Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[drsmith1072]

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.

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]

Has having health care ever kept your house from being robbed?

How is owning a gun going to prevent my house from being robbed?

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.

And what do you suppose the payments on a procedure running into six figures would be?

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

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.

Based on population and lack of density of said population they probably already do.

So what point would that prove? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same goes for health care.

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]

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.

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]

Why is it stupid?

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

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.

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]

The air force is not an army. It;s the air force.

You must not have understood what I said.
Try reading it again.

you evade a lot

 

[JBeukema]

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]

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.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same goes for health care.

The guys who wrote, signed, and ratified COTUS disagree.

This was done-by the fed- during Washington's first term.

 

[JBeukema]

Why is it stupid?

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

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.

So the Militia Act is unconstitutional? The guys who ratified COTUS disagree.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Wouldn't this be unconstitutional along the same lines as the healthcare measure was just deemed unconstitutional?

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]

The air force is not an army. It;s the air force.

You must not have understood what I said.
Try reading it again.

you evade a lot

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[JBeukema]

Search tags for this pagepowered by vbulletin gun case

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.

The federal government requires car insurance? Since when?

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.

Are you just making things up in an attempt to look intelligent?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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.

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.

Yet, when I asked you about mandated vaccinations you jumped straight to them being required to travel outside the US.

Keep trying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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]

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.

Wouldn't this be unconstitutional along the same lines as the healthcare measure was just deemed unconstitutional?

That depends on the powers granted to the state of SD by its constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The air force is not an army. It;s the air force.

You must not have understood what I said.
Try reading it again.

you evade a lot

You refuse to provide meaningful responses to my posts.
The post you responded to addressed your response in its entirety.
;shrug: