant".


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



But not right to choose has been taken. That's your problem right there.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The necessary and proper clause is not a grant of power to do whatever you want.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That is true, but the SCOUS has already decided that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution. So I say if vaccinations can be constitutionally mandated then why not HC???


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of extremist, gun happy bill is that?
> ...



Really? Where does the 2nd say I have to own a gun? Where does it say that I have to join a militia?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



When was the last time you got vaccinated?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The last time I wanted to travel abroad.
How about you? Do you ever travel outside the US?


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 1, 2011)

I am stunned that no one has brought up Kennesaw, Georgia

Its a suburb of Atlanta, a fairly big one.

If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.

The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.

If South Dakota's Constitution is similar to Georgia's in allowing for such a law, precedent already exists that it would not be unconstitutional.

Just wanted to clear that part of it up.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> I am stunned that no one has brought up Kennesaw, Georgia
> 
> Its a suburb of Atlanta, a fairly big one.
> 
> ...



Interesting, Didn't know about that. But then I haven't been looking up case law on the issue. Just arguing from the text. Maybe Ill check it out.


----------



## signelect (Feb 1, 2011)

The senator is right on.  Everyone should have access to self defense but not everyone would know what to do with it or have enough sense to use it.  Picking up a gun for self defense carries a tremendous responsibility.  Misuse it and you should go to jail for a long long time or better yet check out early.  Obama wants to tell us to buy insurance, we tell teenager to use condoms the result in both cases is the same. Someone is going to get *&^&%


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I am stunned that no one has brought up Kennesaw, Georgia
> ...



They passed the law in 1982. Crime immediately plummeted, presumably because the criminal element of nearby Atlanta knew they would find resistance in Kennessaw.

Depending on who you ask, it is still almost nil at best, and less than half of the average at worst.

Great, beautiful, historic City. And once you leave Kennessaw heading North, you know you've finally "escaped Atlanta."


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



It's funny how you argue that there is a distinction between the federal government and the states even as you try to claim that there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. 

Do you not see the contradiction in your arguments??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you call an argument "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.
> ...



Why do you continue to bring up warrants when that doesn't address anything the other poster said?? It's a nice diversion if you ignore the actual wording of the 4th but it does NOTHING to address what the other poster said.

persons is a term that describes many individuals and their indivudual rights

people is a collective group



> The right of the people to be secure *in their persons,* houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, *and the persons* or things to be seized.



why is that so hard for you to grasp?


----------



## McDowell's (Feb 1, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



He's not saying there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. He's saying if you support the federal HC mandate, which the federal government has little or no justification in making, you have no basis for denying a state mandate, which state governments have a greater justification in making. There is a difference in the level of authority that the states and federal government have.

However, the underlying premise of their disagreement is false. There is no blanket mandate that all children be vaccinated in this country. The mandates currently in existence are required only as a condition of attending public schools. As a result, a vaccination mandate required for attendance of public schools has no bearing on the validity of a blanket mandate.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 1, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


It's not just public schools that require vaccinations, as I pointed out travel can be restricted, and employment can also require vaccinations. Again all these compulsory vaccinations have been upheld by the SCOTUS as constitutional.


----------



## McDowell's (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



And all of those are conditional mandates not blanket mandates. So your point is still not valid.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 1, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Actually IF you could read he said that one has no bearing on the other because there IS a distinction between the two and THEN tries to make a direct comparison between the two as he tries to link the two claiming that if you support one then you can't argue against the other. 

If it is as he says and there is a distinction between the two then why would an opinion on one have any bearing on the other?? Accoridng to M14 They are two different situations. One state and one federal. Therefore to link the two is a contradiction of the previous opinion that they are different.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 1, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > McDowell's said:
> ...



So based on the FACT that the HC mandate is not a blanket mandate due to the fact that if you have insurance you are not required to buy then your argument is baseless and nothing but spin. 
The HC mandate is conditional and is not a blanket mandate. 
Thanks for the argument.


----------



## McDowell's (Feb 1, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Under the HC law, is every person required to have health insurance? Yes. That is a blanket mandate. Noone is talking about the method of acquisition as a blanket mandate. Sorry you can't stay on track with the matter under discussion.


----------



## McDowell's (Feb 1, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



He's saying that states have more justification for making blanket mandates than the federal government. As an extension of that, he's saying a person who supports a blanket federal mandate has NO basis for not supporting a blanket state mandate which uses the same logic as the justification for that mandate. Those are not incongruous arguments. If you can't understand that, I pity you. If you continue to be an overbearing ass, I'm going to just ignore you.


----------



## JFK_USA (Feb 1, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.



No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Actually, Article I Sec 8 does not end where you do. There is no denying that promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Article I Sec 8 clearly does grant the power to create legislation to carry into execution that enumerated power.


Promoting the general welfare is not a power given to Congress.

Lets assume you're right:
Why was it then -necessary- to include clauses 2-16?


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 1, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



2 different jurisdictions.....

but don't let that get in your way.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Oh WOW.  Where to begin?
1:  Cite?
2:  Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm &#8220;sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.&#8221;
> 
> 
> ...



Absolute absurdity. I am all for gun rights, but the government of SD forcing you to buy one? Sounds unconstitutional to me. Though I admit I have never read the SD constitution.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Wow, Your an idiot, I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. It may not Grant you rights, but it sure as hell guarantee them to you by saying the Government can not take them away from you.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



You do understand that they are separate issues right. One is unconstitutional under the US constitution. The other may or may not be under the SD constitution.

I swear you lefties just do not understand the meaning of Federal Republic. I mean you do understand that our US constitution grants the Fed certain Powers, and anything not granted to it, is assumed to be a power of the States. Who have their own Constitutions right? Or do you not get that. 

The Health care mandate is IMO clearly unconstitutional on the Federal Level. However it may or may not be constitution under the individual States constitutions.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


What conditions are you referring to? That if you already have insurance you do not have to buy Insurance?

Are you seriously going there?

LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


It does, directly  Her argument that the 2nd protects a collective right is based on the term "right of the people", with "people" denoting a collective rather than an individual.
If that argument is valid, then it applies wherever the term is used; necessarily, then, the rights protected by the 4th Amendment is collective as well.

This, you wll note, has not been effectively addressed.



> persons is a term that describes many individuals and their indivudual rights
> people is a collective group


Then...
If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual



> The right of the people to be secure *in their persons,* houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, *and the persons* or things to be seized.


So....?
Even if you are right in that persons, individually, have the right to be secure in ther person, that protection does not apply, individually, to their papers and effect - so, you could argue that an arrest warrant is necessary, but not a search warrant.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And, of course, all --opinion-- to the contrary is moot as the SCotUS has directly addressed the people/persons issue in  US v. Verdugo-Urquidez


>  [T]he people seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution . [Its uses] sugges[t] that the people protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And then in DC v Heller


> a. Right of the People. The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a right of the people. The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase right of the people two other times, in the First Amendment s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not collective rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
> 
> Three provisions of the Constitution refer to the people in a context other than rightsthe famous preamble (We the people), §2 of Article I (providing that the people will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with the States or the people). Those provisions arguably refer to the people acting collectivelybut they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a right attributed to the people refer to anything other than an individual right.6
> 
> ...


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And, of course, the direct statement that the 2nd protects am individual right


> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 253.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




If that is so why was it even written into the Bill Of Rights which expressly deal with INDIVIDUAL rights?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



Again:
If you support the governent having the constitutional authority to enact The Obama's HC mandate, then you can have no argument against the gun mandate.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So you agree that you are wrong and that I am right.  Thank you.
You may not provide the cite(s) I asked for.


----------



## rdean (Feb 1, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce.  In fact, the US taxpayer currently pays between 40 and 50 billion a year on emergency health care which involve income taxes and property taxes.  "Paying for services" - the very definition of "commerce".  

Emergency rooms and emergency care has to be paid for somehow.

Just curious.  How do right wingers believe this service is paid for?  Even the "Tooth Fairy" doesn't have that much gold.

Once money has changed hands to pay for a service, it becomes "commerce".


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce.



This was completely untrue (did you make it up?), so I didn't read the rest.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Incumbent in any right is the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise said right.

This bill forces people to bear arms, thereby infringing on their freedom to choose whether or NOT to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

The bill is therefore unconstitutional.

Seriously, it blows me away that many of you don't understand this.


----------



## bucs90 (Feb 1, 2011)

Haha, this is great.

Well, if we can mandate that everyone gets health insurance, can't we also mandate that they get self-defense insurance? 

I mean really, stop waiting on the gubermint to protect you. Get a gun and do it yourself.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 1, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Wrong.  The states are given power via the Supremacy Clause.  They get what's left over.



What?  The Supremacy clause asserts that federal government is supreme to state governments, and that state judiciaries must uphold federal laws even if states have laws that are counter the federal laws.



			
				US Constitution said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## bucs90 (Feb 1, 2011)

BTW, I would 100% oppose this law.

There is a reason that cops are heros. Some people hate guns. They hate the idea that they may be in danger and have to fight for their life. Some people dont want to even think of that. And thats why America is great. A small, 18 year old girl who is alone at work late at night shouldn't have to worry about her own life against an armed suspect. Thats why there is a cop out there willing to take that guy on, on her behalf, risking his own life.

I've got 2 early 20-something nieces. Both are girly-girl types and hate guns. Thank God cops are out there so they don't have to learn how to use one.

So yeah, thanks to all you cops and soldiers who enable us to have a nation where 99% of people don't need to know how to use a gun. You guys make it possible.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Where does it say that?


----------



## gekaap (Feb 1, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.
> 
> The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.
> 
> ...



This is a very useful piece of information.  The fact that the US Supreme Court even heard the case indicates that the case involved an issue under the federal constitution.  If the case did not raise a question about the legality of the law under the federal constitution, then the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to hear the case.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Federal Government is already 'forcing' you to buy guns.  What do you think our troops are using?  Who do you think paid for them?
> ...



It's exactly correct.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



It's got nothing to do with morality. It's the law.

There is nothing in the law that allows the Federal Government to force people to purchase health care.

There is nothing in the law that prevents State government from mandating that people own firearms.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Incumbent in any right is the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise said right.
> 
> This bill forces people to bear arms, thereby infringing on their freedom to choose whether or NOT to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
> 
> ...



No. It forces people to own guns. It does not force them to use it.

Not to mention that there has been precedent mentioned that you have ignored.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> No. It forces people to own guns. It does not force them to use it.



It forces people to keep arms.  This notion you keep spouting about using them is silly and beneath you, or so I would have thought.



Avatar4321 said:


> Not to mention that there has been precedent mentioned that you have ignored.



The alleged 'precedent' is an ordinance for which there is no penalty for non-compliance.  Go ahead and look it up if you don't believe me.  But to your point, if anyone is SD could declare themselves exempt from this law (as they can in Kennesaw GA), then yes, as a toothless ordinance I will concede it would not be unconstitutional.  However, the instant they actually penalize someone for not owning a gun, they have violated the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...






My gosh!  Have you ever _read_ it?

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Third Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


The Seventh Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

etc. etc. etc.  Or are you claiming that the governement has the right to a trial by jury when it trys to take someting from someone?  Or when the Ammendment refers to HIM it actually means the government???

To use your own words, dude, you need to catch up and get a clue.  You've made yourself look like a complete moron with this issue.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No I agree that you are a fucking idiot who is playing semantics. It in effect grants you rights, By Telling the FED what it can not take away from you. 

Either you are a complete fool, and do not understand that, Or your just a partisan hack trying to make a point where there is none.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...



You do not understand the argument the 26 states are making. They never claimed it "involved no commerce" they are claiming that the commerce clause does not allow for such a sweeping mandate. Period.

Do try and know what the hell you are talking about ok.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



He can't read, or he does not know what a comma means. 

If you read it, and leave out the comma it can seem to say that only in a militia do we have the right to bear arms. However if you know proper English, and read it with the comma it clearly says we have the right to bear arms, and the right to an organized militia.


----------



## manifold (Feb 1, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



In case you missed it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/149700-dumbest-post-of-the-new-year-so-far.html


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> > If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.
> ...




Yet another person who does not understand our Federal Republic. 

the US supreme court can rule on State Laws, as to whether or not they violate the US constitution, Because the US constitution clearly states that the states shall enact constitutions and those constitutions may not in any way superceed or Violate the Federal Constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 1, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


No.  To anyone with even a child's grasp of the language, it does no such thing.

The rights pre-exist the formation of government.  The amendments protect those rights from action against them by the government.  There's no grant of the rights in any way shape or form.

Not sure where you went to school - but you need to look into getting your money back.


Still waiting for that cite.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Those vaccinations are not mandatory unless you are traveling to a country where yellow fever is prevalent. Also, those vaccinations are not required by US law, they are required by international health regulations and treaties. If you actually bother to read the Constitution you would know that treaties are covered separately, so your claim that vaccinations are covered by the General Welfare clause is erroneous.

If, on the other hand, you are thinking about vaccinations for public school attendance, those are required by the states, not the federal government. That is not part of the General Welfare clause either. 

By the way, the General Welfare clause is not a clause, it is two words in a sentence that describes how, and why, Congress can impose taxes.


----------



## rdean (Feb 1, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The reason Republicans say HC is unconstitutional is because it involves no commerce.
> ...



Issue & Argument; HC Mandate = Tax?  Furthermore&#8230;

Issue

In order to protect the new national Health Care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax  even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.

The HC dispute revolves around the individual mandate of the health care plan that states every U.S. citizen would have to have health insurance. The Thomas More Law Center believes this violates the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Its not a Constitutional tax. Constitutionally, it must be one of the following: 1) a uniform excise tax (a tax on transactions at a uniform rate,) 2) an income tax or else 3) a direct tax that must be equally apportioned among the States. Its clearly not any of those

They cant use the law they wrote to create a TAX. If they are going to call it a tax, they have to TREAT it like a tax. How does commanding everyone in the nation to buy from a private insurer constitute a tax? Taxes are paid to the government and its agencies not to private companies. They are essentially arguing that the insurance companies, which they are mandating we purchase from, are now de-facto arms of the government.Taxes are paid to the government  not insurers. Its not a tax, just because the IRS enforces it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



You know the thing that I find ironic? The sole reason this bill was introduced was to make the point that mandates are unconscionable because they force people to do something, and takes away their options. And you, who apparently think mandating buying insurance is a good idea, oppose mandating gun ownership.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...



Hey genius, no one is saying that health care is unconstitutional. What I, and others, are saying is that forcing people to buy a product they do not want is unconstitutional. I had health insurance I was perfectly happy with before this law was passed, and now I no longer have health insurance because the plan I had is no longer offered because the new law mandates that I get coverage I do not want, and is forcing me to pay for coverage I will never use. Trust me, if I ever get pregnant the very last thing I will need to worry about is paying for maternity coverage. I will also not have to work ever again in my life.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...


If you don't like Government Health Care then you *can't* like this law either.

Governments shouldn't mandate *anything!*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

manifold said:


> Incumbent in any right is the freedom to choose whether or not to exercise said right.
> 
> This bill forces people to bear arms, thereby infringing on their freedom to choose whether or NOT to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
> 
> ...



Funny thing is that the Supreme Court disagrees, and has upheld other laws that require people to own weapons, even on a national level. That power is clearly constitutional under the ability of Congress to raise a militia.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> ...



If they didn't mandate anything, what would be the point of the government. If you said "mandate the purchase of anything" I'd be in total agreement. But anything.... all law are mandates.


----------



## rdean (Feb 1, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Two things, for one, you know you are lying.  No one took away your health care.

Second, you are paying for it now.  Your taxes are paying for emergency room care and HC for the uninsured.  That's between 40 and 50 billion a year.

What the Obama Health Care bill does is spread around the cost so working Americans aren't slammed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> > If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.
> ...



Or under federal law.

Just saying.


----------



## rdean (Feb 1, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> ...



I agree with you.

Fuck speed laws.

Fuck safety.

Fuck clean air and clean water.

Fuck safe food.

Fuck bridge and road inspection.

I will do what I want, when I want.  That's the America I want to live in!!!!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> Two things, for one, you know you are lying.  No one took away your health care.
> 
> Second, you are paying for it now.  Your taxes are paying for emergency room care and HC for the uninsured.  That's between 40 and 50 billion a year.
> 
> What the Obama Health Care bill does is spread around the cost so working Americans aren't slammed.



The whole point of Obamacare is to undermine the market and drive private providers out of business forcing everyone one a single payer plan. You know this. Lying about it doesn't change reality.

All costs for everything government does is on working Americans, because the Federal Government taxes income.

There is no mythical group of people who doesn't work for their income.


----------



## Agit8r (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



They should do that here in Spokane.  Disband the thugs and have ordinary citizens form a Committee of Public Safety... yeah


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Safety regulations and insurance mandates are to different things entirely. But why would I expect you to understand? From the looks of your avatar you're clearly retarded.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...





I did not say anyone took away my health care. I said that the the insurance policy I used to have is no longer available. I was quite happy with an annual cap on my insurance, and the fact that I had a lifetime cap on how much insurance I could use. I was also quite content paying for office visits, routine tests, and most of my meds. Are you going to try and tell me the ACA doe not make that type of insurance policy illegal?
I was paying for it before, now you are paying for it. I fall below the cut off for being required to actually buy insurance, which means I no longer have to pay for anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I love it when I can use a stupid post you make to prove you are wrong.



> Many traffic safety groups such as the Governors Highway Safety Association argue that such comparisons don't accurately reflect how safe a state's roads are. A better measure, they say, is whether states have enacted proven safety enhancements such as motorcycle helmet laws and primary seat belt laws, which allow police to stop motorists solely for being unbuckled. [...]​Judith Stone, president of Washington, D.C.-based Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety, says the group does not consider fatalities when issuing its annual report card on states. "We look at laws and whether they've been passed," Stone says.​Advocates of stronger laws say it's difficult to persuade a state such as New Hampshire, which has no seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws, to enact such rules when its death rate is below the U.S. average. "States like ... New Hampshire could certainly save more lives by passing stronger laws," says governors safety association spokesman Jonathan Adkins. "Legislators note these states have relatively low fatality rates and tend not to see the benefit in passing stronger laws."​


Governors Highway Safety Association: Deaths Don't Matter, Only Safety Regs - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

See, truth does not matter, nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws, the only thing that keeps us safe is laws.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 1, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



LOL like I said Semantics. You are playing a silly little game of Semantics. The End result is the same, Granted or Guaranteed, The end result is you have rights.

Apparently your grasp of the English Language is not all that great either, or do you not under stand what it means when someone says. "In effect"

Just so you know that means I am acknowledging that it does not specifically grant you rights, but "in effect" the end result is the same. 

Juvenile.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> LOL like I said Semantics. You are playing a silly little game of Semantics. The End result is the same, Granted or Guaranteed, The end result is you have rights.


I'm sorry - your statement is wrong.  Nothing you can do or say will change that.

As such, it is impossible for you to back up your claim and cite the case that says what you said it does.

So...  you don't have a leg to stand on.  That's YOUR fault, not mine.
Grow up, end this petulance, admit your mistake, learn from it and move on.


----------



## editec (Feb 2, 2011)

I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)

And still they claim that they_ love_ freedom above all other things.

What's more, disagree with their goofy notions and the first thing they'll tell us is that_ you_ hate freedom.

Such circular dislogical thinking in impenetrable to reason.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes - the court upheld the authority of states to pass compulsory vaccination laws.
-This has nothing to do wuth the FEDERAL power to compell vaccinations, the issue at hand
-This is no way says anything about rights granted by the US constitution

Verdict:  Fail.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

editec said:


> I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)


If you believe that the government has the power to compel people to buy health insurance, then you have no way to argue that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun.
Its really that simple.


----------



## manifold (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)
> ...



I think a lot of people here are comparing this bill to Obamacare erroneously, although IMO both are unconstititional.  However, they are unconstitutional for different reasons, again IMO.

This bill is an obvious 2nd Amendment violation and is therefore unconstitutional.  Case closed.

So far, I've not heard much opposition to Obamacare suggesting that it's a violation of the Bill of Rights to mandate the purchase of insurance.  If that were the case, many similar mandates at the state level would also be a violation.  The unconstitutionality of Obamacare would stem from the fact that the federal government is overstepping the authority granted to it by the Constitution.  That is different than saying it's a BoR violation.  And if the USSC court rules against Obamacare on this basis, it wouldn't mean that similar mandates at the state level are also unconstitutional.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The decision did not say that ONLY the state could compel vaccinations, it said compulsory vaccinations did not violate the Constitution of the US. So if compulsory vaccinations are Constitutional, why can't the federal government require them?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



See corrected, in bold.
That a state can do so and not violate the US constitution in no way illustrates that the federal government has the power to make such compulsions.
:shrug:


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...





M14 Shooter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)
> ...


Except it's the authors of the bill who are falsely arguing that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun. They have as much power to compel people to buy a gun as they have to compel people to get vaccinated!!!

From your own link in your OP:



> The measure is known as an act to provide for an individual mandate to  adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and  others.
> 
> Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will  be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the  federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
> 
> *Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can  require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not.* But at the same time,  we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy  health insurance, he said.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


You do know it is a violation of the rules of this messageboard to alter a poster's posts, don't you?
Nowhere in the ruling was it said it was Constitutional ONLY because it was a state law. SCOTUS ruled that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution. That certainly seems broad enough to include the federal government too!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yes, I know I'm right.  Thank you, but you didn't need to tell me.



> Nowhere in the ruling was it said it was Constitutional ONLY because it was a state law. SCOTUS ruled that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.
> That certainly seems broad enough to include the federal government too!


Thank you for putting your lack of education on display for all of us to see.

First, you continue to be wrong - no rights are provided to the people by the US constituion.
You are apparently happy to be wrong about this, and you enjoy chosing to be wrong. 

Now then...
A state's powers are granted to it by its constitution.  
The question in the case whas not the power granted to the state but if that power violated any rights protected by the US constitution.  The court decided that this power did not violate any of the rights protected by the US constitution.

This in no way indicates that the US constitution gives a similar power to the US government, and as such, in no way supports the idea that the Federal government can create such compulsions; the case did not have anything to do with an action of the federal government and so cannot be used to argue that the federal government has any such power.

So..  your cite means nothing,  You still fail.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The court decided that the power did not violate the Constitution, not who wielded the power.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> The court decided that the power did not violate the Constitution, not who wielded the power. *Edited by Intense. Do Not Change Quotes*


And, as I said:
This in no way supports the argument that the Federal government has that power as well.

Your cite means nothing, You continue to fail.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

m14 shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > the court decided that the power did not violate the constitution, not who wielded the power.
> ...


*stop altering my posts!!!!!* *Restored*
.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> m14 shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Stop being wrong. *We do Not Change Quotes Here.*


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > m14 shooter said:
> ...


If I was wrong YOU wouldn't have to put YOUR WORDS in my posts!!!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


The words I added to your posts made them accurate, so that they were worth a response - its not MY fault you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


A typical CON$ervoFascist rationalization, it's not YOUR fault YOU altered my posts.


----------



## Kato (Feb 2, 2011)

In the End, the State should not have the Power to force you to own a Gun. Reason should prevail.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> m14 shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





What a weenie,

Just sayin'.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 2, 2011)

Kato said:


> In the End, the State should not have the Power to force you to own a Gun. Reason should prevail.



In the end, the Constitution defines enumerated and limited powers for the federal government; and does not prevent the states from doing what SD has done.  The real question is what is in the SD constitution.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Oh, sack up.  It's quite common here to embolden part of a quote in order to provide context for a response.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

boedicca said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Typical CON$ervative Dunb Act.

The words he emboldened were not in my post. They are HIS words HE added to my post. It's observational skills like yours that make you a CON$ervative.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I see that your education also did not include reading comprehension.
Either that or you're willfully ignorant.  You choose.

Either way:
My statement stands - your citation is meaningless as it no way supports the argument that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...


Saw this yesterday and was going to post on it but ran out of time.

STILL laughing my ass off.

Now precedent is being established on why Obamacare is unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yes - I corrected the errors in your psots in order to create something worthy of response.
:shrug:


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2011)

Kato said:


> In the End, the State should not have the Power to force you to own a Gun. Reason should prevail.


