Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[M14 Shooter]

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?

And back to page 1

And yet I haven't found a simple yes or no.

Simple: Yes

 

[M14 Shooter]

Quote:
So violating someone's rights isn't immoral?


Again:
Any immoralty attached to the violation of someone's right is subjective and incidental.

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?

That is, of course, the point - everyone's is different, both in terms of the source and the specifics.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

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]

Yes, it would. But, the requirement that he arms himself does the same thing.

The requirement that you get yourself health insurance provides for the general welfare.

Article I Sec 8:1 gives Congress the power to raise revenue and spend it, and nothing else.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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?

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]

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

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?

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?

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]

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??

Pretending that you being called out for being wrong never happened won't make it go away. LOL So why no response pilgrim??

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

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.

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]

Yes, it would. But, the requirement that he arms himself does the same thing.

The requirement that you get yourself health insurance provides for the general welfare.

Article I Sec 8:1 gives Congress the power to raise revenue and spend it, and nothing else.

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]

I said what I said in plain English.

You're dodging again. Answer the question.

Your question does not follow from anything I said, and as such is a red herring.

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]

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?

And back to page 1

And yet I haven't found a simple yes or no.

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]

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]

The requirement that you get yourself health insurance provides for the general welfare.

Article I Sec 8:1 gives Congress the power to raise revenue and spend it, and nothing else.

So spending money to arm the militia would be fine. Got it. Now, about that personal mandate...

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]

You're dodging again. Answer the question.

Your question does not follow from anything I said, and as such is a red herring.

You don't even know what a red herring is, as you just made clear.

Sigh.
I have wasted enough time on you.

 

[JBeukema]

Article I Sec 8:1 gives Congress the power to raise revenue and spend it, and nothing else.

So spending money to arm the militia would be fine. Got it. Now, about that personal mandate...

The power for that's been cited. Pay attemtion.

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]

Article I Sec 8:1 gives Congress the power to raise revenue and spend it, and nothing else.

So spending money to arm the militia would be fine. Got it. Now, about that personal mandate...

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:

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]

So spending money to arm the militia would be fine. Got it. Now, about that personal mandate...

The power for that's been cited. Pay attemtion.

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'

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]

The power for that's been cited. Pay attemtion.

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'

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.

I see. If one mandate is imposed all mandates are valid even when contrary to the constitution.

Gotcha.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.