Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[drsmith1072]

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

OK now where do I go to get my automatic firearm or my anti tank weapon?

Arizona!

 

[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.

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?

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]

The Militia Act of 1792

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

OK now where do I go to get my automatic firearm or my anti tank weapon?

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]

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]

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

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.

False dichotomy.
The MA1792 is related to a requirement planced on certain people a condition of service mandated by the state

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]

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]

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.

False dichotomy.
The MA1792 is related to a requirement planced on certain people a condition of service mandated by the state....

You didn't read it, did you?

So we can only require white men to buy guns and health insurance?

Take it up with George Washington- it passed during his first term

I'm sorry -- your responses do not in any way menaingfully relate to what I said.
Please try again.

 

[drsmith1072]

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".

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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:

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]

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.

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.

Um.. I addressed this, with the clear language of the constitution. See underlined.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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:

I did directly address your claim based on the fact that you have done nothing to substantiate your own argument.

Ok.... you're simply being absurd for the sake of being absurd.
I shant waste any more time on you.

 

[JBeukema]

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

Said the petulant child with no means to create an otherwise effective or meaningful response.


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.


It's a mystery to YOU because you don't understand the subject

So you don't consider the enforcement of the restriction against felons owning a firearm an enforcement issue?? REALLY?? LOL

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.

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]

Irrelevant. The law, contrary to yourwillfully ignorant claim, does --not-- require felons to own guns.

Yet another instance of you running away from an argument instead of actually addressing it.

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:

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