Well THAT runs contrary to liberal thought.  That's all emotion and utopian desires that can't exist in reality, best summed up in this little rabbit turd of 'wisdumb':

"Most look at the world as it is and say 'why'?  I look at the world as it could be and say 'why not'?"

Answer, because if it COULD BE, it would have been already.


----------



## Intense (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



*The correct measure would to be to point out the problem with a Quote in your own Post, without Altering it. Inside of the Quote Box it is protected, as are yours.*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Kato said:
> 
> 
> > In the End, the State should not have the Power to force you to own a Gun. Reason should prevail.
> ...


This is, of course, true.

Never mind that the federal government -certainly- has the power to require everyone to own a gun.  You might argue that this violates the 2nd amendment, in that the state cannot force you to exercise a right, but as far as the power to do so, it is unquestionably there.

Of course "the state cannot force you to exercise a right" argument would then apply to The Obama's insurance mandate.


----------



## McDowell's (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Kato said:
> ...



You are wrong because I like Obama and guns are the devil.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

Intense said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Um, sure.  Thanks. :shrug:

You'll forgive me for trying to help out someone that doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Sadly, that's the best counter-argument in this topic so far...


----------



## Kato (Feb 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Kato said:
> 
> 
> > In the End, the State should not have the Power to force you to own a Gun. Reason should prevail.
> ...



I think there are new ways of seeing things everyday. New thinngs still need to be explored and tested. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. That said, The Government has the right to compel certain behavior, not all. You should not be forced to buy a Gun, Insurance, or a Chevy, just because the Government feels you should.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...








I believe that sums it up with the same quality of logic.


----------



## Kato (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Kato said:
> ...



Exactly.  I don't own a gun, yet I place high value on Your and My Right to own one. I support Rational Legislation that would disqualify a Person from owning one based on Criminal and Mental Health History.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2011)

So you're saying the government cannot force me to purchase AND carry a firearm, but they can force me to purchase health insurance?

Sorry, I don't see where that power shows up under the constitution.

The funny thing is... that SD technically COULD do something like this because of the 10th Amendment.  The same way Massoftwoshits created universal health care.


----------



## Kato (Feb 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> So you're saying the government cannot force me to purchase AND carry a firearm, but they can force me to purchase health insurance?
> 
> Sorry, I don't see where that power shows up under the constitution.
> 
> The funny thing is... that SD technically COULD do something like this because of the 10th Amendment.  The same way Massoftwoshits created universal health care.



Me? Not at all. The Government should not be able to force you to act against your belief.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 2, 2011)

Kato said:


> Me? Not at all. The Government should not be able to force you to act against your belief.



Of course they shouldn't. However, the State governments have much broader powers than the Feds. However, just because they can do something doesn't mean they should. Which is why the states don't for the most part.


----------



## McDowell's (Feb 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I don't know...that's a pretty nice horn!


----------



## gekaap (Feb 2, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws, the only thing that keeps us safe is laws.



This is widely presumptive.  Just because one state has a below average fatality rate in spite of having no seat belt or helmet laws does not mean that generally speaking all roads will be safer without regulatory laws.  Obviously NH has a lesser issue with road fatalities than other states.  But there is nothing to connect that fact to a lack of seat belt or helmet laws.  In fact, it could be that enacting seat belt and helmet laws would reduce their fatality rate even lower.  Using a singular example as indicative of general correlation is flawed, as well as relying on any correlation as an indication of causation without being able to explain how any causal mechanism would function.

What would be more useful would be data that analyze the effects of seat belt and helmet usage in preventing fatalities subsequent to traffic accidents.  Also possibly useful would be data that addresses people's driving habits.  It could be that NH residents tend to use seat belts and helmets moreso than many other states, even though they are not so required by law.  It could be that they have other driving habits that are more responsible and safer (like obeying speed limits and signaling properly) than the habits of people in other states.  Maybe their lower death rate is associated with more effectively calculated speed limits (some states don't do a good job of setting safe limits, while other states are better at determining safe speed limits for various sections of road).  Maybe it has something to do with the compositional content of the materials used to build the road (which could make a difference by helping to prevent skidding and hydroplaning, and increase braking ability).  Hell, even the weather patterns may have something to do with it.  I lived in Texas for many years, and people there tended to fall apart behind the wheel over even the slightest weather.  But people in NH are probably much more used to driving in snow and icy conditions, and are thus probably more skilled at compensating for these things.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Take your arrogant condescension and shove it where it gets no light.

And my citation in no way says the federal government does not have the power as you falsely claim. It merely says the power is constitutional.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 2, 2011)

boedicca said:


> In the end, the Constitution defines enumerated and limited powers for the federal government; and does not prevent the states from doing what SD has done.  The real question is what is in the SD constitution.



This reasoning continues to be flawed.  There are a great many things that the federal government does do, which have been upheld as constitutional, that are not specifically enumerated as a power in the constitution.  But the federal government is able to do them because they have a legitimate interest in the matter.

No state can restrict a person's liberties that are guaranteed by the federal constitution.  If a requirement to buy a product and/or service suffices as a violation of some protected liberty under the constitution, then no state, county, or municipality can make such a requirement.

Let's take gun laws as an example, because there can be no debate that the right to bear arms is a protected liberty under the constitution.  The 2nd amendment explicitly addresses this right, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the meaning of the second amendment to protect an individual's right to bear arms even if said individual's interests or purposes are not participation in the militia.

It is not uncommon for states to require a person to buy permits in order to carry a handgun.  States also may at times require a person to attend gun safety classes, at their own expense, in order to own such a permit.  And while I don't actually know if it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some state out there requires purchase of some kind of insurance or other service in order to own said permit.

Unless one is ready to claim that these measures are illegal, (which the courts have rejected anyway) then it is clear that a government of a given level does not infringe a person's protected liberties by requiring a person to buy a product.  Since there is no infringement of liberty, any level of government that has a legitimate interest in requiring the purchase a product can pass a law that reasonably serves that interest.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 2, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > McDowell's said:
> ...



Actually one of the comments made by the right was that it wasn't universal healthcare because it didn't require everyone to have it. So can you site the part of the bill which states that every PERSON is required to have health insurance and that there are no exemptions??


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You do realize that that case actually proves your assertion that the federal government has the power to enforce vaccinations wrong, don't you?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 2, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > McDowell's said:
> ...



You know it's just hilarious how you have to come in and try to explain what he MEANT to say but didn't. LOL It's a good thing that you can read his mind and interpret for him. Why are you choosing to focus only on his comparison of the two as you ignore the fact that he argued that they are different?

Simply put, you can't HONESTLY claim that they are both different even as you try to argue that they are the same in a desperate attempt to make a point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

manifold said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



How does this violate the 2nd Amendment? Especially when you factor in SCOTUS decisions that have upheld the right of the federal government to mandate gun ownership?


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 2, 2011)

In reality, what the legislators of South Dakota are attempting to do fails miserably.  

We would have to examine the Constitution of the State of South Dakota to know if this was permissible or not.  A better example would be if a few Congressmen decided to force a law upon all citizens of the U.S. requiring them to purchase a gun.

  I can't wait to see left-wing anti-gun, pro-Health Care Reform people shuffle between why they think the government has the right to make us purchase health insurance but does not have the right to make us purchase a gun.

That would be fun to watch!

Immie


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 2, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



The sad thing is that they are trying to argue that it's ok for the state to impose such a mandate but not ok for the fed to have such a mandate because they are different even as they admit that they are only proposing this mandate to own a gun in an attempt to show how ridiculous they believe the HC mandate is as they try to claim that they are the same. 

They are spinning so much they don't even see the contradiction.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws, the only thing that keeps us safe is laws.
> ...



Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I know about the ruling of the scotus and scalia's broad rewriting and misinterpretation on this issue but i disagree with it and maybe some day down the line when a less partisan and less right leaning activist court is in power this will be revisited and corrected. 
He actually rephrases the amendment to suit his interpretation of it. How sad is that?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> m14 shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Did you also happen to notice that he cotinues to claim that you are wrong even as he fails to show anything that supports that position?? 

You provide the facts that counter his spin, then he edits them to suit his needs and declares that you are wrong as he ignores the actual content of your posts. It's hilarious. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Actually there have been several valid counter arguments, the problem is that you ignore anything that counters your own baseless opinions as you merely claim that what others have offered isn't relevent when it is. You edit and delete the parts of other people posts that deal directly with this discussion so you can avoid giving a response to their actual content, which is quite cowardly of you. What are you afraid of?? Why not respond to the posts in their entirety instead of editing them??


----------



## manifold (Feb 2, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The only such precedent I'm aware of is Kennesaw GA, but since any resident can simply declare himself exempt it's hardly any precedent at all.  If you can provide a precedent whereby a private citizen was penalized in any way for refusing to own a gun, and such a penalty was upheld by the USSC, I will reconsider my position.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 2, 2011)

have SD give each head of Household a gun.

Problem Solved. 

The unconstitutionality of it comes from Forcing them to BUY IT!


----------



## grunt11b (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



I seen that, I am still waiting for the justice department to step forward and say that that is unconstitutional. HAHA!!!


----------



## gekaap (Feb 2, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.



In the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe.  But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.


----------



## manifold (Feb 2, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> have SD give each head of Household a gun.
> 
> Problem Solved.
> 
> The unconstitutionality of it comes from Forcing them to BUY IT!



I see it just a wee bit differently.  I see the unconstitutionality coming from *penalizing someone* for refusing to own a gun, regardless of whether one might be provided by the taxpayers.

A hair worth splitting IMO.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Awww..  whaddamadda puddy?  Can't handle being wrong?
You should be used to it by now.
:shrug:



> And my citation in no way says the federal government does not have the power as you falsely claim.


Either you can't read and therefore cannot understand what I wrote, or you do understand what I wrote and choose to misrepresent it.  Either way, that's not what I posted.

Why don't you actually read what I wrote, try -very- hard to comprehend it - it is, after all, in plain English and you therefore might find doing so to a substantial challenge -  and then return with an effective response:

My statement stands - your citation is meaningless as it no way supports the argument that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

gekaap said:


> This reasoning continues to be flawed.  There are a great many things that the federal government does do, which have been upheld as constitutional, that are not specifically enumerated as a power in the constitution.  But the federal government is able to do them because they have a legitimate interest in the matter.


Yes...   but these things deal with things like the implied powers of the executive - executive orders, for example - and the judiciary - judicial review.  The issue here revolves around the powers of congress and the Elastic clause - a clause that, itself, states that there must be an underlying power granted by the constition for that power to be brought into use.  The Elastic Clause doe snot expand the powers of Congress to whatever Congress believes is necessary and proper, but rather, grants Congress a means to exercise its previously allocated powers.



> No state can restrict a person's liberties that are guaranteed by the federal constitution.


They can, if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.



> If a requirement to buy a product and/or service suffices as a violation of some protected liberty under the constitution, then no state, county, or municipality can make such a requirement.


They can, if that requirement passes strict scrutiny.



> It is not uncommon for states to require a person to buy permits in order to carry a handgun.  States also may at times require a person to attend gun safety classes, at their own expense, in order to own such a permit.  And while I don't actually know if it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some state out there requires purchase of some kind of insurance or other service in order to own said permit.
> 
> Unless one is ready to claim that these measures are illegal, (which the courts have rejected anyway) then it is clear that a government of a given level does not infringe a person's protected liberties by requiring a person to buy a product.


Only if those requirements pass strict scrutiny.
None have.



> Since there is no infringement of liberty, any level of government that has a legitimate interest in requiring the purchase a product can pass a law that reasonably serves that interest.


Only if it has been given the power to do so and that said requirements pass strict scrutiny.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


Again:
Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > m14 shooter said:
> ...


On the contrary - I did describe how he is wrong.
He continues to fail to address this.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > McDowell's said:
> ...


I don't think so, Tim.
Feel free to give it a try.


----------



## sparky (Feb 2, 2011)

thankfully, i'm more than compliant to visit the Dakota's.  

maybe i'll mount a gun to the hood of my truck when i visit

yanno, just so there's no question of my citizenship....

~S~


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Okay, here:

*My post:

The other poster was saying that a criminal background check to see if you have convictions is unconstitutional, i.e., an 'infringement'.

Your response:

Yes. It is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement. *

In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.

Full context:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3220620-post38.html


Doubt me at your own peril.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 2, 2011)

If conservatives believed in states' rights as much as they claim, they'd want the 2nd amendment repealed and the matter left up to the states.  Why should the federal government have the power to tell a state it has to let its citizens own guns, if the people of that state would prefer to decide that themselves?


----------



## gekaap (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes...   but these things deal with things like the implied powers of the executive - executive orders, for example - and the judiciary - judicial review.  The issue here revolves around the powers of congress and the Elastic clause - a clause that, itself, states that there must be an underlying power granted by the constition for that power to be brought into use.  The Elastic Clause doe snot expand the powers of Congress to whatever Congress believes is necessary and proper, but rather, grants Congress a means to exercise its previously allocated powers.



Actually, I'm talking about things like setting a minimum wage, raising and maintaining an Air Force, prohibitions against drug use, etc.  These are all acts of Congress.



> They can, if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.



No, they can't.  No level of government can infringe upon the constitutionally protected liberties that the people enjoy.  The constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Constitutionally protected liberties are just that....liberties protected by the supreme law of the land.  

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review.  It is an approach that the judiciary uses, not to decide if infringing upon constitutional liberties is okay, but to determine whether such an infringement has occurred.



> Only if those requirements pass strict scrutiny.
> None have.



As noted above, passing strict scrutiny means that the judiciary has applied a vigorous approach to determine whether a given issue has violated the constitution.  It does not mean that the court decides whether infringing on constitutional liberties okay this time around.



> Only if it has been given the power to do so and that said requirements pass strict scrutiny.



*sighs*  My entire post explains how such powers have been recognized to exist, so questioning whether they do is kinda a moot point.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


This rationalization should be a winner.  Let's have it!

What the Court decided was that that the freedom of the  individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare.



> Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
> 
> We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the  Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state  court. *The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state  subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to  submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is  unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the  inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in  such way as to him seems best;* and that the execution of such a law  against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is  nothing short of an assault upon his person. *But the liberty secured by  the Constitution of the United States to every person within its  jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at  all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There  are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for  the common good.* On any other basis organized society could not exist  with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a  law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.  Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle  which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own,  whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the  injury that may be done to others.* This court has more than once  recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are  subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the  general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state;* of the perfect  right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon  acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural  persons are concerned.' _Hannibal & St. J. R. Co._ v. _Husen_, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; _Missouri, K. & T. R. Co._ v. _Haber_, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; _Thorpe_ v. _Rutland & B. R. Co._ 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In _Crowley_ v. _Christensen_, 137 U. S. 86,  89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said: 'The possession  and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as  may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to  the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community.* Even  liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license  to act according to one's own will.* It is only freedom from restraint  under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by  others.* It is, then, liberty regulated by law.*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Actually, I'm talking about things like setting a minimum wage, raising and maintaining an Air Force, prohibitions against drug use, etc.  These are all acts of Congress.


All of those have an associated power of congress. 
Commerce, raise armies, commerce.
So, as I siad - these things deal with implied powers of the executive/judiciary.



> > They can, if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.
> 
> 
> No, they can't.  No level of government can infringe upon the constitutionally protected liberties that the people enjoy.


[/quote]
You said:


> No state can restrict a person's liberties that are guaranteed by the federal constitution


This is absolutely untrue.  -Any- liberty that is guaranteed bythe Constition CAN be RESTRICTED by the government if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.



> > Only if those requirements pass strict scrutiny.
> > None have.
> 
> 
> As noted above, passing strict scrutiny means that the judiciary has applied a vigorous approach to determine whether a given issue has violated the constitution.  It does not mean that the court decides whether infringing on constitutional liberties okay this time around.


This is funny.
If a restriction passes strict scrutiny, it is indeed deemed constitutionally "ok."
None of the restrictions you noted have passes strict scrutiny.



> > Only if it has been given the power to do so and that said requirements pass strict scrutiny.
> 
> 
> *sighs*  My entire post explains how such powers have been recognized to exist, so questioning whether they do is kinda a moot point.


[/QUOTE]On the contrary - the question of the existence of the power itself is the point, and yourpost does nothing to illustrate that they do exist.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


In my citation the question was whether the defendant's US Constitutional rights were violated by being compelled to get vaccinated and the decision was that they weren't. That's it, compelled vaccinations do not violate the US Constitution because they support the common good. It said nothing about who does the compelling or that the common good is limited to states only, so how you can say only the state can do the compelling is beyond me.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 2, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> All of those have an associated power of congress.
> Commerce, raise armies, commerce.
> So, as I siad - these things deal with implied powers of the executive/judiciary.



Associating a minimum wage with the commerce clause is an extremely weak argument.  Associating drug use to commerce is impossible.
Associating the Air Force with the Army pretty much fails, because the constitution is explicit about the Army and the Navy, and mentions them distinctly.  Such enumeration of forces would demand that a hyper restrictive interpretation of the constitution would render raising and maintaining an Air Force to be unconstitutional because our Air Force is a separate branch of service.



> This is funny.
> If a restriction passes strict scrutiny, it is indeed deemed constitutionally "ok."
> None of the restrictions you noted have passes strict scrutiny.



You're putting the cart before the horse.  An issue is not screened through strict scrutiny to decide whether it's an acceptable infringement of constitutionally protected liberties.  A law is put through strict scrutiny to determine if it commits infringement.

I don't understand what "restrictions" you think I have noted.



> On the contrary - the question of the existence of the power itself is the point, and your post does nothing to illustrate that they do exist.



Government has the power to pass laws as necessary and proper to fulfill a legitimate government interest.  Inasmuch as uninsured people cause damage to the general public when they obtain emergency health care for which they cannot and subsequently do not pay, and inasmuch as requirement to buy insurance does not violate a constitutionally protected liberty, the government has a legitimate case to require people to purchase health insurance.

Furthermore, any insistence that any part of this analysis were defective in establishing constitutional validity of the issue would require that other well established public policies and government actions be equally defective of their constitutional validity.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> In my citation the question was whether the defendant's US Constitutional rights were violated by being compelled to get vaccinated and the decision was that they weren't. That's it, compelled vaccinations do not violate the US Constitution because they support the common good. It said nothing about who does the compelling or that the common good is limited to states only, so how you can say only the state can do the compelling is beyond me.


What you fail to understand is deciding an action by a state does not violate someone's rights s not the same as saying that the federal government has the power to engage in that same act.

Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.


----------



## Chris (Feb 2, 2011)

If the Republicans had their way, everyone would have guns, and no one would have healthcare. 

Why don't they just run a Glock 9mm with a flag pin attached for president?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 2, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.


Awww, skippy....  
You're confusing two seperate things.

Background checks?  Unconstitutional.  Said that a zillion times.
The prohibition against felons owning guns?  Constitutional.  Never have I said otherwise.

Arguing against the consitutionality of background checks in no way equates to an argument against the constitutionality of the prohibiliton against felons owning guns.

Seperate issues, sport.



> Doubt me at your own peril.


I laugh at you.  Ha.


----------



## grunt11b (Feb 2, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.
> ...



 You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.


----------



## Chris (Feb 2, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

manifold said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Maybe you should do some basic research.

The Militia Act of 1792


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 2, 2011)

Chris said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > gekaap said:
> ...



Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.
> ...



Why don't you learn to read? I did not say traffic laws make us unsafe. What I am doing is mocking the claim by the Governor's Association that the fact that roads are safe without those laws is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> If conservatives believed in states' rights as much as they claim, they'd want the 2nd amendment repealed and the matter left up to the states.  Why should the federal government have the power to tell a state it has to let its citizens own guns, if the people of that state would prefer to decide that themselves?



Let me see if I can explain this.

First and foremost is the right of the individual to be free from any  infringement of his rights by any government, state or federal. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect those rights. While I fully support states rights, that does not mean they have the right to take away my rights. Mine are more important.


----------



## JohnA (Feb 2, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...


 because of the shortage of wood  each person is mandated  to only use 2 sheets of paper when wiping ass   both must be folded in half for ease  of disposal .

each person is required to donate 2% of there  income  to a  charity mandated  by the federal govt  .


----------



## JohnA (Feb 2, 2011)

Chris said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > gekaap said:
> ...


 WRONG  states regulate car insurance


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Do you not understand the difference between a state and the federal government? If you don't, I will simply point out, again, that there are no national laws covering immunization. Period.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 2, 2011)

Chris said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > gekaap said:
> ...



The federal government requires car insurance? Since when?


----------



## Chris (Feb 2, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Who cares?

Our healthcare system sucks. Every other industrialized nation in the world has national healthcare, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2011)

Every other industrialized nation also limits free speech, should we imitate that also?


----------



## gekaap (Feb 3, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.



And what you seem to not understand is that the hyper restrictive view you take on the federal government's powers under the constitution is not true.  If it were, then the very fabric of the Union would deteriorate.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 3, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Why don't you learn to read? I did not say traffic laws make us unsafe. What I am doing is mocking the claim by the Governor's Association that the fact that roads are safe without those laws is wrong.



You said this:



Quantum Windbag said:


> nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws



I guess you'd now like to recant that statement?  Either presence, or lack thereof, does contribute to the roads being safe, or it does not.  Your statement is either meaningless, because you attach no such connection, or you do assert such a connection, in which case it is a flawed presumption.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > In my citation the question was whether the defendant's US Constitutional rights were violated by being compelled to get vaccinated and the decision was that they weren't. That's it, compelled vaccinations do not violate the US Constitution because they support the common good. It said nothing about who does the compelling or that the common good is limited to states only, so how you can say only the state can do the compelling is beyond me.
> ...


What you fail to understand is deciding an action does not  violate The US Constitution is not the same as saying that the action is limited only to states.

Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


So you are saying that the federal government is prohibited from acting in the common good by the US Constitution.


----------



## fromAcubicle (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



They should have this in all 50 states.  Excluding people who are felons and inner city minority males.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 3, 2011)

McDowell's said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > McDowell's said:
> ...



No shit,  let me get back to you  about every mother  fucking thing every bitch!!!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you learn to read? I did not say traffic laws make us unsafe. What I am doing is mocking the claim by the Governor's Association that the fact that roads are safe without those laws is wrong.
> ...



Not refuting anything. That is not me saying laws make us unsafe, that is me saying that I can prove that roads are safer without traffic laws than they are with them. I am making no claims about why this is, simply demonstrating a fact. Unlike you, I know that correlation is not causation, but that does not mean the correlation does not exist.

Like I said, learn to read.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Where did I say that?

You made the claim that the federal government not only has the power to require vaccinations, but that it, in fact, does so by pointing out that you had to get vaccinated before you went overseas. Then you tried to prove your point by citing a case that says a state can impose mandatory vaccinations.

I will reply, again, the federal government does not have a mandatory vaccination program. Period.

You really should stop trying to twist my words into something I am not saying and simply admit you were wrong.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm &#8220;sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.&#8221;
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

HB 1237 provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide...

 FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. Not later than January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of twenty-one years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
    Section 2. After January 1, 2012, each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota shall comply with the provisions of this Act within six months of attaining the age of twenty-one years.
    Section 3. The provisions of this Act do not apply to any person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm pursuant to §§ 22-14-15, 22-14-15.1, or 22-14-15.2.



1) 'or otherwise acquire'?
?
2)'suitable to their temperament?' 
?


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> ...


So oppressive government is fine, depending on which flag they operate under?

So much for principles.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...


Articles 1-3


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except that 
1)A ruling's been made in response to HCR

2)According to another poster, this bill in question is constitutional via the 10th


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Daily Kos: Big story: HCR ruled unconstitutional. Little story: 14 judges disagree..


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

in two previous cases a federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate is perfectly constitutional.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Sen. Hatch Calls Ruling Against Mandate He Once Sponsored "A Great Day For Liberty" | Political Correction


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

The Plum Line - Legal expert: Ruling on health reform is "very defective" and "will be overturned"


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

The Volokh Conspiracy  The Significant Error in Judge Hudson&#8217;s Opinion


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

The Militia Act of 1792



> *I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> The Militia Act of 1792
> 
> 
> 
> > *I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.



And if they would have had selective fire weapons back then they would have required every citizens to have one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 3, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



Being selective aren't we?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 3, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



The 10th amendment says you're wrong


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Interesting responses from the anti-gun loons that support The Obamas mandate that everyoe buy health insurance.
> They know there's no way to argue against this and yet still support His mandate - so they obfuscate, deflect and misdirect.
> 
> How predictable.



