Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Charles_Main]

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.

So when as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Yeah, that's the argument.
No, you're right, it can't be supported.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So when (h)as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?

- Freight companies must purchase cargo liability insurance.
- At one time, militiamen had to supply and maintain their own basic equipment.
- At one time. merchant seamen had to purchase their own health insurance

This, of course, means that:
- Everyone can be required to carry cargo liability insurance
- Everojne can be required to keep and maintain basic military equipment
- Everyone can be required to carry health insurance

 

[drsmith1072]

You can't have it both ways. You want it to mean two mutually exclusive things at once.

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.

That is the argument of the rightwingers in this thread. If you have a problem with it talk to them because they are the ones arguing that if you support the HC mandate then you must support the gun mandate even as they argue that the two are different.

If you had actually taken the time to read what was said in this thread instead of trolling in to blurt out your misdirected nonsense then you would have known who suggested it and I wouldn't have had to explain it to you.

 

[drsmith1072]

You can't have it both ways. You want it to mean two mutually exclusive things at once.

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.

So when as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?

Go back and read the thread. it's already been mentioned several times.

 

[signelect]

If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun. Most people do not want or need a gun. It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.

 

[Bern80]

If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun. Most people do not want or need a gun. It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.

That is a statistically incorrect statement coming from someone with obviously no real experiences around firearms.

The point of the question is libs are arguing that the government has the constitutional authority to require people to buy things. Yet we can't seem to get a straight yes or no out of them when one asks if they would be okay with and/or abide by a federal law requiring everyone to purchase a gun.

 

[drsmith1072]

If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun. Most people do not want or need a gun. It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.

That is a statistically incorrect statement coming from someone with obviously no real experiences around firearms.

The point of the question is libs are arguing that the government has the constitutional authority to require people to buy things. Yet we can't seem to get a straight yes or no out of them when one asks if they would be okay with and/or abide by a federal law requiring everyone to purchase a gun.

Actually a rightwinger started this thread and has been trying to argue that the hc mandate and gun mandate are different and that one is constitutional because it comes from a state (actually depends on the state's constition) and the other is not because it comes from the fed just because he says so.
Then, in spite of the fact that he claimed that they are different, he tried to argue that they are the same and that if you support the HC mandate then you must also support the gun mandate.

Do you see the contradiction or do you choose to turn a blind eye to it as you attempt to make the same invalid correlation??

 

[Bern80]

If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun. Most people do not want or need a gun. It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.

That is a statistically incorrect statement coming from someone with obviously no real experiences around firearms.

The point of the question is libs are arguing that the government has the constitutional authority to require people to buy things. Yet we can't seem to get a straight yes or no out of them when one asks if they would be okay with and/or abide by a federal law requiring everyone to purchase a gun.

Actually a rightwinger started this thread and has been trying to argue that the hc mandate and gun mandate are different and that one is constitutional because it comes from a state (actually depends on the state's constition) and the other is not because it comes from the fed just because he says so.
Then, in spite of the fact that he claimed that they are different, he tried to argue that they are the same and that if you support the HC mandate then you must also support the gun mandate.

Do you see the contradiction or do you choose to turn a blind eye to it as you attempt to make the same invalid correlation??

I understand quite clearly. I'm trying to cut to the chase so to speak. Since we can't compare apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something), let's just compare apples to apples and pretend the federal government, under the auspice of public safety or somtheing, required that everyone purchase a gun. IF you are one who believes it constitutional for the government to make you buy insurance then indeed you are required to beieve it constitutional were they to require you to purchase a gun, or really purchase anything for that matter. If the 'crisis' were the environment and government deemed it neccessary to make everyone buy a Prius to improve envirnmental policy, you would again be required to say that is constitutional as well if you believe the insurance mandate is.

The point I keep trying to drive home like a broken record is people really aren't see the forest for the trees. That is some are so focused on health care they don't see what the policies they are trying implement mean in the bigger picture of what authority the government has to make you do.

 

[drsmith1072]

That is a statistically incorrect statement coming from someone with obviously no real experiences around firearms.

The point of the question is libs are arguing that the government has the constitutional authority to require people to buy things. Yet we can't seem to get a straight yes or no out of them when one asks if they would be okay with and/or abide by a federal law requiring everyone to purchase a gun.

Actually a rightwinger started this thread and has been trying to argue that the hc mandate and gun mandate are different and that one is constitutional because it comes from a state (actually depends on the state's constition) and the other is not because it comes from the fed just because he says so.
Then, in spite of the fact that he claimed that they are different, he tried to argue that they are the same and that if you support the HC mandate then you must also support the gun mandate.

Do you see the contradiction or do you choose to turn a blind eye to it as you attempt to make the same invalid correlation??

I understand quite clearly. I'm trying to cut to the chase so to speak. Since we can't compare apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something), let's just compare apples to apples and pretend the federal government, under the auspice of public safety or somtheing, required that everyone purchase a gun. IF you are one who believes it constitutional for the government to make you buy insurance then indeed you are required to beieve it constitutional were they to require you to purchase a gun, or really purchase anything for that matter. If the 'crisis' were the environment and government deemed it neccessary to make everyone buy a Prius to improve envirnmental policy, you would again be required to say that is constitutional as well if you believe the insurance mandate is.

The point I keep trying to drive home like a broken record is people really aren't see the forest for the trees. That is some are so focused on health care they don't see what the policies they are trying implement mean in the bigger picture of what authority the government has to make you do.

So you can;t win the original argument because as you admit it is flawed and compares apples to oranges. Thanks for the admission now could you please stop dishonestly claiming that the left made this argument when it came from the right?

