Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Kato]

I support Gun ownership. I support background checks.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

GIven that these weapons are of the kind in common use and are equipment orinarily issued to troops-- yes. No doubt.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.


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


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

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And then in DC v Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.

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.

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

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]

stop altering my posts!!!!! Restored
.

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??

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

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]

The Militia Act of 1792

We are not living in 1792.

ok so would you also like to see the 1st amendment done away with?

More specifically:
Should we then restrict the protections of the 4th amendment to the technologies common to the last 18th century?

 

[drsmith1072]

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

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.

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

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]

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.

You're fucking retarded.

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]

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.

Back to my other point, where I said by your logic this SD law would require felons to own guns.

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]

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?

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.

Maybe you should do some basic research.

The Militia Act of 1792

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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.