You should have known that when you started the thread just as I did when I started the same thread.


----------



## 8537 (Feb 3, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



The federal government - the one run by our founders - mandated health insurance for private employees....well over 200 years ago.  I think the founders knew a bit about what the founders believed.


----------



## JohnA (Feb 3, 2011)

JohnA said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...


 And to make it clearer for you to understand 

 you only  HAVE to have car insurance if you use your vehicle  on public owned roads STATE  law 
 some states allow  non insured vehicles i( a pay as you go tax )  and there is traders insurance for example 
 it you dont drive or own a vehicle you dont have to buy it 
  banks insist  on insurance when you buy the car on a loan 
 you DONT  have to have comprehensive  insurance  just  enough to cover any damage  you do  to  others when you are at fault 
 in certain circumstances   you can self insure your vehicle 
 there is a wide range of  premiums  on car insurance according to whether  you have a large deductable . your age , liability  , number of drivers , etc etc 

  None of this equates to a mandated health insurance  you may not need or want 
 so  lets stop this foolishness of compering  auto insurance to mandated health insurance 

 its  completely differant


----------



## Kato (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> The Militia Act of 1792
> 
> 
> 
> > *I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.



We are not living in 1792.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


You first!

What I said was that SD does have the power to require people to buy a gun the same as they have the power to compel people to get vaccinated. I never said the fed has such a program. When a poster claimed that the power to mandate vaccinations was limited only to the states, I challenged that by pointing out a SCOTUS case that established that compelling vaccinations was Constitutional because it served the common good. The SCOTUS decission set no limit to the states alone on the government acting in the common good. So far, no one who has claimed the power to act in the common good was limited to the states has been able to Constitutionally back it up. They, like you, can only pontificate or go off on a tangent.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 3, 2011)

Kato said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Militia Act of 1792
> ...



ok so would you also like to see the 1st amendment done away with?


----------



## JohnA (Feb 3, 2011)

Chris said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


 trus and not true
 yes they  do pay less for per capita for health care 
 one of the  reasons health care is expensive  here is the insurance preniums  doctors  have to pay for liability insurance because  the trial lawyers ( democrats ) wont  let the federal govt limited the damages 
another  reason  folks who dont have insurance ( illegals  mostly ) get treatment at  govt funded  hospitals for *free * the cost is added to the bill of those that   do have it .

 QUESTION  why do you think that a health system run by the fed govt would provide health care at a *lower * cost than it is  today ??
 history  tells us otherwise 


 ALL  govt run projects social or otherwise ARE 

 overbudgeted  
 full of  waste 
 constantly in the red 
 over staffed .

  tell me one that isnt ?
 what makes you think govt run health  care will fare any differant ?
 the health industry in this country does need to be overhauled 
 BUT OBOMA CARE IS NOT THE  WAY TO DO IT


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.
> ...



You're fucking retarded.

If the prohibition of felons owning guns is constitutional then the enforcement is constitutional;  a background check is an enforcement. 

BTW, it has nothing to do with 'prior restraint' where you got that is a mystery.

By your logic, every background check for every reason is unconstitutional.  

Anyone agree with this idiot?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.
> ...



Back to my other point, where I said by your logic this SD law would require felons to own guns.

How would they disqualify felons if they could not do a background check on them to see if they WERE felons?


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



I think the precedence has set that you can't require Americans to buy anything. Although I applaud their effort. In a very rural atmosphere, many homeowners are very vulnerable to cowardly Home Invading Predators. I mean, I protect my house and family with a Saiga 12 20 barrel drum Shotgun and a Springfield XDM 13 round 45 (I also have the Springfield 9mm, but I prefer the 45 when dealing with a home invader) and I live in the burbs with the Police about a 10 min call away!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 3, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.



Don't you know...when government saves lives it is EVIL...but when it takes lives it is just doing God's work.

Conservative Nanny State


----------



## Kato (Feb 3, 2011)

I support Gun ownership. I support background checks.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr.Traveler said:


> So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....
> 
> Wait a minute....


It is unconsitutional either way. I am a gun owner and believe in the 2nd ammendment but the gov't. still doesn't have the right to force you to buy anything, healthcare or guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You are either not paying attention, or you have no ability to comprehend what you aread, you're simply trolling.  My money is on all three.

To support the idea that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations, you presented a court decision that says a state requirement to that effect does not violate any of the rights protected by the US constitution.  The citation of this case does not support your premise because:
1-  A state having the power to do this in no way means the federal government has that power, as state powers are define by state constitutions, while federal powers are defined by the US constitution
2-  That an action taken by s state does not violate the US constitution does not at all necessarily mean that if the federal governmen ttakes that same action, it will also not violate the US Constitution, as the federal government has different restriction that tne states in this regard - specifcally, the federal governmt can violate the 10th amendment, and states cannot.

Thus, your argument fails and your premise remains unsupported.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 3, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...



Iran hangs protesters





Latest Events & News; brief: Iran Executions Past week : Weekly report

Prisons in America would be equal to the holiday Inn compared to prisons in other country's People would whether die than go to prison in other countries.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> So oppressive government is fine, depending on which flag they operate under?
> 
> So much for principles.


If you agree that the government has the power to create The Obama's health care insurance mandate, then there's no way for you to argue that the government does not also have the power to require you to buy a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Militia Act of 1792
> ...


GIven that these weapons are of the kind in common use and are equipment orinarily issued to troops-- yes.  No doubt.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


How about them firing squads on call in socialist nations?  Must clear up the issues quick.

I would like to know why China is not on tardtard's list?  With a population of 1.4 billion they should be way up there.  Unless they're ummm lying, or just going right to execution.  huh...

And as a reminder.  America still has less than 0.7% of it's population in prison then according to this chart.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

8537 said:


> The federal government - the one run by our founders - mandated health insurance for private employees....well over 200 years ago.  I think the founders knew a bit about what the founders believed.


Ah.  The Merhcant Seamen Health Care requirement.

This was set as a condition of engaging in commerce.  In that, it is no different that requiring freight companies to carry liabilty insurance.  Neither are an example of a blanket requirement created by the condition od simple citizenship. 

As such, your example is meaningless.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



See the opposing postion and the fact that scalia had to rephrase the amendment to suit his desired interpretation is an example of how his opinion is unsound. Funny how you edited that out of my post when you quoted it.  

Why do you continue to edit and remove arguments that counter yours and then claim that they haven't been given when they have?? 

What are you afraid of??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No you did not but keep pretending that you did if that makes you feel better. LOL 
Fact is that your opinions have been responded to but as you did in my previous post you choose to delete the parts of a post that counter your spin as you dishonestly claim that no one addressed your claims. 

For that matter you even edited this post. LOL Do you ever tire of exposing how cowardly and dishonest you truly are?? Let's see if you can respond to a post in it's entirety for a change. I doubt that you can or will because ignoring arguments that counter your opinions is the only way you can pretend to correct. LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Kato said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


More specifically:
Should we then restrict the protections of the 4th amendment to the technologies common to the last 18th century?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



and yet in the last three of my posts, INCLUDING THIS ONE, and several of the other posters you have been caught editing or deleting parts of the posts that call you out for your "errors" and even now you pretend that it hasn't happened. LOL 

Here is the aprt of this one that your omitted.

You edit and delete the parts of other people posts that deal directly with this discussion so you can avoid giving a response to their actual content, which is quite cowardly of you. What are you afraid of?? Why not respond to the posts in their entirety instead of editing them?? 
LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Said the petulant child with no means to create an otherwise effective or meaningful  response.



> If the prohibition of felons owning guns is constitutional then the enforcement is constitutional;  a background check is an enforcement.


No...
An arrest, triail, conviction and imprisonment after the comission of a crime is enforcement.  All of these are constitutional.
A background check is a pre-emtpion - it happens -before- the crime.  This is not.

And so, you have faled to show that I hold the belief that the prohibition against felons having guns is unconstitutional.  Just as I said you would.

I, again, laugh at you.  Ha.



> BTW, it has nothing to do with 'prior restraint' where you got that is a mystery.


It's a mystery to YOU because you don't understand the subject


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Yes -  the one where you were talking out of your ignorant arse because the law specifically excludes these people from the requirement.  



> How would they disqualify felons if they could not do a background check on them to see if they WERE felons?


Irrelevant.  The law, contrary to yourwillfully ignorant  claim,  does --not-- require felons to own guns.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Can you please specify how that counters or addresses anything that was said?? Presenting a link and claiming you have made a point when you present NO argument is pretty lame on your part.


----------



## 8537 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government - the one run by our founders - mandated health insurance for private employees....well over 200 years ago.  I think the founders knew a bit about what the founders believed.
> ...



It was a condition of employment for the people working - it was the government telling the people that they must purchase "x".

And it was passed by the same founders who Republitarians (who actually advocated FOR mandated insurance before they decided to oppose mandated insurance) claim would oppose the modern version.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

Kato said:


> I support Gun ownership. I support background checks.


Background checks are a form of prior restraint  in that you are prevented, in advance, from exercising your right on the basis that you may be comitting a crime, rather than made answerable after you commit an illegal act.

Prior restraint is an infringement.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...




No the left didn't forget that. However, the right seemed to forget that a state making a law requiring someone to purchase something has NO bearing on the fed requiring you to purchase something. They are two separate issues.

LOL Thanks for countering the whole reason of proposing this mandated purchase of firearms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


I'm sorry -- I don't see --you-- describing how the decisions are unsound.
Try again.  Don't ape someone else, do the work yourself.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 3, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Not refuting anything. That is not me saying laws make us unsafe, that is me saying that I can prove that roads are safer without traffic laws than they are with them. I am making no claims about why this is, simply demonstrating a fact. Unlike you, I know that correlation is not causation, but that does not mean the correlation does not exist.
> 
> Like I said, learn to read.



Oh, is that the case.  Well that is very different.  Okay then, high speed, prove it.  You've noted a singular instance of a single, small state.  That does not prove that roads are safer without laws, especially considering the fact that NH does have certain laws maintaining road safety, just not seat belt or helmet laws.  In order to prove that roads are safer without laws will require far more data than I suspect you even know where to find, much less finding that the data supports your claim.

Also, if you do not intend to imply any causal relationship between road safety and safety laws, then on what basis do you raise any objections to said laws?  It's not like anyone's asking for your kidney.  Wearing a seat belt is a pretty mundane thing, an in the grand scheme of things is probably alot easier than picking up your dog's feces, which is often found in local laws.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


Yawn.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-sd-citizens-to-buy-a-gun-22.html#post3282910



> Fact is that your opinions have been responded to...


...not in any meaningful manner that has not been sufficiently addressed.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Every other industrialized nation also limits free speech, should we imitate that also?



In case you missed it there are limits to free speech in this country as well. Once again your argument is baseless. GJ. LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

8537 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...


Yes...
... as a condition of engaging in commerce. In that, it is no different that requiring freight companies to carry liabilty insurance. Neither are an example of a blanket requirement created by the condition od simple citizenship. 

As such, your example remains meaningless.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.
> ...



They cherry pick on how restrictive their view can be when the moment suits them. Take the Air Force for an example. Nothing listed in the constitution about that and yet the right takes a broad interpretation of the constitution to a claim that is ok. It's only when they believe that it is to their benefit that they whine and cry about how a limited and narrow intepretation of the constitution is called for.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Take the Air Force for an example. Nothing listed in the constitution about that and yet the right takes a broad interpretation of the constitution to a claim that is ok.


This is silly.
The Air Force, originally part of the army, was created under the power to raise armies.
It was the seperated from the army under the power to organize and regulate the military.
And, in any event, there's no reason it cannot be re-absorbed iinto the army.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You really should go back and read the decision. It does not limit the decision to the state as you are falsely trying to claim. It clearly talks about the common good and if you could read instead of editing and omitting the aprts of posts that counter your spin and IF you were honest you would have to admit that you are WRONG. 



> But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > So oppressive government is fine, depending on which flag they operate under?
> ...



Based on how the right in this very thread is arguing that the state and federal government are different then yes one can argue that there is a difference between the two and you morons on the right laid the ground work for any such arguments. GJ. LOL 

How can you honestly argue that they are different and then try to claim that they are the same? I already asked you this once before but you ignored it. Imagine that. LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You bore me.
You also did nothing to directly address, much less refute,  what I said, nor do you appear to recognize the context of the discussion.
:shrug:


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



So you don't consider the enforcement of the restriction against felons owning a firearm an enforcement issue?? REALLY?? LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Yet another instance of you running away from an argument instead of actually addressing it. 

Funny how this statement from you,



M14 Shooter said:


> Said the petulant child with no means to create an otherwise effective or meaningful  response.




applies perfectly to YOU. LOL So when are you going to come up with a meaningful response to all of the arguments that counter your spin?? Thus far all you have done is dismiss them and pretend that they don't matter because you have no meaningful response and lack the integrity to admit you are wrong. LOL


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


This is, quite surprisinly, true - a state may very well have a power to require the population in general to purchase certain goods/services, whereas the federal government has none.  But, that's not a point you want to consider, and certainly doesnt counter what I said.



> How can you honestly argue that they are different and then try to claim that they are the same? I already asked you this once before but you ignored it. Imagine that.


You misst the point.  Willfully, I suppose.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Because you apparently failed to read this when originally posted:

An arrest, triail, conviction and imprisonment after the comission of a crime is enforcement. All of these are constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant.  The law, contrary to yourwillfully ignorant  claim,  does --not-- require felons to own guns.
> ...


One, as a matter of course, does not address the irrlevant.
What he said was not relevant to the point of contention.
If you had actually read the post, you;d see that.
:shrug:


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Kato said:
> 
> 
> > I support Gun ownership. I support background checks.
> ...



Care to explain how prior restraint which legally has to do with freedom of speech, the 1st amendment and how the government can't block the media from printing or broadcasting a story has anything to do with firearms adn background checks? Do you have any legal basis for claiming prior restraint?


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Militia Act of 1792
> ...


Ergo, the law in the OP is constitutional

as is the HRC's individual mandate


unless we accept that the Militia Act in unconstitutional and the people who wrote, signed, and ratified COTUS didn't even want to live under it- which raises the question of why the hell we should be expected to.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2011)

> Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
> 
> We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the   Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state   court. *The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the  state  subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing  to  submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is   unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the   inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in   such way as to him seems best;* and that the execution of such a law   against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is   nothing short of an assault upon his person. *But the liberty secured  by  the Constitution of the United States to every person within its   jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at   all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There  are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for  the common good.*  On any other basis organized society could not exist  with safety to  its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a  law unto  himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.  Real  liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle   which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own,   whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the   injury that may be done to others.* This court has more than once   recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are   subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the   general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state;* of the  perfect  right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or  upon  acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as  natural  persons are concerned.' _Hannibal & St. J. R. Co._ v. _Husen_, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; _Missouri, K. & T. R. Co._ v. _Haber_, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; _Thorpe_ v. _Rutland & B. R. Co._ 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In _Crowley_ v. _Christensen_, 137 U. S. 86,  89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said:* 'The possession  and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as  may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to  the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even  liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license  to act according to one's own will.* It is only freedom from restraint  under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by  others.* It is, then, liberty regulated by law.*





M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The fact that you need to stoop to your arrogant condescension just shows that you believe you can't argue solely on the facts. CON$ like to act like they are the only people smart enough to read. They are smarter than everyone else who doesn't agree with them. They know better than everyone else. 
BULLSHIT!
You can't even comprehend words that have been highlighted, enlarged and underlined!!!!

The SCOTUS was not deciding this case based on state constitutional law. It was decided on US Constitutional law!!!!!
In the ruling SCOTUS clearly said that the power to act for the common good belongs to the "controlling authority of the COUNTRY" not the STATE ONLY!!!!!

I have quoted the SCOTUS decision, you quote NOTHING, you just pontificate based on your being a CON$ervative know-it-all.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

8537 said:


> The federal government - the one run by our founders - mandated health insurance for private employees....well over 200 years ago.


When was this?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I know you are sorry, now apoliogize. LOL

I made my point you ignoring it won't make it go away. LOL


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Kato said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Militia Act of 1792
> ...



So COTUS is out of date and shouldn't govern us today? Or it should even though the people who write it didn't think  they should have to aide by it?

What _are_ you getting at, exactly


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



OK now where do I go to get my automatic firearm or my anti tank weapon?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Yawn is right I counterd that spin in a later post using a quote from content of the decision that you continue to ignore even as you make claims about the decision. 

Oh and BTW thank for proving my point that you are a cowardly hack who has to edit or omit parts of posts he doesn't wish to address in oprder to pretend that your poionts are valid. 



> No you did not but keep pretending that you did if that makes you feel better. LOL
> Fact is that your opinions have been responded to but as you did in my previous post you choose to delete the parts of a post that counter your spin as you dishonestly claim that no one addressed your claims.
> 
> For that matter you even edited this post. LOL Do you ever tire of exposing how cowardly and dishonest you truly are?? Let's see if you can respond to a post in it's entirety for a change. I doubt that you can or will because ignoring arguments that counter your opinions is the only way you can pretend to correct. LOL



that is my post in it's entirety to watch you turn tail and run makes this all the more entertaining. LOL


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Big Fizzzzzz... the one who said when the state executes an innocent person, it's not murder, because it's an 'execution'.

BTW, Fizzzzzzzzz, do you mean firing squads in communist nations, which is conservative?

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism






"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Combat Liberalism


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Arizona!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Kato said:
> ...


You don't think for yourself all that much, eh?

I said that it was a form of prior restraint.  
That is, it applies the concept created in regard to a particular fundamnetal right protected by the constitution to another fundamental right protected by the constitution.

You -do- understand the concept of prior restraint, yes?  
If so, then show how I am wrong in arguing that background checks are form of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


False dichotomy.
The MA1792 is related to a requirement placed on a specific set of people as a condition of service mandated by the state.  The government clearly thas the auhtority to regulate those in that service, including requiring that the people in question equp themselves.

This obviously differs from The Obama's HCI mandate in that the mandate covers everyone and is not pursuant to anything other than simply being a citizen - never mind that there is no clear authrority granted to the federal government to create the requirement in the first place.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 3, 2011)

Kato said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The Militia Act of 1792
> ...




Thanks for the news flash, Einstein.

I bet you're one of those people who think we should be more like Europe.

So let's be like Switzerland:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g]Switzerland[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


1)I'm pretty sure you know what _non sequitur_ means 

2)I imagine it's in the possession of the National Guard in your state, which is the regular state-level militia as it exists today. (Along with the Naval Militia, this constitutes the Organized Militia under current law) I know the NG in my state has tanks and APVs not far from where I live. I imagine they also have the armaments you speak of. With good reason, such weapons- while legal- are tightly regulated.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> The fact that you need to stoop to your arrogant condescension just shows that you believe you can't argue solely on the facts. CON$ like to act like they are the only people smart enough to read. They are smarter than everyone else who doesn't agree with them. They know better than everyone else.
> BULLSHIT!


Again, says the petulant child.



> You can't even comprehend words that have been highlighted, enlarged and underlined!!!!


Nothhing here negates what I said or the argument I laid out - your conclusion does not follow from the evidence you have presented, nor is your premise supported by the arguments you laid, for the reasons I stated.  

It doesn't matter what font you use to highlight those or any other words - this will always be true.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So we can only require white men to buy guns and health insurance?



> .  The governmen clearly thas the auhtority to regulate those in that service,



You didn't read it, did you?


> This obviously differs from The Obama's HCI mandate in that the mandate covers everyone and is not pursuant to anything other than simply being a citizen -


So we can only require white men to buy guns and health insurance?



> never mind that there is no clear authrority granted to the federal government to create the requirement in the first place.


Take it up with George Washington- it passed during his first term


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Yawn is right I counterd that spin in a later post using a quote from content of the decision that you continue to ignore even as you make claims about the decision.
> 
> Oh and BTW thank for proving my point that you are a cowardly hack who has to edit or omit parts of posts he doesn't wish to address in oprder to pretend that your poionts are valid.


:roll:
When you can address what I post with something resembling a substantive response, please let me know.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


I'm sorry -- your responses do not in any way menaingfully relate to what I said.
Please try again.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




there you go with that "blanket requirement" bs. In case you missed it the health care bill is not a blanket requirement due to the fact that if you have it you do not have to buy it. A "blanket requirement" would require all to buy it whether they already had it or not. 

BTW I am still waiting on a response to my question that I asked way back on page 17 of this thread. I know it wasn't to you directly but IF you had A response I am sure that you would have volunteered it so I am opeingthis question up to any and all.

Actually one of the comments made by the right was that it wasn't universal healthcare because it didn't require everyone to have it. *So can you site the part of the bill which states that every PERSON is required to have health insurance and that there are no exemptions??*


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Take the Air Force for an example. Nothing listed in the constitution about that and yet the right takes a broad interpretation of the constitution to a claim that is ok.
> ...



So where in the constitution does it specfically meantion "Air Force" after all we are talking about the specific wording of the document are we not?? Like I said you CHOOSE to take a broad interpretation when it suits you and you provided a perfect example.

Here is the rest of my post

It's only when they believe that it is to their benefit that they whine and cry about how a limited and narrow intepretation of the constitution is called for.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I did directly address your claim based on the fact that you have done nothing to substantiate your own argument. You claim that it's specifically about the state and yet you haven't provided anything to show that the decision was directed only at the state. you claiming it doesn;'t make it so. 
It was a dispute between the state and a citizen and the decision presented by the courts stated very clearly that their decision covers far more than just the state. 

Your continued dishonesty as you delete the quote from the decision out of my post shows that you know you have nothing valid to offer to counter it. 

Thanks for proving my point 



> But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.



deleting it won't change the fact that you are WRONG.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


Um..  I addressed this, with the clear language of the constitution.  See underlined.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


Ok.... you're simply being absurd for the sake of being absurd.  
I shant waste any more time on you.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

The air force is not an army. It;s the air force.

If 'army' meant every-damned-thing, the navy wouldn't be mentioned separately.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Your own contradiction of claiming that are the same but different counters your argument. LOL

See this is your problem. You believe that if you say it then it must be true. However that is NOT the case. You make a claim then you must provide proof to support it. Thus far all you do is make a claim and then pretend that you are correct. 

So if claiming they are the same in order to support the claim that if you support the HC mandate then you must support the gun mandate isn't the point then what is the point?? Please explain. I know being vague is your idea of making a valid argument but most posters prefer specifics. So do you have any or NOT??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I read that but that doesn't answer my question to you. How do you go about enforcing the restriction against felons owning firearms? Furthermore, how do you not consider that an enforcement issue?? 
Please, try answering the questions asked.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The sad thing is that is what you say to every argument that you can't counter. So instead of debating the facts you merely pretend that what other peolple post is irrelevant so you can ignore it and pretend that you weren't made to looke like a fool. You declaring it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. How about you try to show how it is irrelevant?

 So when are you going to come up with a meaningful response to all of the arguments that counter your spin?? Thus far all you have done is dismiss them and pretend that they don't matter because you have no meaningful response and lack the integrity to admit you are wrong. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> > Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
> >
> > We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the   Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state   court. *The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the  state  subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing  to  submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is   unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the   inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in   such way as to him seems best;* and that the execution of such a law   against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is   nothing short of an assault upon his person. *But the liberty secured  by  the Constitution of the United States to every person within its   jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at   all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There  are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for  the common good.*  On any other basis organized society could not exist  with safety to  its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a  law unto  himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.  Real  liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle   which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own,   whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the   injury that may be done to others.* This court has more than once   recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are   subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the   general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state;* of the  perfect  right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or  upon  acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as  natural  persons are concerned.' _Hannibal & St. J. R. Co._ v. _Husen_, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; _Missouri, K. & T. R. Co._ v. _Haber_, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; _Thorpe_ v. _Rutland & B. R. Co._ 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In _Crowley_ v. _Christensen_, 137 U. S. 86,  89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said:* 'The possession  and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as  may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to  the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even  liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license  to act according to one's own will.* It is only freedom from restraint  under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by  others.* It is, then, liberty regulated by law.*
> 
> ...



Exactly. He claims that you are wrong but fails to show how. Then he claims that anything counter to his opinions is irrelevant but can't explain how. In the end all he provides are baseless opinions as he avoids arguments that he can't address or counter.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> The air force is not an army. It;s the air force.


