Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[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.

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

I accept your concession of the points under contention.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Again, says the petulant child.

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.

I accept your concession of the points under contention.

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]

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

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

I accept your concession of the points under contention.

Hey dumbass, I merely quoted one of YOUR typical non-answers.

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]

Hi, you have received -23 reputation points from M14 Shooter.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
your responses do not in any way menaingfully relate to what I said.

Regards,
M14 Shooter

Note: This is an automated message.

Reading comprehension's not your forte', is it?

 

[edthecynic]

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

I accept your concession of the points under contention.

Hey dumbass, I merely quoted one of YOUR typical non-answers.

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.

I accept your concession of the points under contention.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey dumbass, I merely quoted one of YOUR typical non-answers.

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.

I accept your concession of the points under contention.

Sigh. You have wasted enough of my time.

 

[Kato]

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]

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]

Has not owning a gun ever caused a personal bankruptcy?

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

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

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]

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.

So why is it stupid anyway?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

And this is different from what I said how?

Can you elaborate more?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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

The same way having health "care" (I think you meant insurance not care) can help you from going bankrupt...its a personal protection.

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]

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.

And this is different from what I said how?

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]

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.

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.

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