Furthermore, that has already been answered by one of your own and I pointed out how his argument could be used to justify and argue that the HC mandate is constitutional.

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

Oops I guess you missed that part. LOL

So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.

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;

 

[Bern80]

So you can;t win the original argument because as you admit it is flawed and compares apples to oranges. Thanks for the admission now could you please stop dishonestly claiming that the left made this argument when it came from the right?

What original argument? What did I claim the left is arguing? I think you have me confused with someone else. I understand the point SD is trying to make, but also saw the problem with the argument as well. Since we all understand the point trying to be made (that if government has the authority to make you purcashe one thing, it has the authority to make you purchase anything), let's simply apply South Dakota's law at the federal level. Surely if the fed requiring people to purchase insurance is constitutional, so is requring them to purchase a gun.

Furthermore, that has already been answered by one of your own and I pointed out how his argument could be used to justify and argue that the HC mandate is constitutional.

Dude, don't even pretend to know who 'my own' is. You don't. Do not assume his argument is mine. The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is. The point of this argument in full truth is to reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase one thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun.

-A state constitution may give the state government the power to do so.
-The US Constitution gives the federal government the power to require certain people to do so.

Most people do not want or need a gun.

So? The issue is the power to compel.

It will only get someone hurt and most likely it won't be the bad guy.

There are far more instances of a gun used in self-defense than in an accidental injury.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point of this argument in full truth is reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase on thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.

Correctamundo.

 

[drsmith1072]

So you can;t win the original argument because as you admit it is flawed and compares apples to oranges. Thanks for the admission now could you please stop dishonestly claiming that the left made this argument when it came from the right?

What original argument? What did I claim the left is arguing? I think you have me confused with someone else. I understand the point SD is trying to make, but also saw the problem with the argument as well. Since we all understand the point trying to be made (that if government has the authority to make you purcashe one thing, it has the authority to make you purchase anything), let's simply apply South Dakota's law at the federal level. Surely if the fed requiring people to purchase insurance is constitutional, so is requring them to purchase a gun.

Furthermore, that has already been answered by one of your own and I pointed out how his argument could be used to justify and argue that the HC mandate is constitutional.

Dude, don't even pretend to know who 'my own' is. You don't. Do not assume his argument is mine. The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is. The point of this argument in full truth is to reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase one thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.

How can you ask "What original argument?" when you admit that it's like comparing apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something)? You said it can't be done therefore you admit that the orignal argument is LOST. Changing the argument to fed to fed comparison does nothing to support the claim that they are apples to apples either. This was addressed in the part of my response you deleted and avoided.
How typical, you whine and cry that no one answered your questions and then whe you get an answer you ignore it and pretend it never happened.

Dude, I answered you version of the argument where we assume the fed mandate on HC is constitutional and addressed it by saying,

So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.

and then listed the power that applies.

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;

So why ask a question and demand that others answer it if you are just going to run away from and avoid the answer??

 

[drsmith1072]

If it is unconstitutional for the government to make us buy health care how can they make you buy a gun.

-A state constitution may give the state government the power to do so.
-The US Constitution gives the federal government the power to require certain people to do so.

NO IT DOESN'T. This has been explained to you MULTIPLE times and your misinterpretation only shows how idiotic you are as you try to read something into it that is NOT there.

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;

The power to provide for arming the militia is a hell of a lot different than requiring them to provide for arming themselves at their own expense. Nice stretch as you try desperately to pull that one out of thin air. But my guess is that you know that already but don't really care about the truth. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

The point of this argument in full truth is reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim being required to purchase on thing is constitutional, but being required to purchase something else is not. THAT is what 'you people' remain too chicken shit to acknowledge.

Correctamundo.

Well the point backfired because that wasn't the original argument and even bern80 admitted that the original argument was comparing apples to oranges. In other words m14, bern is telling you that you were WRONG to try and compare the fed mandate to the state mandate. You are just too damn stupid to realize it. LOL

 

[Bern80]

So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.

Unfortunately that is a flawed argument. If you're going to use the enumerated powers to show why they CAN'T make people purchase a gun, then you would also have to point to the enumerated powers to show they CAN make people purchase health insurance. If you're gong to show the manner in which the constitution specifically references firearms to make your case, then you must do the same with health insurance.

You just argued that because the constitution says nothing about the fed's authority to make people arm themselves at their own expense it means that can't make them buy firearms. I would say that means you do have to show where it specifically says they must purchase health insurance. What you're essentially saying in a rather weasely attempt at winning the argument is to make some mealy mouthed argument that the fed has the authority to make you purchase some things but not others. That's the only way you can reconcile being okay with having to purchase health care but not okay with it if they made you purchase a gun. Sorry, that just doesn't work. There is gray area in some things, but not here. Either the fed has the authority to make you buy anything or nothing.

 

[JBeukema]

You can't have it both ways. You want it to mean two mutually exclusive things at once.

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.

So when as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?

Read the thread

 

[JBeukema]

So when (h)as the Federal Government ever mandated that Americans had to buy something from a private company?

- Freight companies must purchase cargo liability insurance.
- At one time, militiamen had to supply and maintain their own basic equipment.
- At one time. merchant seamen had to purchase their own health insurance

This, of course, means that:
- Everyone can be required to carry cargo liability insurance
- Everojne can be required to keep and maintain basic military equipment
- Everyone can be required to carry health insurance

If merchant seamen, why not merchants? And sales associates? Teachers, carpenters, and mechanics...

 

[RadiomanATL]

It's already a law in Kennesaw that every head of household must own a gun.