You must not have understood what I said.
Try reading it again.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



How does asking you to explain and give SPECIFICS supporting your OPINION, even as you continue to fail to do so, imply that I don't think for myself?? Oh wait this is just you acting childish and calling people names because you have nothing meaningful to offer. LOL 

Your entire OPINION based argument is based on your MISinterpretation as you try desperately to apply a standard specifically designed to apply to freedom of speech to "arms" and you actually believe that is a valid argument?? 

Furthermore, YOU made the argument and have as of yet failed to prove anything, other than how desperate you are, so the burden of proof is on YOU. However, nice cowardly attempt to flip it onto me as you ask me to prove you wrong. LOL 

Oh and where is your legal basis for claiming that prior restraint applies to "arms"? I already asked this once and you failed to provide ANYTHING. So do you have anything meaningful to offer or not??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You claim the HC bill covers everyone who is a citizen so please cite the portion of the bill that attains to the mandate and show how there are NO exemptions.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



Thats a pretty cool idea.

I bet if they did it S.D. would have the lowest crime and murder by gun rates in the country.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 3, 2011)

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com

That would of course be constitutional as well, right libs?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com
> 
> That would of course be constitutional as well, right libs?



This is constitutional if a state requires it

It is unconstitutional if the fed requires it.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do this therefore it becomes the domain of the state.  10th ammendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Same goes for health care.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you need to stoop to your arrogant condescension just shows that you believe you can't argue solely on the facts. CON$ like to act like they are the only people smart enough to read. They are smarter than everyone else who doesn't agree with them. They know better than everyone else.
> ...



Again you engage in name calling and ommission showing that you have nothing meaningful to offer. LOL Your point has not been proven by you and yet Ed and I have provided quotes from the actual decision that counter your baseless OPINION that it only applies to the state. You offer NOTHING in the face of the actual wording of the decision and still claim that you are correct. How sad is that. LOL 

Funny how you omit the wording of the decision that counters your spin AGAIN. LOL


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 3, 2011)

This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 3, 2011)

Mr. C doesn't grok the definition of analogy.

Just sayin'.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 3, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.



Why is it stupid?


----------



## boedicca (Feb 3, 2011)

A better question is "why is it an analogy"?


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 3, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > This has got to be one of the stupidest analogies yet.
> ...



Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com
> 
> That would of course be constitutional as well, right libs?



kooky

No the Fed can't make me by jack squat.

My state can.

If my state passed something like this, I'd be pissed.  I don't want a gun of any kind in my home.

I'd seriously have to consider moving.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 3, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Lets try again.   The constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase any product from health insurance to guns.  This power is solely vested in the states according to the 10th ammendment.  

So one more try why is it stupid?

EDIT:  My state is a great example of a state that legally and constitutionally has mandated its citizens buy health insurance.   This SD bill is another excellent example of a state mandating something that it feels the people of the state need/want.    Neither are unconstitutional unless it was the federal govt mandating it.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 3, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Has having health care ever kept your house from being robbed?


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 3, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...




How is owning a gun going to prevent my house from being robbed?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn is right I counterd that spin in a later post using a quote from content of the decision that you continue to ignore even as you make claims about the decision.
> ...



From the text of the decision.



> But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.




Funny thing is that I and others have been asking you to present something of substance for pages and you have continued to fail to do so. 

The only thing that you have offered is to claim that others are wrong even as you fail to show HOW they are wrong then pretend that no one has addressed your questions when they have been fully addressed even as you ignore questions from others. 

So in your own words so hopefully even you will be able to grasp it.

"When you can address what I post with something resembling a substantive response, please let me know."


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 3, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



My stoopud question was to make a point about yours.

you don't have to go bankrupt to pay your bills, EVERY hospital will take payments.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No you didn't address this. You AVOIDED answering the question that was asked becuase you have nothing meaningful to offer. Fact is that you presented an OPINON that as of this point is UNSUBSTANTIATED. You really need to learn the difference between YOUR opinon and the truth because they are not the same. You saying it doesn't make it so. 

So I ask again,

Where in the constitution does it specfically meantion "Air Force" after all we are talking about the specific wording of the document are we not?? Like I said you CHOOSE to take a broad interpretation when it suits you and you provided a perfect example.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



LOL says the coward running away from arguments that he can't counter with anything of substance. LOL 

You claim that it's specifically about the state and yet you haven't provided anything to show that the decision was directed only at the state. you claiming it doesn;'t make it so. 
It was a dispute between the state and a citizen and the decision presented by the courts stated very clearly that their decision covers far more than just the state. 

Your continued dishonesty as you delete the quote from the decision out of my post shows that you know you have nothing valid to offer to counter it. 

Thanks for proving my point 


Quote:
But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.
deleting it won't change the fact that you are WRONG.


----------



## Mr Natural (Feb 3, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...




And what do you suppose the payments on a procedure running into six figures would be?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> ...



Based on population and lack of density of said population they probably already do. 

So what point would that prove? LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com
> ...



Actually from what most people said at the beginning of this thread it depends upon the state's constitution. As far as guns are conscerned I don't see anything in the constitution that could remotely be interpreted to say that it would be constitutional to require the purchase of "arms". However, the fact that healthcare for the unisured has to be paid for somehow and we are paying for it now anyway I can't really say the same about hc. 

Now this is where we get into the debate about how when it suits the right they have a broad interpretation of the constitution and how they flip flop to a narrow view when an interpretation doesn't.


----------



## geauxtohell (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



Wouldn't this be unconstitutional along the same lines as the healthcare measure was just deemed unconstitutional?

If so, was this bill passed only to make a statement, and if so, do the lawmakers in SD have too much time on their hands?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...




Others more educated than you and I see it differently than your narrow interpretation. My guess is that you know that already which is why you choose such a narrow focus. LOL 

IF you actually believe your edit, it explains exactly why it is a stupid analogy. IF the state and fed powers are so different as your narrow view suggests it is in these two instances then to compare the state's mandate to the fed's mandate is a stupid analogy.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The air force is not an army. It;s the air force.
> ...


you evade a lot


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com
> 
> That would of course be constitutional as well, right libs?


I see you caught the late bus


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com
> ...




The guys who wrote, signed, and ratified COTUS disagree.

This was done-by the fed- during Washington's first term.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



So the Militia Act is unconstitutional? The guys who ratified COTUS disagree.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> ...



No, because in response to this question they will argue that it's ok for the states to pass such a requirement which makes the own a gun mandate completely different from the fed's HC mandate based on the 10th amendment. 

Then they will forget about this argument and argue that if the left believes that this own a gun mandate, which is completely different from the fed's HC mandate based on their own argument, is unconstitutional then the fed's HC mandate must also be unconstitutional.  
They fail to see the contradiction that they are creating. LOL 



> If so, was this bill passed only to make a statement, and if so, do the lawmakers in SD have too much time on their hands?




Yes, it was to make as a statement and i am guessing that yes they do have too much time on their hands. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 3, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Yes he does but now he is gone and another took his place as soon as he left. LOL Funny how that happens isn't it?


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

The Fed already passed a personal mandate for all white guys aged 18-45 to buy a gun and other materials... within a decade of the ratification of COTUS

It was perfectly constitutional in the eyes of the guys who wrote the Constitution. Unless you want to argue that even they didn't want to live under COTUS and so they threw it aside immediately...


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you need to stoop to your arrogant condescension just shows that you believe you can't argue solely on the facts. CON$ like to act like they are the only people smart enough to read. They are smarter than everyone else who doesn't agree with them. They know better than everyone else.
> ...


I'm sorry -- your responses do not in any way meaningfully relate to what I said.
Please try again.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 3, 2011)

Search tags for this page*powered by vbulletin gun case*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2011)

8537 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Are you just making things up in an attempt to look intelligent?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yet, when I asked you about mandated vaccinations you jumped straight to them being required to travel outside the US.

Keep trying.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com
> ...


The US Constitution - does- give the Federal government this power in that it has the authority to...



> ...*provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress



Requiring members of the militia to provide their own primary weapon easily falls within the powers provided by the Constitution.



> Same goes for health care.


Given that there is no such similar power regarding health care, especially one that ceates a blanket requirement of the citizenry in general, one not dependant on any condition or service on or for the state,  you are right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> ...


That depends on the powers granted to the state of SD by its constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


You refuse to provide meaningful responses to my posts.
The post you responded to addressed your response in its entirety. 
;shrug:


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I accept your concession of the points under contention.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> *I'm sorry -- your responses do not in any way menaingfully relate to what I said.
> Please try again.*





M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Hey dumbass, I merely quoted one of YOUR typical non-answers. 
Thank you for admitting that each time you say the same thing YOU are conceding all points in the post!!!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > *I'm sorry -- your responses do not in any way menaingfully relate to what I said.
> ...


Yes.  
Except in YOUR case, your mindless imitation simply illustrates your inability to effectively counter what has been put to you.  This is why I accepted your concesion, and shall continue to do so.

The case you cited does not support the claim you made, as I have demonstrated, and as you have refused to even try to effectively counter.
Nothing you can do will ever change that.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 4, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -23 reputation points from M14 Shooter.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


Reading comprehension's not your forte', is it?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I accept your concession of the points under contention.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Sigh.  You have wasted enough of my time.


----------



## Kato (Feb 6, 2011)

Militia Act of 1903From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search 
The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the SpanishAmerican War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military.

U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia[1], sponsored the 1903 Act towards the end of the 57th U.S. Congress. Under this legislation, passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

The increase in Federal funding was an important development. In 1808 Congress had allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia; by 1887, the figure had risen to only $400,000. But in 1906, three years after the passage of the Dick Act, $2,000,000 was allocated to arm the militia; between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53,000,000 on the Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years.

With the increase in Federal funding came an increase in paperwork and bureaucracy. Before the passage of the Dick Act, militia affairs had been handled by the various bureaus of the War Department, as the subject dictated. But the 1903 act authorized, for the first time, the creation of a separate section responsible for National Guard affairs. Located in the Miscellaneous Division of the Adjutant General's office, this small section, headed by Major James Parker, Cavalry, with four clerks, was the predecessor of today's National Guard Bureau.

This section remained under the supervision of the Adjutant General's Office until War Department Orders on February 12, 1908 created the Division of Militia Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of War. The act also provided for "necessary clerical and official expense of the Division of Militia Affairs." Lieutenant Colonel Erasmus M. Weaver, Coast Artillery Corps, assumed duties as the division's first Chief. An increasing volume of business meant more personnel, and the four clerks had by this time increased to 15.

The Division remained a part of the Office of the Secretary of War until July 25, 1910 when the Chief was directed to report directly to the Army Chief of Staff. The Division continued to perform under the direct jurisdiction of the Chief of Staff until the passage of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916. Then the Division of Militia Affairs became the Militia Bureau of the War Department, under the direct supervision of the Secretary of War.
Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Tom Clancy (Feb 6, 2011)

Anything that says "Would Require" and is in a bill such as this is stupid.. 

I don't think it's right that people are forced to buy guns even if they wish not too.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 7, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



The same way having health "care"  (I think you meant insurance not care) can help you from going bankrupt...its a personal protection.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 7, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



So why is it stupid anyway?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 7, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



And this is different from what I said how?

Can you elaborate more?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 7, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



My state's constitution allows for the mandating of healthcare.  The federal government is not granted this authority by the constitution (see 10th ammendment if you dind't already) therefore it is the domain of the states.  

If your state's constitution says your state can not mandate health insurance then your state doesn't mandate it.

You seem to throw the words stupid and narrow around a lot while your flailing about tyring to discredit what I said.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 7, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



The Militia Act of 1792

The militia act does not mandate any purchases from private companies.

Please explain what your point is and what part of the militia act makes that point for you.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 7, 2011)

Tom Clancy said:


> Anything that says "Would Require" and is in a bill such as this is stupid..
> 
> I don't think it's right that people are forced to buy guns even if they wish not too.



I totally agree and feel the same way about health insurance or anything else....its not the govt's business to do this.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 7, 2011)

Tom Clancy said:


> Anything that says "Would Require" and is in a bill such as this is stupid..
> 
> I don't think it's right that people are forced to buy guns even if they wish not too.



I agree but it's also not right to make them buy anything they do not want to buy. Such as healthcare


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 7, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



LOL now that is hilarious. I wonder how will take his own statements being used against him? My guess is that he will make some lame hypocritical excuse that it's ok for him to do it but wrong for you to do it. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



WOW you really have a duplicity in how you broadly interpret the parts that suit your predisposed positions to do so even as you have a narrow interpretation for those that differ from your predisposed positions. 

Where did you get the argument of "requiring militia to provide their own primary weapons falls within the powers provided by the constitution" becuase it isn't in the part that you cited. According to your own excerpt the congress should PROVIDE for the ARMING of militias. There is nothing in there about requiring people to purchase their own weapons. So where did you pull that from?? 

Then showing your duplicity once again, you choose a narrow interpretation where health care is concerned. LOL We have already been over how it is NOT a blanket requirement and how it is of use to the state so why do pretend that it hasn't been pointed out to you?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 7, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Not really the same. If you have health insurance then you are covered if you need healthcare (within the limits of your plan of course) which can "help you from going bankrupt." Merely having a gun in your house does nothing to prevent it from being robbed. 
They are two completely difference issues that can't be compared realistically.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 7, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



uh it's actually VERY different because merely stating "the tenth amendment" does nothing to address whether said action is even legal according to the states actual constitution. Just because a state representative decides to pass a law it doesn;t make it constitutional IF it is in violation of their own state constitution. That is what others said earlier and that was my only point.  



> Can you elaborate more?



Why, so you can cherry pick and ignore parts of my post as you did above as you ask me ridiculous questions that have obvious answers that even you should be able to answer on your own IF you were actually interested getting an answer??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 7, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



It's funny how in this instance you understand there is a difference between state constitutions and yet in the previous post you pretended NOT to as you asked me how what i said was any different that you repeating the phrase "the 10th amendment" when I was talking about the differences. LOL 

Furthermore, I merely answered *YOUR* question as to why it was "stupid" and instead of addressing the answer to *YOUR* question you took the low road and decided to try and make this about me. That attempt at avoidance shows that you know it was indeed a "stupid analogy." 
_
IF you actually believe your edit, it explains exactly why it is a stupid analogy. IF the state and fed powers are so different as your narrow view suggests it is in these two instances then to compare the state's mandate to the fed's mandate is a stupid analogy_

Try not to trip over yourself as you avoid it this time. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 7, 2011)

I asked this pages ago and still haven't got a response. Since the right claimed with in thsi thread that every PERSON is required to have insurance and that there are NO exemptions or exceptions could one of you please cite the part of the bill that states this is the case??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 7, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Just curious, but where exactly do you think they were suppose to get all of the things that they were required to "furnish themselves" or aquire "at their expense" in section IV from your own link?



> IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall *furnish themselves *with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to *furnish himself *with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, *to be furnished at their expense*, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 7, 2011)

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun


Why would eveyone in SD do what this guy Bill tells them to anyway?

Bill O'Reilley?


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 7, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



*Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.


If he's not to buy if from the private sector, is he to buy it from the government?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 7, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Technically true - it did not mandate that you -buy- the weapons and equipment it required, only that you so equip yourself.   You could have, I suppose, made a musket, bayonette, black powder, etc, and equipped yourself with it.

But, for most people so ordered, this wasn't a possibility, and so the relevant equipment had to be purchased.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 7, 2011)

So all we need to do is change the language so you can buy health insurance from your neighbor so long as he is a billionaire and can offer the services?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 7, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> So all we need to do is change the language so you can buy health insurance from your neighbor so long as he is a billionaire and can offer the services?


You continued non-sequitur/strawman posts only serve to indicate that you have no real desire to have an honest conversation.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 7, 2011)

You're the one evading the fact that there's a 200-year-old precedent from the FF for requiring private citizens to buy things they don't want to buy in the name of the good of the society as a whole.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 7, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> You're the one evading the fact that there's a 200-year-old precedent from the FF for requiring private citizens to buy things they don't want to buy in the name of the good of the society as a whole.


I have dealt with this at least three times in this thread.

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

The Obama's HCI mandate...  is none of those things.

The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 7, 2011)

> The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in  relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by  congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by  the Constitution.


Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, *you have no choice*

It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase *whether they want anything to do with it or not*

Now... where is that in the constitution? There are two possibilities:
-The mandate is constitutional... somehow- as the FF clearly believed

-The constitution doesn't give the federal government this authority, and the Militia Act is unconstitutional- meaning the FF who wrote, argued for, and ratified it didn't even want to live under the constitution


----------



## Care4all (Feb 7, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in  relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by  congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by  the Constitution.
> 
> 
> Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, *you have no choice*
> ...



I think you have a fairly strong argument on this JB...  I was unaware of the Militia Act and what it said, but it seems to me, that it does set precedence with the federal government mandating citizens purchase something....

yes, M14 has an argument of this mandate being for something, the Defense of our country, which is in the Constitution, but it is a mandate for citizens to buy things from private retailers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 7, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in  relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by  congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by  the Constitution.
> 
> 
> Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, *you have no choice*


So?   You are serving in the militia.  That's service to the government.  
The requirement is a condition related to that service, pursuant to an enumerated power of Congress.

The Obana's HCI mandate, a blanket condition imposed upon everyone, related to nothing other than their simple citizenship, and not pursuant to any enumerated power granted by the Constitution, is not anything like the same thing.

As I said:
The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent. 



> Now... where is that in the constitution?


The Power of Congress to provide for the organization, arming and discipline of the militia?
Have you read the constitution?



> There are two possibilities:


False Dichotomy - there are many possibilities other than yours.

Fact is, because of the difference described above, the fact that Congress can mandate that certain people need to buy a weapon in no way supports the idea that Congress can mandate that everyone buy health insurance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 7, 2011)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in  relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by  congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by  the Constitution.
> ...



Actually the Floirida Judge that ruled obama care unconstitutional has more knownledge. But if thats how you want to go. The militia act  was due to the second amendment. M14 Shooter has it just about right.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 7, 2011)

Well, our government IS trying to use the commerce clause, I believe, in defense of this.....

Our government CAN mandate that we purchase something, but it has been at the State level as of late, and NOT the Federal level...ie Health Insurance in Massachusetts, automobile insurance....


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



LOL Thanks for conceding the point that most people had to purchase the relevant equipment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Well, our government IS trying to use the commerce clause, I believe, in defense of this.....
> 
> Our government CAN mandate that we purchase something, but it has been at the State level as of late, and NOT the Federal level...


That's not true - the MA1792 is a prime example.  The Federal government absolutealy has the power to require members of the miltia to purchase their own equipment.

Another example is the federal requirement that cargo handling companies - even those that don't actually physically touch the freight - can be forced to purchase cargo liability insurance. 

As noted several times, however, the particulars of these requirements preclude them from supporting the idea that the federal government can create a blanket requirement of everyone to buy health insurance.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one evading the fact that there's a 200-year-old precedent from the FF for requiring private citizens to buy things they don't want to buy in the name of the good of the society as a whole.
> ...



This wasn't a volunteer force. According to the act it was a draft.



> I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.



They were given NO choice and were forced to buy something whether they wanted it or not. 

Furthermore, your false claim of "dealing with this" does nothing to address or counter what has been said. It was a requirement which required the purchase of the relevent equipment your ridiculous attempts to claim that it doesn't matter because it was limited to those who were forced to serve does nothing to counter the fact that it was still a forced purchase. 

None of your spin or non-sequitur/strawman posts will change that FACT.


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 8, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Did anyone even bother to read the article?  You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly, I really don't think we should mandate anyone to buy anything including health insurance.  However, I do not believe we should deny anyone the right to buy health insurance either.  Back to the main point.  If you choose not to buy auto insurance, you cannot legally drive.  If you do, you can be fined or imprisoned.  It is your choice.  

Now let's look at health insurance.  I understand why we should not force anyone to buy something they don't want or feel they don't need.  My problem is with the fact that we force healthcare providers to treat people who cannot pay and who do not have insurance.  If everyone had the option to purchase health insurance, for those who can afford it, then if they choose not to, they should not be treated unless they can pay.  So if you choose not to purchase health insurance and you get cancer, then they send you home to die.  It's really quite simple.  Why is it I don't hear those who oppose being forced to purchase health insurance screaming about the fact that providers must treat people who don't have insurance?  I would think they would agree that it is unconstitutional to force a private provider to provide a service to someone who can't pay.  If I can't pay for a new car, GM isn't forced to give me one anyway.  If I don't have any money, McDonald's doesn't have to give me a free meal anyway.  If I don't pay my electric bill, the electric company isn't forced to keep providing me with electricity.  If I don't pay my rent or mortgage, I don't have a right to stay in my home.  So why should a medical provide be forced into providing services to someone who can't pay?  If someone has the choice of purchasing health insurance and chooses not to, then why should a hospital or any other provider be forced to treat the person if they become ill?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Why is it I don't hear those who oppose being forced to purchase health insurance screaming about the fact that providers must treat people who don't have insurance?


I -fully- support this - no one should be forced to provide goods and services of any kind to those that cannot pay for it, directly or indirectly.  You should be free to choose to do so, but then you do so with the understanding that you may not receive any sort of compenation.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in  relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by  congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by  the Constitution.
> ...



Your continued need to take things out of context out depseration to make a point when you have no valid points only serves to expose your own dishonesty.

The question 


> Now... where is that in the constitution?



was preceded by this statement



> It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase whether they want anything to do with it or not




which you excluded so you could respond the the question asked out of context and give a response that was not an answer to the question that was actually asked.

So can you actually answer the question as asked or is this just another one of your many broad interpretations where you create something out of thin air and try to claim that it's there when it's NOT? 

Furthermore, your "difference" shows nothing other than you have no clue as to what you aree talking about. LOL YOU making the unsubstantiated claim that one is justified based on YOUR broad interpretation while claiming the other is not justified based on YOUR narrow interpretation is proof of only how desperate you are to spin this because you have nothing meaningful to offer. 

BTW still waiting on you to show PROOF that no one can be exempt from the health insurance mandate. You continue to make that claim but as of yet have failed to prove it. How typical. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



WOW the conservative appointed florida judge has more knoweldge?? LOL What is his backgraound?? Do you know anything about him other than the fact that you rulled with the party that gave him his job??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Well, our government IS trying to use the commerce clause, I believe, in defense of this.....
> ...



LOL got to love the spin from m14. LOL 
Your OPINION is NOT fact. You merely making a claim that your OPINIONS on how you BELEIVE other similar instances do not apply is nothing but YOUR own unsubstantiated OPINION. 
Furthermore, Your repetition of the same unsubstantiated opinions and claiming that "as noted several times" does NOTHING validate said unsubstantiated OPINIONS.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in  relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by  congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by  the Constitution.
> ...




To argue that the individual mandate to purchase any given good is covered by 'provide for the common defense' is a stretch. And the same stretch can be made using 'and general Welfare'.

I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell, slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong, regardless of what the Constitution says.

I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds- I don't give a damn what the constitution or the supreme court has to say about it.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > It says that if you're a white male, *you have no choice*
> ...


wow... just wow...


> You are serving in the militia.  That's service to the government.
> 
> The requirement is a condition related to that service, pursuant to an enumerated power of Congress.


Then the  requirement to buy insurance is also now a part of that same service- to ensure the unorganized militias are fit to serve their country when called upon.

There you have it- it's still constitutional pursuant to the enumerated powers of congress.





> The Obana's HCI mandate, a blanket condition imposed upon everyone,


So it's wrong because blacks are covered?





> related to nothing other than their simple citizenship


As opposed to citizenship and skin colour





> The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent.


No, it's not. What's evident is your programming.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Actually the Floirida Judge that ruled obama care unconstitutional has more knownledge.


than a dozen other judges?


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it I don't hear those who oppose being forced to purchase health insurance screaming about the fact that providers must treat people who don't have insurance?
> ...


your view on good Samaritan laws and the death of kitty genovese?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Its not MY fault you failed to illustrate the enormity, say nothing of the relevance, of your statement.



> Then the  requirement to buy insurance is also now a part of that same service- to ensure the unorganized militias are fit to serve their country when called upon.
> There you have it- it's still constitutional pursuant to the enumerated powers of congress.


If that were the -actual- requirement, you might have something. 
Its not, so you don't.  The HCI mandate is blanketed across the entire population, without regard to any relationship to the militia, or service therein, required because of nothng other than simple citizenship.



> So it's wrong because blacks are covered?


There you go - more ass-in-headery.



> No, it's not. What's evident is your programming.


And moreso, your inability to coherently argue a point.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

Do you even know what the militia is?

Hint: follow my earlier links


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

So if only 'all able-bodied males at least 17 years     of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years     of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the     United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National     Guard. ' had to buy health insurance, we'd be all good?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


What about them?
Good Samaitan laws protect people from liability if they help out in an emergency and something goes wrong.  Thus, while a perfectly good idea, these aren't relevant to what I said.

Kitty Genovese?  While unfortunate, it is also irrelevant to what I said.

Why don't at least -try- to address what I said?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Do you even know what the militia is?


Yes.  Among other things, it is meaningless to the issue, as the HCI mandate isn't associated with it in any way shape or form.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

I just find it funny that the right wingers in this thread have shifted from "any fed mandate is wrong" to "the HC mandate is wrong but these other fed mandates are exceptions" LOL I am paraphrasing of course but it is funny how they have shifted as their argument changed out of desperation to try and spin to avoid or ignore facts that countered their position. LOL


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



After Kitty died, it was made a law that you must contact police if you witness such a crime taking place.

Laws requiring the treating of uninsured patients are based on the same premise: mandating moral/ethical behavior and doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even know what the militia is?
> ...





JBeukema said:


> So if only 'all able-bodied males at least 17 years     of age and, except as provided in section 313  of title 32, under 45 years     of age who are, or who have made a  declaration of intention to become, citizens of the     United States  and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the  National     Guard. ' had to buy health insurance, we'd be all good?





you're evading again


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even know what the militia is?
> ...



Well of course you would say that it is meaningless especially considering the fact that claiming something is meaningless is what you do to all arguments that you can't counter and wish to avoid. 
However, in the debate about a fed mandate and whether it is constitutional or not previous fed mandates are pertinent to the discussion.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell, slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong, regardless of what the Constitution says.
> 
> I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds- I don't give a damn what the constitution or the supreme court has to say about it.



.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


I'm sorry - when did we start legislating morality?
How does someone's version of morality create an argument powerful enough to force people to provide goods and services w/o any hope of compensation?
Isn't that, in an of itself, immoral?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Answering your question and then pointing out that someting is irrelevant to something I said isn't evading, it's addressing thr question and then refusing to follow a red herring.



JBeukema said:


> So if only 'all able-bodied males at least 17 years     of age and, except as provided in section.... of title 32, under 45 years     of age who are, or who have made a  declaration of intention to become, citizens of the     United States  and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the  National Guard.' had to buy health insurance, we'd be all good?


The specific power is:


> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...


The requirement of the militiaman to equip himself falls clearly under 'organizing' and 'arming' the  militia.  
I'm not sure you could make an argument that requiring the memebers of the militia to also purchase HCI falls under 'organizing', 'arming' or 'disciplining', but if you want to give it a shot, I'll let you.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



More broad brush interpretation from the hack who says there shouldn't be any broad interpretation to the constitution even as he make shite up and pulls his interpretations out of thin air. LOL 

According to your own excerpt congress shall arm and organize them. It doesn't say anything about having them organize and arm themselves at their own expense. So why do you pretend that it does??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 8, 2011)

It's hilarious how m14 goes into the SPECIFIC powers of congress and then proceeds to present an unsubstantiated interpretation about what he believes falls clearly under the powers of congress even though it is NOT SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the powers of congress. LOL


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sorry - when did we start legislating morality?



About the time we made rape, theft, and murder illegal

Then, of course, there are mandatory reporting laws


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.


> I'm not sure you could make an argument that requiring the memebers of the militia to also purchase HCI falls under 'organizing', 'arming' or 'disciplining', but if you want to give it a shot, I'll let you.



A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight. This includes physical health and fitness. Hence many of the drills. By extension, this means requiring members of the militia to take certain measures to ensure they remain able-bodied. Enrollment in approved medical coverage therefore is next to participation in military drills and training.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Because he can't address the actual matter at hand


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell, slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong, regardless of what the Constitution says.
> ...


Funny how M14 and the others never touch this one


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry - when did we start legislating morality?
> ...


Those things aren't illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they are acts that violate the rights of the victim.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...









So... is it immoral to violate someone's rights? Or is it illegal to violate their rights because it's a good thing?


If you weren't an idiot, you'd have argued the line of social contract and not wanting to be harmed regardless of any ultimate moral question. Staking your argument in the rhetoric of 'rights' firmly plants it within the moral realm. Especially when you have to tell us where those rights come from.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.


Yes, it would.  But, the requirement that he arms himself does the same thing.

The power may be exercised as Congres deems necessary and proper; if Congress decides the necessary and proper method for arming the militia is that the militiamen provide their own basic weapon and equipment - which is the historical among militia -  then that's what happens.  Nothing about the power necessitates that the only way it can be exercised is for Congress to provide the weapons



> > I'm not sure you could make an argument that requiring the memebers of the militia to also purchase HCI falls under 'organizing', 'arming' or 'disciplining', but if you want to give it a shot, I'll let you.
> 
> 
> A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight...
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


I said what I said in plain English.
If you do not understand what I said - and given your response, that's a good bet - its because you either can not, or you choose not.
I'm on the fence with that one.

In either case, what I said is absolutely correct.  Those acts are illegal not because they are immoral, but because they violste the rights of the victims.  Governments are set forth by man to protect the rights to right, liberty and property, not impose some version of morality upon its people.



> If you weren't an idiot...


If you were an idiot, your discussion skills would be significantly improved.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.
> ...


The requirement that you get yourself health insurance provides for the general welfare.


> The power may be exercised as Congres deems necessary and proper


ditto





> > A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight...
> >
> >
> > > Aside from the fact that this is not what "well-regulated" means
> > ...


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

You know... if you had any principles, you wouldn't be relying on how  you can spin the words of men who died 200 years ago to determine  whether any given piece of legislation is right or wrong.




JBeukema said:


> I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell,  slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong,  regardless of what the Constitution says.
> 
> I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds- I don't give a damn what  the constitution or the supreme court has to say about it.


 

You would defend slavery because it was 'constitutional' and oppose abolition because it was 'unconstitutional'

Do you have any real values at all?


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




You're dodging again. Answer the question.

Is it immoral to violate someone's rights? Or is it illegal to violate their rights because it's a good thing?


> In either case, what I said is absolutely correct.


You've said absolutely nothing.





> Those acts are illegal not because they are immoral


So violating someone's rights isn't immoral?





> , but because they violste the rights of the victims.



And that's a bad thing... why?


Have you ever actually thought about anything you've been taught to think?


> Governments are set forth by man to protect the rights to right, liberty and property​




 We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​
Nope, the rhetoric you're thinking of isn't in that mission statement. 


Systems of government arise through the social contract as a means of enforcing ethics and societal norms, arranging for mutual defense, and otherwise organizing our collective efforts and actions.





> , not impose some version of morality upon its people



Except you just said the opposite- that it's tasked with 'protecting rights'- a concept deeply rooted in moral philosophy. Indeed, the very concept of 'rights' that you allude to is a matter of morality- these 'rights' are imagined to exist ['given' by some deity or another, even if this is thinly veiled] and it is considered 'wrong' [read:immoral] to 'violate' or 'infringe' them. 

The Liberals whose rhetoric you parrot always made it clear which god they thought these rights came from,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Article I Sec 8:1 gives Congress the power to raise revenue and spend it, and nothing else.
If the theory you're trying to put forth here were sound, there's be no need for any of the 16 clauses that follow it.  That it was necessary to include those clauses, so that Congress could provide for the common defense and the general welfare, necessarily indicates that your theory is unsound.

In other words:  Your response here is meaningless.



> A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight...


This doesnt address what was put to you.  

We're discussing the power to arm, organize and disciplibe the militia. 
You're arging that by extension, this means requiring members of the militia to take certain measures to ensure they remain able-bodied

I asked you, and you failed to answer:
Where does that fall in the powers granted to Congress in regards to the militia?
Arming? How so?
Organizing? How so?
Disciplining? Hoe so?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Your question does not follow from anything I said, and as such is a red herring.
Any immoralty attached to the violation of someone's right is subjective and incidental.



> You've said absolutely nothing.


You're simply in denial, knowing that you (again) cannot effectively address what's been put to you.



> So violating someone's rights isn't immoral?


Again:
Any immoralty attached to the violation of someone's right is subjective and incidental.



> And that's a bad thing... why?


There's no moral judgement involved.
Government was instituted to protect the rights of its people.  It does this, in part, by oiutlawing actions that violate those rights.  Morality isnt involved. 



> Have you ever actually thought about anything you've been taught to think?


Obviously far more so than you, given that you have yet to do anything but offer straw men, non-sequitur and ad hom in response to completely valid points.



> Governments are set forth by man to protect the rights to right, liberty and property


Yes.  The -actual- quote goes:


> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


See, I didnt make this up - its a bedrock principle of our form of government.
Why do you think governments are instituted among men in order to force upon those men some subjective version of morality?



> Except you just said the opposite- that it's tasked with 'protecting rights'- a concept deeply rooted in moral philosophy.


On the contrary - there's nothnig moral or immoral about the violation OR protection of rights, and the protection of those rights is not based on the idea that it is moral or immoral to violate them.  The rights exist; each man has the right to protect those rights the the best he can.  To better do this, man instituted government, which then, to at least some degree, does for each individual what that individual would otherwise have to do for himself.   Government is, at its basic level, is a societal outsourcing of the right to self-defense.

Your notion that there -must- be some form of morality attached to the individual or collective presevation of rights, or the existence of the rights in and of themselves is unsupportable.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> You know... if you had any principles, you wouldn't be relying on how  you can spin the words of men who died 200 years ago to determine  whether any given piece of legislation is right or wrong.


You know... if you just want to discuss your own pwersonal version of morality, I'm not interested.  Your version of right and wrong, a subjective statement of personal values, means nothing to anyone but you, and as such, does not form the basis of a sound argument.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 9, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



And merely having health insurance doesn't guarantee an illness won't make you go bankrupt.

The part of the two issues we are talking about...the mandating of a purchase of a product from a private company....are very similar and can easliy be compared as long as you haven't lost your common sense.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 9, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I understood it in both posts and my question still stands.  I'm not avoiding anything you are totally spinning it all.  

The mandates are comparable....both the state law and federal law are mandating that people must purchase a product from a private company which I find to be wrong.

My difference between the 2 stems from the 10th......the state can mandate the gun purchase and health insurance purchase (hence me bringing up my own state's law on it)while the federal government can not mandate health insurance or gun purchases.

Why are you trying to avoid the basic truths and spin it so that for some reason its ok that the feds violate the US constitution?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 9, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



The distinction between the state and fed is of course important and is what the left is using as an excuse to say the two aren't comparable. So why don't we just cut to the chase libs;

IF the _federal_ government were to mandate that everyone must buy a firearm, would you argue that is constitutional as well?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



And back to page 1


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 9, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



And yet I haven't found a simple yes or no.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 9, 2011)

> Quote:
> So  violating someone's rights isn't immoral?
> 
> 
> ...



Law was granted a divorce from morality in the 1910's.  Thanks to the Wilson era Supreme Court and legal thinkers of the day.  Congrats.  Another fruit of socialism/collectivist theory.



> Your notion that there -must- be some form of morality attached to the  individual or collective presevation of rights, or the existence of the  rights in and of themselves is unsupportable.



It's funny really.   I would like to know WHO'S morality will be shoved on people?  The morality that demands abortion be made illegal?  The one that claims a man has no individual property and does not have a right to what he works for and earns?  The one that wishes to normalize homosexuality?  The one that views man as having no rights save what the government grants him?

Who's Morality is it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Simple:  Yes


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > Quote:
> > So  violating someone's rights isn't immoral?
> >
> >
> ...


That is, of course, the point - everyone's is different, both in terms of the source and the specifics.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 9, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.
> ...



Once again the broad brush is applied because he believes it should be. However, look at healthcare and the provide for the general welfare under the powers of congress and tell me how it's unconstitutional for the congress to exercise their power to provide for the general welfare as they deem necessary and proper. 

You just countered your own argument by admitting that it's up to congress to determine HOW they should exert their enumerated powers therefore they can provide for the general welfare through providing healthcare and setting the conditions on how they wish it to be done including a mandate. Thanks for countering your own spin.



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for *the common Defence *and general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States



Opps I guess you missed that part. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 9, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Oops looks like m14 got it WRONG again.

Here is the article 1 section 8 clause 1



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;* but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



Notice how it says "*AND* provide for the commone defense *AND* general welfare"??  

the initial AND in question means that they have the power to raise revenue to pay the debts AND provide for the common defense AND general welfare. 

Is english your second language??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 9, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



No but your comment wasn't that it would guarantee you won't go bankrupt but your attempt to change the argument shows that you know you were WRONG. 
Your comment was that health insurance can *HELP* you from going bankrupt not guarantee it won't happen. 



> The same way having health "care"  (I think you meant insurance not care) can help you from going bankrupt



So why did you try to change your argument from help to guarantee?? 

Furthermore, due to the fact that a state's mandate is completely different from a fed mandate which was an argument presented by the righties here, NO they cannot be realistically compared. 
Now if you choose to ignore the fact that they are different as you try to argue that they are the same in an attempt to make a point based on the fiction that they are the same then that is NOT reality.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 9, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



LOL the only way your questions till stands is IF you ignore the actual content of my posts which you did. 

Yes both state and federal law are mandating that people must purchase something but the problem that you are running into is that according to you and your fellow righties the state doing it is ok based on the 10th amendment but that the fed's is not based on whatever new argument you have dreamed up at the time asked. Therefore based on that fact that the right has argued that they are different then you can't honestly claim that you have to approve of both of them if you approve of one.

Based on that logic all of the righties arguing that the state's mandate is ok must therefore believe that the fed's mandate is ok. 

How can you claim that I am ignoring the differences (basic truths) when my argument is focused on them and how you choose to ignore them as YOU argue that they are different but the same based on ONE singular similarity as you ignore the rest of the WHOLE that is not the same. That is not realistic. Even you should realize that.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



In case YOU missed it, that is actually the argument presented by the right. They were the ones claiming that a state's mandate was different from a fed mandate even as they tried to argue that they are the same so they could pretend that if you disagree with the state mandate then you must also disagree with the fed mandate. Their argument backfired and pilgrim's lame attempts at spin are all that is really left of them.

How can you HONESTLY argue that they different and the same in one breath?? YOU CAN'T.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 9, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Pretending that you being called out for being wrong never happened won't make it go away. LOL So why no response pilgrim??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 9, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Pretending that you being called out for being wrong never happened won't make it go away. LOL So, why no response pilgrim?? Wouldn't an honest person admit their mistakes instead of avoiding it in the hopes that it will just go away??


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 9, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


So spending money to arm the militia would be fine. Got it. Now, about that personal mandate...




> This doesnt address what was put to you.


You're like a broken record- every time you have no rebuttal, you play stupid.

I already answered your idiotic questions.

I also said I don't need 200-year-old corpses to tell me whether this bill is good or not.

Constitutional or not, slavery is wrong. If you had any principles at all, you'd stop trying to spin the constitution to say what you want it to and make a stand on principle.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 9, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




You don't even know what a red herring is, as you just made clear.

Also, it follows from your claim that it is illegal to kill because it 'violates your rights'- something you've failed to prove.

You insist that laws aren't grounded in morality, then you make a moral argument for the laws. And you don't even realize what you're saying when you parrot the same tired Liberal rhetoric.

You should avoid matters of moral and legal philosophy until you have some understanding of the subjects.




> Any immoralty attached to the violation of someone's right is subjective and incidental.



1)Demonstrate that these 'rights' exist
2)Demonstrate that their existence makes their violation illegal
3)If violating them isn't wrong, by what reasoning does it follow that it is/should be illegal to violate them


> Government was instituted to protect the rights of its people



Demonstrate. 

For the record, governments existed before the Liberal philosophy you're parroting came about.

Also, your 'explanation' makes China, Cambodia, and numerous governments, past and present, impossible by definition. hence you7r claims are demonstrably false.

For the record, the DoI is not a legal document. CoutsOTUS us the supreme law of the land and it's statement of purpose doesn't contain the quote you want it to. It says:
_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. _

​


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...





JBeukema said:


> I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell,  slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong,  regardless of what the Constitution says.
> 
> I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds- I don't give a damn what  the constitution or the supreme court has to say about it.



.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 9, 2011)

Maybe you can start an insurance company and furnish yourself with life insurance?  Also, you can start a gun company and furnish yourself a musket, become a leathersmith and furnish yourself with, become a blacksmith and furnish yourself with a bayonette, become breeder and furnish yourself with a horse...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


The power for that's been cited.  Pay attemtion.


> You're like a broken record- every time you have no rebuttal, you play stupid.


When a response does not address what somone says, as is the case, with mot of yours, there's no need to address that response in any way.
The points you refuse to respond to still stand.
:shrug:


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Sigh.  
I have wasted enough time on you.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


You can't have it both ways. You want it to mean two mutually exclusive things at once.



> The points you refuse to respond to still stand.
> :shrug:








Are you dense? You already refuted all your own 'points'


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Claiming that the enumerated powers of congress support your opinion even though they do not specfiically do so does nothing to further your argument and only continues to show how dishonest you are.  

Furthermore, YOU claiming that what others say does not adress wjhat you ahve said is merely a lame avoidance tactic by you so you can pretend that your cowardice as you run away from their comments is justified when it is NOT. 

Yor points that you claim still stand have been responded to and countered you just aren't smart enough to realize it. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 10, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Posters like m14 lost this argument the moment they conceded that the fed has the right to impose mandates, as the fed has done in the past in the example given, which counters the previous argument that the fed can't mandate that you purchase anything. 

They lost this debate and even they know it but they stand there like spoiled children sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending that they don't hear you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 10, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I see.  If one mandate is imposed all mandates are valid even when contrary to the constitution.

Gotcha.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 10, 2011)

I know Most of you will simply call me crazy but take Israel for an example. If you ignore all the violence related to the Struggle between Israel and the Palestinians. You are left with a very Violence free country. Rape, murder, Armed robbery and Muggings are almost non existent. 

Why?

Because every head of house hold is issued an assualt rifle, and people often openly Carry weapons on the streets. 

Contrary to what Anti Gun Nuts say, this leads not to a violent wild west like Society, but to a crime free one. Who the hell is going to try and make a living robbing people when chances are every person you target is packing heat.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 10, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



So when as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> I see.  If one mandate is imposed all mandates are valid even when contrary to the constitution.
> Gotcha.


Yeah, that's the argument.
No, you're right, it can't be supported.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 10, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> So when (h)as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?


- Freight companies must purchase cargo liability insurance.
- At one time, militiamen had to supply and maintain their own basic equipment.
- At one time. merchant seamen had to purchase their own health insurance

This, of course, means that:
- Everyone can be required to carry cargo liability insurance
- Everojne can be required to keep and maintain basic military equipment
- Everyone can be required to carry health insurance


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




That is the argument of the rightwingers in this thread. If you have a problem with it talk to them because they are the ones arguing that if you support the HC mandate then you must support the gun mandate even as they argue that the two are different. 

If you had actually taken the time to read what was said in this thread instead of trolling in to blurt out your misdirected nonsense then you would have known who suggested it and I wouldn't have had to explain it to you.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 11, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




Go back and read the thread. it's already been mentioned several times.


----------



## signelect (Feb 11, 2011)

If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun.  Most people do not want or need a gun.  It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

signelect said:


> If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun.  Most people do not want or need a gun.  It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.



That is a statistically incorrect statement coming from someone with obviously no real experiences around firearms.

The point of the question is libs are arguing that the government has the constitutional authority to require people to buy things. Yet we can't seem to get a straight yes or no out of them when one asks if they would be okay with and/or abide by a federal law requiring everyone to purchase a gun.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun.  Most people do not want or need a gun.  It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.
> ...



Actually a rightwinger started this thread and has been trying to argue that the hc mandate and gun mandate are different and that one is constitutional because it comes from a state (actually depends on the state's constition) and the other is not because it comes from the fed just because he says so. 
Then, in spite of the fact that he claimed that they are different, he tried to argue that they are the same and that if you support the HC mandate then you must also support the gun mandate. 

Do you see the contradiction or do you choose to turn a blind eye to it as you attempt to make the same invalid correlation??


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



I understand quite clearly. I'm trying to cut to the chase so to speak. Since we can't compare apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something), let's just compare apples to apples and pretend the federal government, under the auspice of public safety or somtheing, required that everyone purchase a gun. IF you are one who believes it constitutional for the government to make you buy insurance then indeed you are required to beieve it constitutional were they to require you to purchase a gun, or really purchase anything for that matter. If the 'crisis' were the environment and government deemed it neccessary to make everyone buy a Prius to improve envirnmental policy, you would again be required to say that is constitutional as well if you believe the insurance mandate is.

The point I keep trying to drive home like a broken record is people really aren't see the forest for the trees. That is some are so focused on health care they don't see what the policies they are trying implement mean in the bigger picture of what authority the government has to make you do.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So you can;t win the original argument because as you admit it is flawed and compares apples to oranges. Thanks for the admission now could you please stop dishonestly claiming that the left made this argument when it came from the right?

Furthermore, that has already been answered by one of your own and I pointed out how his argument could be used to justify and argue that the HC mandate is constitutional. 



drsmith1072 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers. 



> *To provide for *organizing, *arming,* and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> So you can;t win the original argument because as you admit it is flawed and compares apples to oranges. Thanks for the admission now could you please stop dishonestly claiming that the left made this argument when it came from the right?



What original argument? What did I claim the left is arguing? I think you have me confused with someone else. I understand the point SD is trying to make, but also saw the problem with the argument as well. Since we all understand the point trying to be made (that if government has the authority to make you purcashe one thing, it has the authority to make you purchase anything), let's simply apply South Dakota's law at the federal level. Surely if the fed requiring people to purchase insurance is constitutional, so is requring them to purchase a gun.



drsmith1072 said:


> Furthermore, that has already been answered by one of your own and I pointed out how his argument could be used to justify and argue that the HC mandate is constitutional.



Dude, don't even pretend to know who 'my own' is. You don't. Do not assume his argument is mine. The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is. The point of this argument in full truth is to reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase one thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2011)

signelect said:


> If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun.


-A state constitution may give the state government the power to do so.
-The US Constitution gives the federal government the power to require certain people to do so. 



> Most people do not want or need a gun.


So?  The issue is the power to compel.



> It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.


There are far more instances of a gun used in self-defense than in an accidental injury.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> The point of this argument in full truth is reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase on thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.


Correctamundo.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > So you can;t win the original argument because as you admit it is flawed and compares apples to oranges. Thanks for the admission now could you please stop dishonestly claiming that the left made this argument when it came from the right?
> ...



How can you ask "What original argument?" when you admit that it's like comparing apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing)  to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something)? You said it can't be done therefore you admit that the orignal argument is LOST. Changing the argument to fed to fed comparison does nothing to support the claim that they are apples to apples either. This was addressed in the part of my response you deleted and avoided. 
How typical, you whine and cry that no one answered your questions and then whe you get an answer you ignore it and pretend it never happened. 

Dude, I answered you version of the argument where we assume the fed mandate on HC is constitutional and addressed it by saying, 



drsmith1072 said:


> So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.



and then listed the power that applies. 



> *To provide for *organizing, *arming,* and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



So why ask a question and demand that others answer it if you are just going to run away from and avoid the answer??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 11, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun.
> ...



NO IT DOESN'T. This has been explained to you MULTIPLE times and your misinterpretation only shows how idiotic you are as you try to read something into it that is NOT there. 



> *To provide for *organizing,* arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



The power to provide for arming the militia is a hell of a lot different than requiring them to provide for arming themselves at their own expense. Nice stretch as you try desperately to pull that one out of thin air. But my guess is that you know that already but don't really care about the truth. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 11, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > The point of this argument in full truth is reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase on thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.
> ...



Well the point backfired because that wasn't the original argument and even bern80 admitted that the original argument was comparing apples to oranges. In other words m14, bern is telling you that you were WRONG to try and compare the fed mandate to the state mandate. You are just too damn stupid to realize it. LOL


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.



Unfortunately that is a flawed argument. If you're going to use the enumerated powers to show why they CAN'T make people purchase a gun, then you would also have to point to the enumerated powers to show they CAN make people purchase health insurance.  If you're gong to show the manner in which the constitution specifically references firearms to make your case, then you must do the same with health insurance. 

You just argued that because the constitution says nothing about the fed's authority to make people arm themselves at their own expense it means that can't make them buy firearms. I would say that means you do have to show where it specifically says they must purchase health insurance. What you're essentially saying in a rather weasely attempt at winning the argument is to make some mealy mouthed argument that the fed has the authority to make you purchase some things but not others. That's the only way you can reconcile being okay with having to purchase health care but not okay with it if they made you purchase a gun. Sorry, that just doesn't work. There is gray area in some things, but not here. Either the fed has the authority to make you buy anything or nothing.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Read the thread


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So when (h)as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?
> ...


If merchant seamen, why not merchants? And sales associates? Teachers, carpenters, and mechanics...


----------



## RadiomanATL (Feb 11, 2011)

It's already a law in Kennesaw that every head of household must own a gun.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> I understand quite clearly. I'm trying to cut to the chase so to speak. Since we can't compare apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something), let's just compare apples to apples and pretend the federal government, under the auspice of public safety or somtheing, required that everyone purchase a gun.



They did. 200 years ago. Fact is, at the time, only white males were 'people' in the eyes of the law- and they had to buy their own guns, horses, and other gear- not because they signed up for anything, but because they were citizens.

Are you too stupid to get it or just too dishonest to admit it?





> IF you are one who believes it constitutional for the government to make you buy insurance then indeed you are required to beieve it constitutional were they to require you to purchase a gun, or really purchase anything for that matter.


I've said numerous times in this thread that i don't give a damn whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Only the righties with their fetish for dead men need to be told by their Holy Constitution, written by their holy men- their demigods- whether the mandate is right or wrong.

Because they have religion and not principles guiding them.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.
> 
> 
> 
> > *To provide for *organizing, *arming,* and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Except the guys who wrote it disagreed- as proven by the mandate during Washington's first term


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > Most people do not want or need a gun.
> 
> 
> So?  The issue is the power to compel.



No, you retard, it's the _authority_ to compel that you're arguing about.

Damn, you're too stupid to even know what you're trying to argue about.

Why do we let you people vote? No wonder this country's in so much trouble.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand quite clearly. I'm trying to cut to the chase so to speak. Since we can't compare apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something), let's just compare apples to apples and pretend the federal government, under the auspice of public safety or somtheing, required that everyone purchase a gun.
> ...



Nothing could be further from the truth where I am concerned. Try another lame ass excuse. Of course I know constitution or no constitution it's wrong. That doesn't change the fact the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it. A society doesn't function too well where the only law of the land is whatever one happens to believe is morally right or wrong.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

> the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.


Except that it's already been shown in this thread to be constitutional. The idea that 'cotus doesn't say they can mandate you buy shit' was rejected by the guys who wrote, argued for, and ratified cotus.

If making you buy a gun counts as providing for the common defense, then making you buy medical coverage is providing for the general welfare per the same goddam sentence

Either the mandate is constitutional or the the guys who wrote, signed, and ratified cotus didn't even want to live under it


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 11, 2011)

So, ws/is the Militia Act unconstitutional? Did George Washington throw out COTUS during his first term? Did the Constitution last less than four years?


----------



## Kato (Feb 12, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> So, ws/is the Militia Act unconstitutional? Did George Washington throw out COTUS during his first term? Did the Constitution last less than four years?



The Interpretation of the Constitution was radically changed after Ratification, yes. The Militia Act has also been changed more than once. Yes you have the Constitutional Right to own a gun if you do not forfeit it. You are not compelled to own one, neither should you be compelled to buy insurance.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 14, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.
> 
> 
> Except that it's already been shown in this thread to be constitutional. The idea that 'cotus doesn't say they can mandate you buy shit' was rejected by the guys who wrote, argued for, and ratified cotus.
> ...



Wrong on both counts and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the constitution was written (and maybe basic english) on your part.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.
> ...


You forgot "willfull".
It shows a WILLFULL lack of understanding on how the constitution was written.
That is, he has -chosen- to argue an unsound point.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 14, 2011)

You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.

The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 14, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.
> 
> The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.



I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something. As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear. This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.

Pretend for a second you are writing a document that is going to be about the rules under which government must operate. Which makes more sense? To try and figure out and put to paper everything government should NOT do? Or to write a document that tells government what it can do, with the understanding that anything not their is not allowed?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.
> ...


They were not.  Only those who were part of the militia, pursuant to the Congressional power to provide for the arming of said militia.
Constitutional?  Absolutely.  The power is in black and white.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 15, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.
> ...



OK please learn how to READ and please take things in their full and complete context instead of editing out or ignoring the parts of my posts that you wsih to avoid because you lack the ability to actually address them. 

The argument I am making is based on the unumerated powers and according to the specifics which the right always uses to argue against HC and according to the wording of the enumerated powers congress has the power to PROVIDE for ARMING of militias not mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. 

Furthermore, YOUR own argument required the assumption that the mandated HC was constitutional so it's funny how you now avoid your own assumption to try and catch me in a "gotcha" moment that is solely based on your own dishonesty. 




Bern80 said:


> Dude, don't even pretend to know who 'my own' is. You don't. Do not assume his argument is mine. *The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is. *The point of this argument in full truth is to reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase one thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.




or did you forget about that?? 
Oh and in case you missed it, YOU pointed out that the POINT of this argument in this thread, which is comparing a state's mandate to a fed's mandate, is like comparing apples to oranges. So the only point is that there is no REAL point.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 15, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.
> ...



My personal belief is that the constitution is open for interpretation. However, when right wingers are against something they are the ones that argue if it doesn't sepcifically state it in the constitution that congress has the power to do so then it is not one of their enumerated powers. 
I merely pointed out that it SPECIFICALLY states that congress has the power to PROVIDE for ARMING of militias and that in no way shape or form states that congress has the power to force all citizens to purchase firearms, which is the argument m14 is trying to make.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 15, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.
> ...



How typical, he claims that J is wrong and that he lacks the understanding on how the constitution was written and yet bern lacks the abiltiy to provide a "correction" of j's interpretation, which usually means he is just blowing smoke because he has NOTHING valid to offer as a counter. 

Claiming someone is wrong merely because you say so as you try to insult them shows that you've got NOTHING.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 15, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.
> ...




Actually based on the document in question every ablebodied adult white male was only required to purchase the necessary equipment if you didn't already own said equipment. Due to the fact that adult white males were the only people who actually counted as a citizens it was pretty much a blanket mandate at that time. 

That is how it is with the healthcare mandate. If you already have insurance then you are NOT required to buy it. 

BTW you still haven't actually shown how anything he said in his previous post was wrong. What are you afraid of?? If he is wrong as you say then it should be easy enough for you to PROVE.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 15, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Actually according to the MA of 1792 every able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to enter the milita. They had NO choice in the matter. That pretty much included every citizen except those who were considered elderly at the time.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 16, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I'm not sure what is scarier; that you think the constitution allows that, or that you don't really seem to care. You are making quite the intellectually dishonest stretch comparing requiring a specific age group (18-45), with a specific condition (able bodied), of ANOTHER specific group (the militia) being required to purchase something in order to a member of that group and requiring every U.S. citizen, period to purchase health insurance. If you were to wager that the framers would conclude that the government could reqire every citizen of the U.S.A to purchase a private product because they made militia members purchase guns, I hope that is a wager you're prepared to lose. I think they would rather quickly see the remaifactions to the freedom they sought to protect and defend in allowing the fed the authority to make everyone purchase anything they wanted them to or face financial penalty.





drsmith1072 said:


> BTW you still haven't actually shown how anything he said in his previous post was wrong. What are you afraid of?? If he is wrong as you say then it should be easy enough for you to PROVE.



He who and what argument? I'm talking to YOU.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 16, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




Please learn how to READ. The document in question is the MA of 1792 which was passed and did allow for that. I really wish you would read the thread so I and others don't have to continue to go back and explain things to you because you choose to be willfully illinformed. 



> You are making quite the intellectually dishonest stretch comparing requiring a specific age group (18-45), with a specific condition (able bodied), of ANOTHER specific group (the militia) being required to purchase something in order to a member of that group and requiring every U.S. citizen, period to purchase health insurance.



In that post I am not making the comparison that because one is allowed the other is but I did point out some of the specifics of the MA of 1792 to the poster who seems willfully illinformed about what it required when he provided a link to the document. LOL Furthermore, I did claim that they were similar in that neither is a blanket requirement and that is the only comparison I drew in that post. If you knew how to comprehend what you allegedly read then you would have already know that. 



> If you were to wager that the framers would conclude that the government could reqire every citizen of the U.S.A to purchase a private product because they made militia members purchase guns, I hope that is a wager you're prepared to lose. I think they would rather quickly see the remaifactions to the freedom they sought to protect and defend in allowing the fed the authority to make everyone purchase anything they wanted them to or face financial penalty.



Thanks for the strawman where you also presume that you know what the framers were thinking. Now if you could please go back and respond to my previous post that you obviously cut and ran from because it exposed your own dishonesty and hypocrisy. 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-sd-citizens-to-buy-a-gun-37.html#post3324900

currently post #553 funny how you skipped over that isn't it?? 




Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW you still haven't actually shown how anything he said in his previous post was wrong. What are you afraid of?? If he is wrong as you say then it should be easy enough for you to PROVE.
> ...



Are you really this dense or do you just play stupid to CYA?? 

You claimed that jbeuk was wrong while failing to provide anything of substance to show how he was wrong and unfortunately for you, saying it doesn't make it so.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 16, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I didn't dream up anything.  Its ok for the state based on the 10th and its not ok for the fed based on the 10th.   Have you read it recently?

"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."

The consitution does not give the power to force purchases of private products to the United States, therefore that power is reserved to the states or the people.  

Maybe you should read Federalist Papers #45 since the intent of the 10th ammendment eludes your grasp.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 16, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Based on the 10th and IF their state constitution allows it. Funny how you wait a week (or longer) to respond to an argument that you already lost in the hopes that people had forgotten about the context of the argument. 

If you had read through this thread you would have realized that your argument has already been adressed and been shown to be less than correct. The fed had already mandated the purchase of items in the MA of 1792 that was required of all who met the standards of the document. So to claim that the constitution does not give that power is hardly a valid claim based on precedence.

I also find it funny how the right merely claims others are wrong as they insult them with the belief that merely saying it with an added insult makes it so. LOL


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 16, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm gonna have to say you still think you're carrying on a conversation with someone else because basically none of what you said has anything do with or really even addresses anything I've said.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 16, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I responded to everything that YOU just said. Pretending that it didn't happen as you run away after being shown to be WRONG won't change the FACTS. LOL 

Thanks for once again showing that you've got NOTHING. I provide a well written and thorough counter to your dishonest spin and the best you can do is run away claiming that I am not responding to you when I responded to each and every point that you have made. 
LOL 
Oh and way to stick to your guns. LOL Still no response to post 553 where you were shown to be dishonest after you said  


Bern80 said:


> The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. *For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is*.


and then tried to change the argument to exclude your assumption so you could attack me and call me a hypocrite.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 17, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> I responded to everything that YOU just said. Pretending that it didn't happen as you run away after being shown to be WRONG won't change the FACTS. LOL
> 
> Thanks for once again showing that you've got NOTHING. I provide a well written and thorough counter to your dishonest spin and the best you can do is run away claiming that I am not responding to you when I responded to each and every point that you have made.
> LOL



Dude I have a Masters degree. You don't get one of those without being able to decipher the written word. I am more than happy to debate you when you can express things clearly and succinctly. Simply put, your responses make zero sense most of the time. I can't debate you, not because I'm on the losing side of the argument. I can't debate you because I can't tell WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE SAYING.



drsmith1072 said:


> Oh and way to stick to your guns. LOL Still no response to post 553 where you were shown to be dishonest after you said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure I stick by that statement. Do you know the difference between assuming something for argument's sake and arguing it's actual validity? My opinion hasn't changed nor have I back tracked from it. Perhaps it was YOU who reintroduced whether the insurance mandate was constitutional thus throwing out that presumption for the sake of argument


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 17, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



It's a perfectly valid claim. For YOU to be correct one first has to assume the premise that the MA of 1792 is analogous, at least analogous enough to make a comparison in the first place to the insruance mandate. The simple fact unfortuantely for you, is that it isn't. The MA of 1792 mandate doesn't have nearly the scope or breadth of the insurance mandate.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 17, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



The length of time between my logins does not relate to the discussion.  Bringing that up further proves the point that you were incorrect in your assesment of what I was saying and what the 10th ammendment says.

And yes it is IF the state's consitution allows it just like the 10th ammendment says  "......To the states, or the people"     If a state's constitution does not expressly give that state the power to compel purchases then that power rests in the hands of the people alone.

Again you need to brush up on the federalist papers, #45 is the one you want.

Your MA of 1972 is a specific instance of an express and specific power given to the United States by the Constitution.  This specific instance does not give the federal government the authority to expand said power.   Please brush up on our founding documents.  Let me help you below:

1) First read federalist #45 
2) Then read the constitution:  10th ammendment's  "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."
3) Then read the bill of right's stating "Article XII
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."


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > I responded to everything that YOU just said. Pretending that it didn't happen as you run away after being shown to be WRONG won't change the FACTS. LOL
> ...



and yet you can't even follow a simple conversation and having a masters degree does mean shite as far as your lacking tha ability to understand simple english. So please explain what i said that didn't make sense and i will clarfiy for you. It should be easy enough for you to give specific examples and yet apparently you believe that merely saying it makes it so. My guess is that it's merely a ploy so you can avoid points that you wish to avoid because you know that you can't counter them. Prove me wrong and give me examples of what I said that did not make sense. 




Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and way to stick to your guns. LOL Still no response to post 553 where you were shown to be dishonest after you said
> ...



WOW more dishonest spin from you. You asked a question based on your assumption and I gave you an answer based on your assumption and then you discard you assumption so you can call me a hypocrite and you have the nerve to even try to criticize others for being dishonest and hypocritical?? LOL 

Funny how you finally chose to respond to post 553 and only served to make you look even more dishonest. LOL

oh and thanks for once again showing you cowardice as you cherry pick what to respond to and delete the rest.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



What is a perfectly valid claim?? Care to get specfics or are vague generalities all that you have to offer?? 
My primary point of bringing up the MA of 1792 in response to pilgrim is that he said that the MA of 1792 did not require people to purchase items from private companies 



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The Militia Act of 1792
> 
> The militia act does not mandate any purchases from private companies.



and yet it did require them to purchase the necessary equipment if they did not already own said equipment. Of course, he bypassed my response to that post and apparently pretended that it never happened. 

Then there was the argument where pilgrim defended comparing apples(state mandate) to oranges(fed mandate) becaue someone said the comparison was "stupid" and pilgrim asked "why is it stupid?" 


PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The mandates are comparable....both the state law and federal law are mandating that people must purchase a product from a private company which I find to be wrong.



He claims they are comparable but you claim that it is something that can't be done.



Bern80 said:


> Since we can't compare apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something),



Then there is pilgrim's new offshoot that has already been addressed in this thread with the mention of the MA of 1792 and if he bothered reading the thread he would have known that and not wasted everyone's time with his pointless whining. Pilgrim claims that "The consitution does not give the power to force purchases of private products to the United States" and yet precedence has shown that the fed CAN and did do just that.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 17, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



It does when you chime in later in the hopes that people don't remember the actual context of the discussion as you bypass and ignore other posts that already addressed and countered your current argument. 




> Bringing that up further proves the point that you were incorrect in your assesment of what I was saying and what the 10th ammendment says.



How does pointing out you taking an argument out of context and ignoring other posts in this thread prove anything of the kind?? Oh that's right it doesn't. Thanks for being your usual dishonest self.



> And yes it is IF the state's consitution allows it just like the 10th ammendment says  "......To the states, or the people"     If a state's constitution does not expressly give that state the power to compel purchases then that power rests in the hands of the people alone.



so as i stated and you ingored it isn't doesn't rely solely on what is said in the 10th. Thanks for agreeing with me that you were wrong. LOL 



> Again you need to brush up on the federalist papers, #45 is the one you want.


do you own homework and instead of merely presenting vague generalities. Why don't you try showing how federalist papers, #45 applies?? Or is asking you make a real argument too much for you to handle?? 



> Your MA of 1972 is a specific instance of an express and specific power given to the United States by the Constitution.  This specific instance does not give the federal government the authority to expand said power.   Please brush up on our founding documents.  Let me help you below:



Really?? How is the mandated purchase of the necessary equipment stated in the MA of 1792 an express and specfic power?? Please explain how it is stated SPECIFICALLY that it is a power if you can?? 


Funny how you make all of those bold unsubstantiated statements and then tell me to look it up. Perhaps it's because you know that you can't prove your own arguments.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 17, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> and yet you can't even follow a simple conversation and having a masters degree does mean shite as far as your lacking tha ability to understand simple english. So please explain what i said that didn't make sense and i will clarfiy for you. It should be easy enough for you to give specific examples and yet apparently you believe that merely saying it makes it so. My guess is that it's merely a ploy so you can avoid points that you wish to avoid because you know that you can't counter them. Prove me wrong and give me examples of what I said that did not make sense.



You spend more time CLAIMING you've said this or that than you have actually making any type of argument. Look at your last few posts. There isn't an acutal position on the issue to be found in any of them. YOU are the one doing the dodging smith, not me. I don't even know where to begin making a counter argument because I have no idea what your position even is. 

As best I can tell it's that this MA of 1792 is somehow analagous to the insurance mandate which you have used to conclude the insurance mandate constitutional. We can debate that assuming we agree that those two things are actually analagous. The problem is they're not. If they were what would the MA of 1792 look like if applied today? And is THAT in any way analagous to the insurance mandate?  




drsmith1072 said:


> WOW more dishonest spin from you. You asked a question based on your assumption and I gave you an answer based on your assumption and then you discard you assumption so you can call me a hypocrite and you have the nerve to even try to criticize others for being dishonest and hypocritical?? LOL



Try to follow along. When, for the sake of argument, I assumed the insurance mandate was constitutional, you proceeded to use the enumerated powers to show how requring the militia to purchase guns was constititional (that presumption in of itself is debatable, btw). For the required purchase of guns to remain analagous to the required purchase of health insurance you would have to show where the enumerated powers mention health care as well. 

OR 

We could stick to debating whether a hypothetical mandate that everyone purchase a gun is constitutional. You claimed it would be based on this MA of 1792. Well such an argument presumes that said act is analgous to the fed unconditionally requring every citizen to purchase something today. The fact is it isn't. In practice today it would require something of the vast majority of citizens where as the MA of 1792 was on a small minority of citizens designated as a specific group. And even that presumes that the act when enacted was constituonal which is open for debate as well. It doesn't make much sense to me that while it is the feds responsibility to defend the citizenry per the constitution, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to take it upon themselve to purchase the arms for doing so. Sort of defeats the purpose if you aske me.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > and yet you can't even follow a simple conversation and having a masters degree does mean shite as far as your lacking tha ability to understand simple english. So please explain what i said that didn't make sense and i will clarfiy for you. It should be easy enough for you to give specific examples and yet apparently you believe that merely saying it makes it so. My guess is that it's merely a ploy so you can avoid points that you wish to avoid because you know that you can't counter them. Prove me wrong and give me examples of what I said that did not make sense.
> ...




Actually i usually quote what was actually said and you cut it out and delete it instead of responding to it and now I see why you do that. It makes it easier for you to be dishonest as you claim that I am not making sense. Why don't you try addressing what was actually said instead of attacking me becuase you don't have a real argument?? 




Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > WOW more dishonest spin from you. You asked a question based on your assumption and I gave you an answer based on your assumption and then you discard you assumption so you can call me a hypocrite and you have the nerve to even try to criticize others for being dishonest and hypocritical?? LOL
> ...



take your own advise and the next statement that you make shows that you aren't.



Bern80 said:


> When, for the sake of argument, I assumed the insurance mandate was constitutional, you proceeded to use the enumerated powers to show how requring the militia to purchase guns was constititional (that presumption in of itself is debatable, btw). For the required purchase of guns to remain analagous to the required purchase of health insurance you would have to show where the enumerated powers mention health care as well.



First of, I did not argue that the fed mandating the purchase of guns was constitutional in response to your hypothetical with assumption included. That was NOT what I said. The fact that you would wrongly attribute that argument to me shows that you are NOT following along. I did state later that in the past mandated purchases have been imposed so one could NOT argue that the government does not have that power.

Secondly, my answer was in direct response to the question that you asked based on the standards that you set up where the assumption is that the HC mandate is constitutional. Then you take my response to your hypothectical and dishonestly apply it to the hc mandate which you had already said was constitutional for the sake of that argument. 

Do you see how you have exposed yourself as being dishonest??



Bern80 said:


> OR
> 
> We could stick to debating whether a hypothetical mandate that everyone purchase a gun is constitutional. You claimed it would be based on this MA of 1792. Well such an argument presumes that said act is analgous to the *fed unconditionally requring the every citizen to purchase something today*. The fact is it isn't. In practice today it would require something of the vast majority of citizens where as the MA of 1792 was on a small minority of citizens designated as a specific group. And even that presumes that the act when enacted was constituonal which is open for debate as well. It doesn't make much sense to me that while it is the feds responsibility to the defend the citizenry per the constitution, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to take it upon themselve to purchase the arms for doing. Sort of defeats the purpose if you aske me.



You are confusing two arguments. The one with your hypothetical and the one I am having with pilgrim. You are taking my responses to pilgrim and trying to apply them to your hypothetical and vice versa. So please take your own advise and "Try to follow along."

BTW I asked this earlier in the thread and not one of the right wingers making the claim that there are no exemptions to the HC mandate answered. So can you show how it is an unconditional mandate and that every person has to purchase insurance?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 17, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> First of, I did not argue that the fed mandating the purchase of guns was constitutional in response to your hypothetical with assumption included. That was NOT what I said. The fact that you would wrongly attribute that argument to me shows that you are NOT following along. I did state later that in the past mandated purchases have been imposed so one could NOT argue that the government does not have that power.



The reason little of what you say gets responded to is so much of it is irrelevant. This right here is the only paragraph in the entire post that even comes close to you committing to a position of any type. You're a common troll smith. Someone who is disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable and is too spineless to actually have a position 

And even when you make some lame ass attempt at one even that is inaccurate. If government did it, it must have been constitutional? Try again.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.
> ...



because they did just that

'every white male...'

the very definition of who was even considered _human_, at the time


> As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear


Not what it says. read it more slowly.





> . This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.


Then read the fucking act. It's been quoted and linked to countless times in this thread, you idiot.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 17, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Tell it to Washington and the framers of COTUS who passed the Militia Act


They didn't think what they wrote meant what you think it does


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> You're a common troll smith. Someone who is disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable and is too spineless to actually have a position


says the idiot who needs a 200-year-old piece of animal skin to tell him what's right or wrong.

Only one person in this thread has had the balls to stand for anything- but you haven't let reality bother you 



JBeukema said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...







> And even when you make some lame ass attempt at one even that is inaccurate. If government did it, it must have been constitutional? Try again.



The guys who *wrote and ratified the fucking constitution* thought it was constitutional


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 17, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> because they did just that
> 
> 'every white male...'
> 
> the very definition of who was even considered _human_, at the time



I have since read it actually. I just don't see how someone who reads it with any frame of context can conclude that it is remotely analogous to the health insurance mandate. And did it never occur to those arguing this as precedent to ask why this act is no longer in affect?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 18, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> says the idiot who needs a 200-year-old piece of animal skin to tell him what's right or wrong.



And I quite clearly stated that is not the case. You either believe me when I say that or you don't. What someone believes is right or wrong ultimately becomes irrelevant in a society ruled by law.  



JBeukema said:


> Only one person in this thread has had the balls to stand for anything- but you haven't let reality bother you



Read, realized and responded to several pages ago you fucking liar. 



JBeukema said:


> The guys who *wrote and ratified the fucking constitution* thought it was constitutional



I'm sure it was.....THEN. The question is would it be now.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> What someone believes is right or wrong ultimately becomes irrelevant in a society ruled by law.



 There you have it folks. Bern would turn in Anne Frank, chase down an escaped slave, or turn his daughter over to the the secret police's hired rapist- because the law says me must.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/150337-is-it-the-law-to-which-men-are-bound.html

Gotta love statism





> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > The guys who *wrote and ratified the fucking constitution* thought it was constitutional
> ...



Yes, it would, unless you can show me the constitutional amendment that made it otherwise.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 18, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> There you have it folks. Bern would turn in Anne Frank, chase down an escaped slave, or turn his daughter over to the the secret police's hired rapist- because the law says me must.



Yeah.....that's exactly what I said. Either you are willing to have an objective conversation or you're content to be a fucktard. Pick one. Would I do any of those things above if they were the law of the land? Of course not. Does it change the fact that I will still have to answer to the law much as I may disagree with it? No. THAT was the point you dishonest prick.





JBeukema said:


> Yes, it would, unless you can show me the constitutional amendment that made it otherwise.



Except it isn't applied today and it was actually the act itself that was ammended over the years that got rid of that particular provision. You couldn't apply it today if you wanted to. Not in a way that's analogous to the insurance mandate anyway. The militia act applied to the militia, which doesn't exist anymore. If attempted to be applied today the closest application would be something like making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > First of, I did not argue that the fed mandating the purchase of guns was constitutional in response to your hypothetical with assumption included. That was NOT what I said. The fact that you would wrongly attribute that argument to me shows that you are NOT following along. I did state later that in the past mandated purchases have been imposed so one could NOT argue that the government does not have that power.
> ...



Wow more vague generalities from you so you can turn tail and run away from points that you can't counter.

Come on hack, give some specifics and show how what I said was either irrelevant or doesn't make sense. Saying it doesn't make it so and if you continue to fail to provide specifics then it's obvious that you are merely avoiding points that you can't counter.

BTW did you happen to notice how I showed that you were wrongly attributing an argument to me that I did NOT make?? Stop running away and address what was said or is that too much to ask of you??


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 18, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Stop blathering about making an argument and actually make one. Then I'll respond to it. Pretty simple concept.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > because they did just that
> ...



First off, how do you define analogous?? If you mean similar in order to make an analogy then there are two primary similarities.

1. They both mandate a purchase. (thank pilgrim for that comparison as he tried to compare the fed mandate to the state mandate because they both required a purchase)

2. Neither are blanket mandate in that if you already had the mandated item(s) then you are not required to buy it. 

So why is it that you don't see those?? or is this just more of your usual willful ignorance?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I made several but instead of responding to them you deleted them and pretended that they never happened all so you could run away because you know that you have nothing valid to offer.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 18, 2011)

for instance, you said



Bern80 said:


> Well such an argument presumes that said act is analgous *to the fed unconditionally requring every citizen to purchase something today.*



implying that the HC madnate is unconditional and has no exemptions. So I asked



drsmith1072 said:


> BTW I asked this earlier in the thread and not one of the right wingers making the claim that there are no exemptions to the HC mandate answered. So can you show how it is an unconditional mandate and that every person has to purchase insurance?



and you avoided it. YOU made the claim and when asked for proofof YOUR own claim you turn tail and run. How typical.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > There you have it folks. Bern would turn in Anne Frank, chase down an escaped slave, or turn his daughter over to the the secret police's hired rapist- because the law says me must.
> ...



Apparently you did NOT read it because the MA of 1792 mandated that EVERY able-bodied white male CITIZEN between 18 and 45 was required to enter the militia, which pretty much applied to every citizen excluding only those citizens with actual rights who were considered elderly at the time. Your analogy of making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns does NOT apply.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 18, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> I made several but instead of responding to them you deleted them and pretended that they never happened all so you could run away because you know that you have nothing valid to offer.



And yet here I am challenging you to make an argument again. Bizarre behavior for someone trying to get away from an argument, wouldn't you say?



drsmith1072 said:


> BTW I asked this earlier in the thread and not one of the right wingers making the claim that there are no exemptions to the HC mandate answered. So can you show how it is an unconditional mandate and that every person has to purchase insurance?
> and you avoided it. YOU made the claim and when asked for proofof YOUR own claim you turn tail and run. How typical.



When I say unconditional I mean whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual. There is no choice one can make that would exclude themselves from having to make the purchase



drsmith1072 said:


> Apparently you did NOT read it because the MA of 1792 mandated that EVERY white male between 18 and 45 was required to enter the militia, which pretty much applied to every citizen excluding only those citizens with actual rights who were considered elderly at the time. Your analogy of making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns does NOT apply.



Oh yes it does. It's titled the MILITIA ACT. Not the citizens act. It was requirement of a specific group, the militia. At the time certain people were required to enter the milita; men, ages 18-45, and able bodied. You would be lucky if that's 25% of the actual population. To say we're comparing like objects when we compare what citizens were required to do then vs. now is simply itellectually dishonest. 

The act applies to what constituted the army at the time, so we would have to apply it to what constitutes the army today for the analogy to remain intact. There are obviously some major difference between then and now. Primarily being the army is voluntary now. In short the militia act just isn't a good example of a previous mandated purchase similar to the insurance mandate. yes it's a case where government has required people to purchase something, but that's about where the similarity ends. It didnt apply to the same type or numbers of people or people of certain groups as the insurance mandate.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > I made several but instead of responding to them you deleted them and pretended that they never happened all so you could run away because you know that you have nothing valid to offer.
> ...



Funy but i am stillwaiting on you to address my posts and admit that you tried to catch me in a gotcha moment as you took my statements out of context, attributed an argument to me that I did NOT make and stop cherrypicking and deleting the sections of my post that you wish to pretend never happened. 

IF you cna show that you can be hoenst and do those things then we can talk. Until then you only further expose your dishoensty as you continue to avoid and adit my posts to suit your dishonest needs. 



Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW I asked this earlier in the thread and not one of the right wingers making the claim that there are no exemptions to the HC mandate answered. So can you show how it is an unconditional mandate and that every person has to purchase insurance?
> ...



uh exactly, PROVE IT. Show proof that there are NO exemptions and that ever person has to purchase it no matter what. This is what I am asking you to do. Prove you statement or retract it. BTW the same can be said about the MA of 1792. If you were a white male citizen you were required to purchase the necessary items. Or did you miss that??



Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently you did NOT read it because the MA of 1792 mandated that EVERY white male between 18 and 45 was required to enter the militia, which pretty much applied to every citizen excluding only those citizens with actual rights who were considered elderly at the time. Your analogy of making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns does NOT apply.
> ...



and yet it was required of almost every citizen at that time to be a part of it. How old do you think people got back then? what was the average life expectancy?? Funny how you just make up stats when you feel the need. Got any proof of your 15% number or not?? 

NO it did not apply to waht was considered the army at that time. They had an army the modern day equivalent to the militia is the NG.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > There you have it folks. Bern would turn in Anne Frank, chase down an escaped slave, or turn his daughter over to the the secret police's hired rapist- because the law says me must.
> ...



Then it's the law that becomes irrelevant when you believe something is right or wrong?



> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it would, unless you can show me the constitutional amendment that made it otherwise.
> ...




I can pass an identical act or change the act again to reinstatement the mandate


> Not in a way that's analogous to the insurance mandate anyway.


Requiring citizens to buy something whether they want to or not  because 

x=x

the mandates are identical in all relevant regards





> The militia act applied to the militia, which doesn't exist anymore.


United States Code: Title 10,311. Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute *§ 311. Militia: composition and classes*


 

     (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section  313 of title  32,  under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of  intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female  citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.   
    (b) The classes of the militia are     (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and   
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the  members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the  Naval Militia.   





 If attempted to be applied today the closest application would be something like making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns.[/quote]


Other than counting blacks and letting women opt-in, nothing much has changed regarding the 'unorganized' militia


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Oh yes it does. It's titled the MILITIA ACT. Not the citizens act. It was requirement of a specific group, the militia.


You are correct.  

The compulsion found in the MA1792 was limited to a subset of the population, pursuant to a specific power of Congress.  As such, it cannot be used to support the Constitutionality of a completely dissimilar compulsion across the entire population that is not pursuant to a specific power of Congress.

At this point, you'd do well to stop feeding the trolls.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes it does. It's titled the MILITIA ACT. Not the citizens act. It was requirement of a specific group, the militia.
> ...



yeah sure, except that it was only limited to every adult white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. I read somewhere thet the average life expectancy of the 1790s was about 37 for men. That made it pretty much include every citizen who had any rights at that time. 

BTW since you failed to answer it before care to show how "provide for ARMING the militia" can realistically be interpreted as "mandating that the militia arm themselves at their own expence" or are you going to avoid it again? 
If you are arguing that "provide for arming of the militia" can be interpreted as mandating that the militia purchase their own firearms then "provide for the general welfare" can be interpreted as mandating that the general public can be mandated to provide for their own welfare and prucahse their own insurance. One broad interpretation deserves another. 

With the way you and pilgrim pop in and out as you parrot the same moronic talking points while failing to provide anything of substance to back up those talking points I am beginning to think that you two are the same person.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 20, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Funy but i am stillwaiting on you to address my posts and admit that you tried to catch me in a gotcha moment as you took my statements out of context, attributed an argument to me that I did NOT make and stop cherrypicking and deleting the sections of my post that you wish to pretend never happened.
> 
> IF you cna show that you can be hoenst and do those things then we can talk. Until then you only further expose your dishoensty as you continue to avoid and adit my posts to suit your dishonest needs.



Then YOU need to be more specific about what it is that you want me to be honest about.



drsmith1072 said:


> uh exactly, PROVE IT. Show proof that there are NO exemptions and that ever person has to purchase it no matter what. This is what I am asking you to do. Prove you statement or retract it. BTW the same can be said about the MA of 1792. If you were a white male citizen you were required to purchase the necessary items. Or did you miss that??



The only exceptions would be those that can't afford it. Or already have coverage of some type. AND as you pointed out below, it did NOT apply to every white male between the ages of 18-45. It ONLY applied to the militia.




drsmith1072 said:


> and yet it was required of almost every citizen at that time to be a part of it. How old do you think people got back then? what was the average life expectancy?? Funny how you just make up stats when you feel the need. Got any proof of your 15% number or not??
> 
> NO it did not apply to waht was considered the army at that time. They had an army the modern day equivalent to the militia is the NG.



25% (if you really want to get nitpicky about misquoting) is a pretty educated guess I would say. We can take of 50% of the population right away as it didn't apply to woman. Able-bodied men between 18-45 AND not already members of the army? What percent of the population do you suppose that might be? On top of that our militia is now essentially voluntary so you've changed another variable in terms of the action required by the individual for the mandate to apply. On one hand a person would now first have to CHOOSE to be part of the militia for the gun mandate to apply.

Now compare that to the people now that the insurance mandate applies to. All adults that can afford it less those on medicare are required to purchase insurance.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Then it's the law that becomes irrelevant when you believe something is right or wrong?



It's not the simple. One weighs the consequences of one's actions when making a decision. If it's legal, the likelihood of getting caught, etc. My point is what actions one believes to be right or wrong are irrelevant where the law is concerned because it is the law that ultimately determines your future. You may think killing someone in vigilante justice isjustified and have no moral compunction over it whatsoever. That doesn't change the fact that the law says you're going to go to jail if you get caught.






JBeukema said:


> I can pass an identical act or change the act again to reinstatement the mandate



Actually you can only try. And given how much the variables have changed over time like what constitutes a citizen or militia it is difficult to determine what it would even look like if applied today. Only memers of the militia as you noted below? Of course our militia's are voluntary now so that makes it even less analogous.



JBeukema said:


> Requiring citizens to buy something whether they want to or not  because
> 
> x=x
> 
> the mandates are identical in all relevant regards



Then you are blind. The MA would have affected a mere fraction of the actual population at the time. ONLY men. ONLY those in the militia. ONLY able bodied. ONLY between ages of 18-48. Compared to a mandate now that requires a purchase of EVERYONE over the age of 18 (unless their parents plan allows them to stay on it).


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Funy but i am stillwaiting on you to address my posts and admit that you tried to catch me in a gotcha moment as you took my statements out of context, attributed an argument to me that I did NOT make and stop cherrypicking and deleting the sections of my post that you wish to pretend never happened.
> ...




I have been completely specific you are either too stupid to understand simple english or you are playing stupid in order to avoid responding.

Here we go again. Let's see if you can folow along this time.

You said



Bern80 said:


> The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. *For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is*.



So i gave you an answer to YOUR question that was based on YOUR assumption. 



drsmith1072 said:


> So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.



After that YOU dishonestly tried to used my answer which was in response to the question you asked including the assumption that HC mandate is constitutional and then you tired to apply my answer to another argument excluding your assumption. 



Bern80 said:


> Unfortunately that is a flawed argument. If you're going to use the enumerated powers to show why they CAN'T make people purchase a gun, then you would also have to point to the enumerated powers to show they CAN make people purchase health insurance.  If you're gong to show the manner in which the constitution specifically references firearms to make your case, then you must do the same with health insurance.




You asked for an argument against the gun mandate assuming that the HC mandate was constitutional. You got what you asked for but then you tried to apply my answer to a different argument. Based on the fact that for the sake of that argument we are assuming that the hc mandate is constitutional I do not have to show how it is constitutional.

Do you got it yet or are you going to continue to play stupid??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > uh exactly, PROVE IT. Show proof that there are NO exemptions and that ever person has to purchase it no matter what. This is what I am asking you to do. Prove you statement or retract it. BTW the same can be said about the MA of 1792. If you were a white male citizen you were required to purchase the necessary items. Or did you miss that??
> ...



Do you know what PROOF is?? I have to ask because you seem to believe that saying it is proving it. So can you PROVE there are no expemptions including the one that you listed?? 



Bern80 said:


> AND as you pointed out below, it did NOT apply to every white male between the ages of 18-45. It ONLY applied to the militia



Sorry but that is NOT the case. Why don't you try READING the MA of 1792, it clearly says 



> That* each and every *free able-bodied white male *citizen of the respective States*, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) *shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia*, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.



It bascially drafted EVERY white male CITIZEN betwen those ages. Learn to read.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > and yet it was required of almost every citizen at that time to be a part of it. How old do you think people got back then? what was the average life expectancy?? Funny how you just make up stats when you feel the need. Got any proof of your 15% number or not??
> ...




Once again do you know what PROOF is?? It's a GUESS that is all that it is. Claiming it's educated when it is ONLY based on your opinion proves nothing.

Yeah take out women. Since they had no real rights comparable to white males and could barely count as a citizen at that time. Excluding them was done back then so it's only appropriate not to include them in this discussion. 

In case you missed it the MA of 1792 mandated that every white male CITIZEN between the ages listed was required to be in their states' militia. That is pretty much a mandate that all white male citizens have to buy their equipment if they don't already have it.  

Not already member of the army? Our militia? Didn't you previously say,



Bern80 said:


> The act applies to what constituted the army at the time, so we would have to apply it to what constitutes the army today for the analogy to remain intact.



So it's funny how you stick your foot in your mouth and then blindly march on as you try to pretend it didn't happen. LOL 



Bern80 said:


> Now compare that to the people now that the insurance mandate applies to. All adults that can afford it less those on medicare are required to purchase insurance.




You continue to make claims about what is mandated in the HC bill and yet I am still waiting on you to provide PROOF of what is NOT excluded or exempt from the HC mandate. You made the argument that it was unconditional meaning that "whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual." now PROVE IT.


----------



## jillian (Feb 21, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.



the hypocrites think it's ok to be forced to buy a gun but it's not ok to have to buy health insurance... because heaven forbid you do anything that would benefit other people.


now blowing them off the face of the earth is a whole other subject.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > So *IF* congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Once again do you know what PROOF is?? It's a GUESS that is all that it is. Claiming it's educated when it is ONLY based on your opinion proves nothing.
> 
> Yeah take out women. Since they had no real rights comparable to white males and could barely count as a citizen at that time. Excluding them was done back then so it's only appropriate not to include them in this discussion.
> 
> In case you missed it the MA of 1792 mandated that every white male CITIZEN between the ages listed was required to be in their states' militia. That is pretty much a mandate that all white male citizens have to buy their equipment if they don't already have it.



No it's not a guess. It's math you idiot. We are attempting to create an analogy here. The simple fact is, it is most convenient for your argument to talk simply about citizens and ignore what constitutes one. But you're not so stupid as to not know what constituted a citizen then was far more restrictive than what constitutes one now.  So like I said, it's very convenient to say the MA mandate at the time covered almost every citizen. And you'll conveniently sweep under the rug the fact that 'citizen' was a mere fraction of the population then. So don't lecture me about intellectual dishonesty. 

And fraction of the population is not an opinion. The population is who we are talking about. How many people in our society the mandate effects. We KNOW in 1798 it was AT LEAST less than half the population. Woman didn't count. We KNOW it has to be less than 50% of the population because YOU would have to be truly dishonest to try to think that the remaining 50% is comprised entirely of able bodied white men between 18-45. 






drsmith1072 said:


> You continue to make claims about what is mandated in the HC bill and yet I am still waiting on you to provide PROOF of what is NOT excluded or exempt from the HC mandate. You made the argument that it was unconditional meaning that "whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual." now PROVE IT.



You tell me. I would personally love to know what choice I, a 30 year old white male, could make that would not require to purchase health insurance when the mandate takes effect. As far as I can tell the only choice I can make is to be poor in which case the government will provide it for me.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 21, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I did. You seem to not get how intellectually dishonest you are by basically saying 'see, see here's a time when a mandate applied to every citizen'. As if that is somehow a valid comparison when the term citizen was far more restrictive then it is now. 

Maybe it's you that need to get their learn on. To make two things analogous they must be similar. We are trying to show what the MA would look like today if applied. The problem is the analogy is hard to hold constant because too many variables are different. citizen doesn't mean now what it did then. So the analogy between then and now falls apart as does the broader analogy of making all 'citizens' purchase something.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Then it's the law that becomes irrelevant when you believe something is right or wrong?
> ...



So you morality depends on what society says? Then you have no principles. What is right remains right even when one is unable or unwilling to do what is right.





> My point is what actions one believes to be right or wrong are irrelevant where the law is concerned because it is the law that ultimately determines your future.



If that were true, we'd never see regime changes or changes in the Law when people stood up against the La when it was wrong





> Of course our militia's are voluntary now


No, they're not, you twit. I already cited the law. If you're a healthy male between 18 and 45, you're militia like it or not. 


> Then you are blind. The MA would have affected a mere fraction of the actual population at the time.


Only because blacks weren't considered human 


> ONLY men.


Because women were barely better than blacks in the eyes of the law





> ONLY those in the militia.



Not a voluntary thing- as the MA states itself





> ONLY able bodied.


So the useless were thrown aside. What's your point?





> ONLY between ages of 18-48.


Underage were not full citizens and few lived beyond 58- and those who did were considered useless as far as the MA were concerned.

Over 48 doesn't mean you can't participate in the insurance program.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> So you morality depends on what society says? Then you have no principles. What is right remains right even when one is unable or unwilling to do what is right.



Not what I said at all. Please attempt a little honesty. My morality depends on what I believe to be right or wrong, just like you. My point, which you don't seem to not want to acknowledge, is that some of the actions one takes that are based on their own moral compass may be subject to legal ramifications. Which is why I find it ultimately ridiculous when you claim 'I live my life based on some old rag' (might be paraphrasing there, but that was about the gist of it). Of course I don't. The constitution is not where I take my queues as to what is morally right or wrong. That doesn't change the fact that my actions are subject to the laws based on it.



JBeukema said:


> If that were true, we'd never see regime changes or changes in the Law when people stood up against the La when it was wrong



It depends on how many people are like minded and how far they are willing to go really and the issue involved.



JBeukema said:


> No, they're not, you twit. I already cited the law. If you're a healthy male between 18 and 45, you're militia like it or not.



Never mind that is in word only. 



JBeukema said:


> Only because blacks weren't considered human
> 
> Because women were barely better than blacks in the eyes of the law
> 
> ...



My point is you and smith are kind of hung up on the word 'citizen'. It's kind of the lynch pin of your whole argument. You use it in a lame attempt to claim the MA is comparable to the health insurance mandate in that it makes all citizens purchase something. The fact is they aren't comparable. The MA did NOT apply to every citizen and a citizen then is not the same thing as a citizen now.


----------



## JBeukema (Feb 22, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > So you morality depends on what society says? Then you have no principles. What is right remains right even when one is unable or unwilling to do what is right.
> ...



see the highlighted text

Which is why I find it ultimately ridiculous when you claim 'I live my life based on some old rag' (might be paraphrasing there, but that was about the gist of it). Of course I don't. The constitution is not where I take my queues as to what is morally right or wrong. That doesn't change the fact that my actions are subject to the laws based on it.

You also seem to have forgotten that I've stated repeatedly in this thread that Ii don't give a damn whether the mandate is 'constitutional' or not.


> The fact is they aren't comparable. The MA did NOT apply to every citizen


So it's fine if we make it subject to institutionalized racism and let the elderly and infirm remain without insurance while subjecting only the healthy to the new law?


> and a citizen then is not the same thing as a citizen now.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> see the highlighted text
> 
> You also seem to have forgotten that I've stated repeatedly in this thread that Ii don't give a damn whether the mandate is 'constitutional' or not.



Yes. What's your point? Are you so hell bent on being disagreeable that you can't see we agree on this? I don't need someone to tell me what's right and wrong is anymore than you do. The fact remains what is right is occasionally in conflict with the law. This discussion isn't about morality. It's about what our government has the power to make people do. You said before you think the mandate is wrong and that you don't need the constitution to tell you that. Fine. That doesn't change the fact, that if it becomes law you'll have to abide by it.

So when it gets to the point sometime when your morality is in conflict with what some congressman wants to make you do, it's nice to have some legal precedent to fall back on rather than just your own say so as to what you think is right or wrong. The truth may very well be on your side, your future is just going to be rather inconvenienced if the law isn't.



JBeukema said:


> > The fact is they aren't comparable. The MA did NOT apply to every citizen
> 
> 
> So it's fine if we make it subject to institutionalized racism and let the elderly and infirm remain without insurance while subjecting only the healthy to the new law?



You're missing the point. The point is, is the MA of 1792 really analgous the insurance mandate? To determine that somehow we have to set the two side by side, keeping as many variable the same as possible. There are all kinds of ways to do that. Do we try to see what the health care mandate would look like if applied then? Do we try to see what the MA of 1792 would look like if applied now? Whichever of those we apply, don't we have to keep certain variables the same, like what constitutes a citizen? Because it seems rather UNanalogous to compare what a group (termed citizens) is required by government to do, if citizen is now defined differently.


----------



## Binky (Feb 22, 2011)

A bill that requires one to carry one?  They've got to be kidding me.  While I believe peoples should have the right to carry and use a weapon, I don't think there should be a law forcing people to do so.  I do think tho' that if we are expecting or letting people carry them then those people should have to go thru proper safety classes which also teaches them HOW to shoot.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2011)

jillian said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Clapping for a new form of taxation?
> ...


You'll note that your response does not in any way address the argument to that effect.

But, given that you haven't the capacity to fathom, much less counter, that argument, your typically ineffectual sniping is... well... expected.

Tell us again about the only crime specified in the Constitution.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again do you know what PROOF is?? It's a GUESS that is all that it is. Claiming it's educated when it is ONLY based on your opinion proves nothing.
> ...



the problem is that your numbers are made up. You made up the claim of 25% and provided nothing to back it up even as you pretended it was an "educated guess". Here is some news for you, it's still JUST a guess. 



Bern80 said:


> We are attempting to create an analogy here.



was that before or after you took my comments out of context??



Bern80 said:


> The simple fact is, it is most convenient for your argument to talk simply about citizens and ignore what constitutes one.



actually that is your OPINION and that is all it is. Once again you confuse fact and opinion.



Bern80 said:


> But you're not so stupid as to not know what constituted a citizen then was far more restrictive than what constitutes one now.



more restrictive?? really. I hadn't thought of that despite the fact that I mentioned it in earlier statements. LOL 



Bern80 said:


> So like I said, it's very convenient to say the MA mandate at the time covered almost every citizen.



Convenient and based on the facts concerning the more restrictive requirements of being a citizen, true. 



Bern80 said:


> And you'll conveniently sweep under the rug the fact that 'citizen' was a mere fraction of the population then.



No the MA of 1792 did not apply to non-citizens and I never claimed as much. So are you trying to argue that the HC mandate applies to non-citizens?? It would seem that is what you are now trying to argue but can you PROVE IT?? 




Bern80 said:


> So don't lecture me about intellectual dishonesty.



Since you are the one being intellectual dishonest, it is you who deserves to be lectured. 



Bern80 said:


> And fraction of the population is not an opinion.



The problem you got into was that you tried to present a specific number with nothing real to back it up. You presented your OPINION that only 25% of the population back then were able-bodied and between the ages of 18 and 45 and failed to substantiate that claim. Claiming it's an educated guess does not make it valid. 



Bern80 said:


> The population is who we are talking about. How many people in our society the mandate effects. We KNOW in 1798 it was AT LEAST less than half the population.* Woman didn't count.* We KNOW it has to be less than 50% of the population because YOU would have to be truly dishonest to try to think that the remaining 50% is comprised entirely of able bodied white men between 18-45.



So women didn't count and yet here you are trying to include them. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. LOL  Furthermore, what is truly dishonest is claiming that the MA of 1792 only applied to 25% of the alleged 50% of the citizens left over after you exclude women who didn't count anyway, especially when you have provided NOTHING of substance to support said claim. You made up a number and then pretend that claiming it's an educated guess is enough to prove it. LOL 




Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to make claims about what is mandated in the HC bill and yet I am still waiting on you to provide PROOF of what is NOT excluded or exempt from the HC mandate. You made the argument that it was unconditional meaning that "whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual." now PROVE IT.
> ...



It's YOUR claim how about you try proving something instead of asking me to prove you wrong? Funny how that works. You make a claim, are asked to prove it and then fail miserably at doing so.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So are you going to provide proof of your claims concerning the HC mandate and who is actually mandated and that there are no exemptions or am I to take your avoidance as an admission that you can't prove your claims?




Bern80 said:


> I did.



you did what?? 



Bern80 said:


> You seem to not get how intellectually dishonest you are by basically saying 'see, *see here's a time when a mandate applied to every citizen'*. As if that is somehow a valid comparison when the term citizen was far more restrictive then it is now.



Funny but wasn't that the point of the gun mandate in the first place?? Claiming that if the HC mandate was good then so should the gun mandate?? Did you miss that from earlier on in this thread?? The fact that state and fed mandate are different and not comparable aside that was the point. So is every right winger that responded in this thread in support of such a comparison intellectually dishonest??. 

The point is to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate and that is the argument that YOU tried to make earlier. However, now that this type of comparison actually runs counter to your spin you wish to discard it. Sorry but you rung the bell on comparing fed mandate to a fed mandate now it can't be unrung. LOL  




Bern80 said:


> Maybe it's you that need to get their learn on. To make two things analogous they must be similar.



In case you missed it, you already showed that to be the case with your earlier fed mandate to fed mandate comparison. All that you required in your earlier comparison was that the fed was mandating a purchase and that exists in both the MA of 1792 and the HC mandate. So why are you changing your argument NOW??




Bern80 said:


> We are trying to show what the MA would look like today if applied.



That may be your NEW spin but please don't try to put words in my mouth. YOU were the one that wanted a fed mandate to fed mandate comparison and you got it. Trying to change the argument now just further exposes your dishonesty. 



Bern80 said:


> The problem is the analogy is hard to hold constant because too many variables are different.



I am sure it is confusing to you but then it's a good thing that you do have that master's degree to fall back on. LOL 



Bern80 said:


> citizen doesn't mean now what it did then. So the analogy between then and now falls apart as does the broader analogy of making all 'citizens' purchase something.



and that is why you use the definition at the time to make such a comparison. A fed mandate in the past that applied to almost every person that counted as a citizen back then is quite comparable to a fed mandate that applies to almost every person who counts as a citizen now. Why is that so hard for you to grasp??


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 22, 2011)

I do find it hilarious that when I right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them. 

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest. 

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess. 

I took a break form the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 22, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> I do find it hilarious that when I right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.
> 
> He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.
> 
> ...



And this is what it always comes to. Too chickenshit to take an actual position or too stupid to figure out he hasn't really said a damn thing. So you resort to what amounts to talking about someone in third person while they're in the room. Who are hoping is listening? Is it this post?



> *So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm*. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.



See the bolded sentence? That is the only single solitary statement in the pages and of your ramblings, the remotely resembles a position of opinion of any type.....AND IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! If they could justify it? How convenient is it for the body that makes laws to simply say 'yep it's constitutional cause we said so'. If that's really the argument you want to make, you're gonna have to do better. The rest of the paragraph is you opining about what someone else should think which isn't much of a position at all


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 23, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > I do find it hilarious that when I right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.
> ...



I have stated my postion clearly and have maintained the same position throughout this thread. Where as your postion has shifted and changed based on expediency as you try to make corrections to your previous arguments which were countered and shot down. 




Bern80 said:


> So you resort to what amounts to talking about someone in third person while they're in the room. Who are hoping is listening? Is it this post?



I tried talking to you directly but you chose to act like a child and stick your fingers in your ears and whine as you ignored the full and complete context of my posts so you could take small excerpts out of context in a dishonest attempt to get a gotcha moment. 

Furthermore, *talking about you in the third person does not change the fact that everything I said is completely TRUE. *


Bern80 said:


> > *So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm*. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.
> 
> 
> 
> See the bolded sentence? That is the only single solitary statement in the pages and of your ramblings, the remotely resembles a position of opinion of any type.....AND IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! If they could justify it? How convenient is it for the body that makes laws to simply say 'yep it's constitutional cause we said so'. If that's really the argument you want to make, you're gonna have to do better. The rest of the paragraph is you opining about what someone else should think which isn't much of a position at all



LOL That's the best you've got?? really?? BTW why are you so interested in making me restate my opinion when you will just ignore it as you have done previously? Why do you need ME to spell things out for you?? 
Although it is funny how you continue to falsley claim that my arguments are irrelevant and don't make sense and yet you cannot show how they are either. That pretty much shows that you are only making those claims so you can avoid arguments that you can't counter.   

Face it, the fact is that your arguments have been all over the place and you have been busted for contradicting yourself and being a dishonest hack. Desperately trying to make this about me and my opinons as you ignore the very opinions that you claim to want to talk about will not change that fact.


----------



## RevBig (Feb 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> Good for the goose, good for the gander.



I am heavily pro firearm and a NRA member because I support my causes with cash baby, without the NRA even peashooters might be illegal. Anyway, that said,  I am not so sure I can get on board with a law that orders me to buy anything! That is too much government intrusion into my life. I detest the Obamacare for those same reasons (among others). 
*~*RB*~*


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



This entire post is proof of my point. If you want me to respond to an argument then for the love of god make one. There isn't anything in here for me to respond to as an argument goes. THAT is why the bulk of your posts get deleted. AT BEST your opinon that your opinions are relevant and deserve response is no more valid than my opinion that a lot of what you say isnt relavent. It's all opinion about the conversation (as opposed to the topic) based on your perspective. 

I bolded the one sentence of yours that I could find that constituted a position of any type and YOU failed to counter it. Calerly YOU are the one more interested in avoiding things. How many times does this make that I've asked you to re-state/clarify your position? How manty times does this make that you've come up with some lame excuse not to? Maybe there is the sembelance of an actual argument in here some where, but what I bolded is about all I could find. I'm asking that so I don't continue to get a bunch more ridiculous posts in reply like this one.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Feb 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



That you are a coward who lacks the integrity to stand behind what he says and changes his arguments on a whim because he lacks the substance to back them up as he contradicts himself?? Yeah, I would say you have proven that point quite well.



> If you want me to respond to an argument then for the love of god make one.



I made several that coutnered every version of your argument that you presented and instead of addressing the fect that your spin has been countered you are trying desperately to make this about me. 



> There isn't anything in here for me to respond to as an argument goes.



Ther is plenty to respond to and your willful ignorance will not chagne that FACT.




> THAT is why the bulk of your posts get deleted.



actualy they get delelted becuase you can't coutner what was said so you claim it's irrelevant or does not make sense but can't show how it is either as you tunr tail and run.



> AT BEST your opinon that your opinions are relevant and deserve response is no more valid than my opinion that a lot of what you say isnt relavent. It's all opinion about the conversation (as opposed to the topic) based on your perspective.



You claim that my opinions are irrelevant and then fail to substantiate your claim. You made the claim that they irrelevant so it should be easy enough for you to show how they are irrelevant but the FACT is that you can't which is why you don't. 



> I bolded the one sentence of yours that I could find that constituted a position of any type and YOU failed to counter it.



Why would I counter my own position?? I know contradicting yourself is a problem that you have but why would I try to counter my own position?? 



> Calerly YOU are the one more interested in avoiding things.



says the hack who delete's half of my posts because he lacks the ability to respond to the content. 




> How many times does this make that I've asked you to re-state/clarify your position? How manty times does this make that you've come up with some lame excuse not to? Maybe there is the sembelance of an actual argument in here some where, but what I bolded is about all I could find. I'm asking that so I don't continue to get a bunch more ridiculous posts in reply like this one.



I have already stated my position and asked you many, many questions about your ever shifting position as I pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments and yet you have failed to address my questions. 
Why is it that you believe I don't deserve a real response to what I have said but that I should drop everything and follow your line of questioning and give you what I have already stated but you choose to ignore?? 

LOL


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 1, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



You would have been better off just cutting and pasting the post you made before this one. It's just more of the same. I don't know if things are getting worse or better for you. This time around you managed to not even come close to broaching the subject of health care. 

I will grant you have made many counter arguments, but none of them really have had anything to do with health care. It's more of the same similar to the above. I'm dodging this or I'm not responding to that or I'm changing this. None of which is actually true. And yet here I am asking yet again, point blank, for you to actually state your position.


----------



## Polk (Mar 1, 2011)

I'm late to this thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the authors of the bill do realize they're making the case for the constitutionality of the mandate, right? There have previously been federal requirements mandating the purchase of guns by private citizens.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 1, 2011)

Polk said:


> I'm late to this thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the authors of the bill do realize they're making the case for the constitutionality of the mandate, right? There have previously been federal requirements mandating the purchase of guns by private citizens.



At one time for a segment of the population, yes. Though it is hardly analogous in breadth and scope to the insurance mandate. Forgetting the WHAT government wants to make people buy, it's just scary to me that people are defending the notion that the federal government has the authority to make a citizen buy something from another private entity.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 2, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



aww you finally came back and all you continue to do is offer more and more avoidance because you have nothing valid to offer. Once again you chime back in and make false allegations about my posts as you fail to address or comment on any of the SPECIFICS within my posts. The sad thing is that you have been asked several times to be specific about what in my posts does not make sense or is irrelevant and you have failed to offer anything of substance to show how either applies to anything that I have said. 

Thanks for playing, you lose AGAIN, have a nice cowardly life as you die many, many times for your avoidance. LOL


----------



## Polk (Mar 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm late to this thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the authors of the bill do realize they're making the case for the constitutionality of the mandate, right? There have previously been federal requirements mandating the purchase of guns by private citizens.
> ...



In that case, there goes to GOP plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare, since both of those include a mandate for purchases from private bodies.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 4, 2011)

Polk said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I don't think that would really be the same. That you pay SS and medicare tax would stay the same. You would just have the option to spend it where you wanted to.


----------



## Polk (Mar 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Using that standard, the reason healthcare reform is unconstitutional is because it lacks a public option.


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 6, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...


  I like this bill. Can we get it in NY?


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2011)

Polk said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Given the current interaction of premiums and partial privatization in Medicare (through Part C) and the fact that I don't believe anyone--particularly the Republicans who passed it--have challenged the constitutionality of that mandatory choice of public or private, at the very least that would seem to be the case. Not too difficult to fix that, though.


----------



## iggy pop (Mar 6, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> > *Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun*
> > Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
> 
> 
> ...



Great law for a change


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 7, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



There is nothing specfic in your posts to comment on you dumbass. I have said repeatedly what I don't understand about your posts. What I don't understand is what the fuck your position even is. When I've asked you to state your position the response has been the same every time; that you've stated your position before and have implicitly refused to restate it. I have run trough the pages of this thread and I bolded what I could find of yours that resembles a declaritive statement on the health care issue of any type, which you declined to refute or even comment on. So the ball is your court. Either you agree that what I bolded constitutes your position on the issue or you correct it and explain what it really is. To avoid future confusion, here's a hint, your rantings that have nothing to do with health care at all, like the last half dozen posts or so will not be commented on.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 7, 2011)

Polk said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



No because nothing in the constitution requires a public health care or retirement option in the fist place.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Hey dumbass, I have presented many specific arguments that counter your spin and expose your contradictions and dishonesty. You choose to ignore them further exposing your dishonesty. The fact that you continue your avoidance only serves to back up my arguments.



Bern80 said:


> I have said repeatedly what I don't understand about your posts.



Really?? when and where?? list the posts and show specifically how you showed what does not make sense or is irrelevant. The fact is that you can't because I have asked you to provide specifics many times and you have failed to do so. 




Bern80 said:


> What I don't understand is what the fuck your position even is.



Your lack of comprehension and understanding is not my problem. go back and read the thread and you will see all of my posts in which you edited or omitted arguments that you refused to address because you claimed that they did not make sense or were irrelevant even though you have failed to show how any of my arguments are either. 



Bern80 said:


> When I've asked you to state your position the response has been the same every time; that you've stated your position before and have implicitly refused to restate it.



Once you go back and address my posts that you omitted or refused to respond to then I will get to your demands to respond to yours. That is the way this works, A position is given, questions are asked, answers are given and then a back and forth begins where questions are answered between the two parties debating the topic. you skipped the answer part and and now demand that I repeat my position that you obviously ignored the first time around even as you refuse to answer my questions or respond to my arguments. 




Bern80 said:


> I have run trough the pages of this thread and I bolded what I could find of yours that resembles a declaritive statement on the health care issue of any type, which you declined to refute or even comment on.



Perhaps "running through the pages of this thread" was not such a good idea? BTW, you cherry picking one sentence and demanding that i respond to it even as you ignore my questions and arguments only proves your cowardice, dishonesty and lack of integrity. 



Bern80 said:


> So the ball is your court.



Actually, it's been in your court for quite some time now but you refuse to respond to the actual content of my posts?? In order for the ball to be in my court you have to return a serve which you have failed to do.





Bern80 said:


> Either you agree that what I bolded constitutes your position on the issue or you correct it and explain what it really is.



IF you could READ you would know that the one part that you put in bold type and continue to rant on was  based on an argument presented by m14 who argued 



M14 Shooter said:


> The power may be exercised as Congres deems necessary and proper



and then I gave a valid argument based on your question which excluded the HC mandate under the assumption that it was constitutional but then you tried to dishonestly remove said assumption and apply my answer to your next argument about the HC mandate and didn't even bother responding to my argument as it applied to your question. 




Bern80 said:


> To avoid future confusion, here's a hint, your rantings that have nothing to do with health care at all, like the last half dozen posts or so will not be commented on.



and yet my "rantings" as you call them have poked holes in every argument that you have tried to make which is the real reason you are now omitting parts of my posts. 

Here is a previous post that describes how the debate between the two of us has gone.



drsmith1072 said:


> I do find it hilarious that when A right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.
> 
> He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.
> 
> ...



Minus your new demands that I respond to your question about a single statement I made, that was in the context of an argument made by another poster, even as you refuse to respond to my arguments and questions that pretty much sums up our debate.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 7, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Sorry dude. Not playing. If there is something specific you want addressed, go back, copy it and re-post. I'm not gonna go through pages of your meaningless drivel that you think is important and guess at what you would like addressed.


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 8, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



tl:dr


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Uh I already did list several specifics. I listed the majority of our debate and how you cut and ran from the content in my previous post. So claiming that I didn't present anything specific when I did just further shows how delusional you truly are. I have been very specifc and meticulously addressed every point that you have tried to make and your best response is to pretend it never happened. LOL


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 11, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



So that's a 'no'? You're not going to take the time to tell me specifically what it is you want addressed. I guess we're done here.


----------



## jasonmorston (Mar 11, 2011)

excellent! i support more guns for the simple fact a random shooter is better than the government having all the guns. (that creates genocide) it helps keep a check on their more tyrranical impulses


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 14, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Read this very slowly and please try to understand it even though simple english is apparently beyond your understanding.

I ALREADY DID. 

You have chosen to edit and ingore the specifics that you wish to avoid and then ask me to provided them again all so you can avoid them again as you dishonestly claim that I haven't provided specifics. 

Here is one that you avoided early on and are still avoiding. 
Remember your argument that was based on the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional where you wanted to compare apples (fed mandate) to apples (fed mandate) I responded to your question under your assumption and showed how one can argue that the gun mandate is not constitutional based on the fact that congress has the power to provide for arming the militia but nowhere in their enumerated powers does it say that they can require that the militia arm themselves. 
Instead of addressing my response you dishonestly tried to strip the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional from the argument as you ran away from my argument that directly countered your argument. So why didn't you address my response in the context of your argument including the assumption?

Is that specific enough for you??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 14, 2011)

Bern80, how about your claim that the HC mandate applies to every person?? I asked you to prove that claim and you turned tail and ran from doing so.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 15, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...





drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Smith, you don't get it. Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so. I have gone back and re-read all my posts in this thread and every nonseniscal reply you've made to them. There simply isn't any credibility to anything you say. You started responding to me by assuming right off the bat my argument was the same as someone elses. 

You continue to debate me for three pages before calling me on this ridiculous changing my position claim, which upon greater scrutiny isn't true. When I assumed the insurance mandate was constitutional you replied by saying IF they can justify the insurance mandate, they can justify the gun mandate. But you expounded on that but explaining where the constitution would have not justified the gun mandate, pointing to the enumerated powers. That opened a bit of paradox. We can no longer continue to assume something when the justification for the assumption does't exist. If you point to the enumerated powers to show a lack of justification for the gun mandate, then to keep apples to apples that same justification (or lack of) has to be applied to insurance. At that point, assumption or not, the argument falls a part. If the enumerated powers don't allow for a purchase of firearms then it doesn't allow for the insurance mandate so there is no point in continuing to assume its constitutionality.

And last but not least, you are extremely inchorrent. We're 40 some odd pages into this thing and you haven't made an argument on the subject yet. All this crap you want addressed has nothing to do with the subject. It's deflection on your part to avoid having to take a position. 



drsmith1072 said:


> Bern80, how about your claim that the HC mandate applies to every person?? I asked you to prove that claim and you turned tail and ran from doing so.



So every person is NOT actually required under the mandate to have insurance coverage. That would be news to me. Perhaps you are talking about who actually has to purchase it. Fine we can debate that, but that's not what I said. That everyone must indeed to be covered in some form or other does indeed apply to everyone.


----------



## RevBig (Mar 20, 2011)

Is this a debate about guns or insurance?

rb


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 20, 2011)

RevBig said:


> Is this a debate about guns or insurance?
> rb


This topic is meant to question the assertion from the left that the government has the power to make you buy good/services from private companies.

If you believe that the government has the power to make you buy health insurwnce, then it has the power to make you buy a gun.  Not surpisingly, those that carry the former belief have balked at the latter.


----------



## Garfield (Mar 20, 2011)

Crazy bill, just like ObamaCare.


----------



## RevBig (Mar 21, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> RevBig said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a debate about guns or insurance?
> ...



Yes I suspected as much. I have made the same comparisons. I think that the powers that be finally removed that stupid requirement. Still Obamacare stinks to high heaven it su*ks its awful, rotten and Un-American. I don't like it, and btw sorry for the preacher words.

rb


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 21, 2011)

I'm arguing for guns


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




WOW you are retarded. Thanks for spelling that out for all to see. It's your question. You asked it, recieved an answer but instead of addressing my response in the context of your question you turn tail and run. How typical.



Bern80 said:


> I have gone back and re-read all my posts in this thread and every nonseniscal reply you've made to them. There simply isn't any credibility to anything you say.



PROVE IT!  
How about some specifics as to what doesn't make sense or lacks credibility. To quote you "just becuase you say something is so, doesn't make it so." Your own arguments expose your dishonesty and hypocrisy. 




Bern80 said:


> You started responding to me by assuming right off the bat my argument was the same as someone elses.



NO, I was debating someone else and asked you a question based on your arguments. When I posted their argument I was merely showing you how their argument was contrdictory to yours and you tried to hide behind CLAIMING that I was talking to somone else as you avoided responding to my questions. 



Bern80 said:


> You continue to debate me for three pages before calling me on this ridiculous changing my position claim, which upon greater scrutiny isn't true.



and yet it is true and you show how it is in the following spin. 



Bern80 said:


> When I assumed the insurance mandate was constitutional you replied by saying IF they can justify the insurance mandate, they can justify the gun mandate. But you expounded on that but explaining where the constitution would have not justified the gun mandate, pointing to the enumerated powers.



and you failed to address my response because you knew you couldn't counter my response. Then your argument changed to exclude your previously mentioned assumption about the hc mandate.  



Bern80 said:


> That opened a bit of paradox.



If you had made an argument claiming why you assumed that the hc mandate was constitutional and it had any coorelation to my response to your question then you could claim a paradox. However, since you failed to provide any such foundation for your assumption there is NO paradox. 




Bern80 said:


> We can no longer continue to assume something when the justification for the assumption does't exist.



"Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so."

You asked a very specific question and I gave a response to your question. Instead of addressing my response in the context of your question you tried to change the argument to exclude your assumption.  




Bern80 said:


> If you point to the enumerated powers to show a lack of justification for the gun mandate, then to keep apples to apples that same justification (or lack of) has to be applied to insurance. At that point, assumption or not, the argument falls a part. If the enumerated powers don't allow for a purchase of firearms then it doesn't allow for the insurance mandate so there is no point in continuing to assume its constitutionality.



Not according to your question which assumes that the hc mandate is constitutional. You asked a question with a specific set of parameters, then after getting a response that you couldn't counter and refused to address you decided to change the parameters as you tried to apply my response to a completely different argument.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> And last but not least, you are extremely inchorrent. We're 40 some odd pages into this thing and you haven't made an argument on the subject yet. All this crap you want addressed has nothing to do with the subject. It's deflection on your part to avoid having to take a position.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Due to the fact that it has been argued in this thread that the past mandates discussed in this thread didn't count because they do not apply to every person even as those making this argument claim that the current hc mandate does apply to every person, how can you argue that it doesn't have anything to do with the subject??

So is that a NO that you can't prove that it applies to every person?? You make the claim how about proving it??

"Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so."


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 21, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> RevBig said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a debate about guns or insurance?
> ...



Is that why you cut and ran from your own thread pages upon pages ago and only now chime back in to make claims not supported but the debate in this thread?? 

LOL Imagine that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2011)

RevBig said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RevBig said:
> ...


Of course - they are obvious and inescapable.  No way to honestly argue for The Obama's insurance mandate w/o accepting the (far stronger) argument for a firearms mandate.



> I think that the powers that be finally removed that stupid requirement. Still Obamacare stinks to high heaven it su*ks its awful, rotten and Un-American.


There are numeous, completely sound, arguments aagainst Obamacare.


----------



## RevBig (Mar 22, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> I'm arguing for guns



Your my kind of guy spoon man! 

rb


----------



## drsmith1072 (Mar 22, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> RevBig said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




LOL stronger?? and yet your arguments failed at every attempt that you made to spin them. The "best" part of your argument is that where firearms were concerned you had a broad interpretation of the constitution and where the HC mandate was concerned you had a narrow interpretation. Nice contradiction on your part.



M14 Shooter said:


> > I think that the powers that be finally removed that stupid requirement. Still Obamacare stinks to high heaven it su*ks its awful, rotten and Un-American.
> 
> 
> There are numeous, completely sound, arguments aagainst Obamacare.



And yet you only argue about the one that you based this thread on. Imagine that. 

It's really funny how you depserate right wingers will say anything and pretend that it becomes fact the moment the words are typed.


----------

