Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[JBeukema]

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.

They did. 200 years ago. Fact is, at the time, only white males were 'people' in the eyes of the law- and they had to buy their own guns, horses, and other gear- not because they signed up for anything, but because they were citizens.

Are you too stupid to get it or just too dishonest to admit it?

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.

I've said numerous times in this thread that i don't give a damn whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Only the righties with their fetish for dead men need to be told by their Holy Constitution, written by their holy men- their demigods- whether the mandate is right or wrong.

Because they have religion and not principles guiding them.

 

[JBeukema]

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;

Except the guys who wrote it disagreed- as proven by the mandate during Washington's first term

 

[JBeukema]

Most people do not want or need a gun.

So? The issue is the power to compel.

No, you retard, it's the authority to compel that you're arguing about.

Damn, you're too stupid to even know what you're trying to argue about.

Why do we let you people vote? No wonder this country's in so much trouble.

 

[Bern80]

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.

They did. 200 years ago. Fact is, at the time, only white males were 'people' in the eyes of the law- and they had to buy their own guns, horses, and other gear- not because they signed up for anything, but because they were citizens.

Are you too stupid to get it or just too dishonest to admit it?

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.

I've said numerous times in this thread that i don't give a damn whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Only the righties with their fetish for dead men need to be told by their Holy Constitution, written by their holy men- their demigods- whether the mandate is right or wrong.

Because they have religion and not principles guiding them.

Nothing could be further from the truth where I am concerned. Try another lame ass excuse. Of course I know constitution or no constitution it's wrong. That doesn't change the fact the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it. A society doesn't function too well where the only law of the land is whatever one happens to believe is morally right or wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.

Except that it's already been shown in this thread to be constitutional. The idea that 'cotus doesn't say they can mandate you buy shit' was rejected by the guys who wrote, argued for, and ratified cotus.

If making you buy a gun counts as providing for the common defense, then making you buy medical coverage is providing for the general welfare per the same goddam sentence

Either the mandate is constitutional or the the guys who wrote, signed, and ratified cotus didn't even want to live under it

 

[JBeukema]

So, ws/is the Militia Act unconstitutional? Did George Washington throw out COTUS during his first term? Did the Constitution last less than four years?

 

[Kato]

So, ws/is the Militia Act unconstitutional? Did George Washington throw out COTUS during his first term? Did the Constitution last less than four years?

The Interpretation of the Constitution was radically changed after Ratification, yes. The Militia Act has also been changed more than once. Yes you have the Constitutional Right to own a gun if you do not forfeit it. You are not compelled to own one, neither should you be compelled to buy insurance.

 

[Bern80]

the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.

Except that it's already been shown in this thread to be constitutional. The idea that 'cotus doesn't say they can mandate you buy shit' was rejected by the guys who wrote, argued for, and ratified cotus.

If making you buy a gun counts as providing for the common defense, then making you buy medical coverage is providing for the general welfare per the same goddam sentence

Either the mandate is constitutional or the the guys who wrote, signed, and ratified cotus didn't even want to live under it

Wrong on both counts and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the constitution was written (and maybe basic english) on your part.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.

Except that it's already been shown in this thread to be constitutional. The idea that 'cotus doesn't say they can mandate you buy shit' was rejected by the guys who wrote, argued for, and ratified cotus.

If making you buy a gun counts as providing for the common defense, then making you buy medical coverage is providing for the general welfare per the same goddam sentence

Either the mandate is constitutional or the the guys who wrote, signed, and ratified cotus didn't even want to live under it

Wrong on both counts and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the constitution was written (and maybe basic english) on your part.

You forgot "willfull".
It shows a WILLFULL lack of understanding on how the constitution was written.
That is, he has -chosen- to argue an unsound point.

 

[JBeukema]

You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.

The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.

 

[Bern80]

You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.

The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something. As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear. This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.

Pretend for a second you are writing a document that is going to be about the rules under which government must operate. Which makes more sense? To try and figure out and put to paper everything government should NOT do? Or to write a document that tells government what it can do, with the understanding that anything not their is not allowed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.

The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something. As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear. This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.

They were not. Only those who were part of the militia, pursuant to the Congressional power to provide for the arming of said militia.
Constitutional? Absolutely. The power is in black and white.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

OK please learn how to READ and please take things in their full and complete context instead of editing out or ignoring the parts of my posts that you wsih to avoid because you lack the ability to actually address them.

The argument I am making is based on the unumerated powers and according to the specifics which the right always uses to argue against HC and according to the wording of the enumerated powers congress has the power to PROVIDE for ARMING of militias not mandate that everyone purchase a firearm.

Furthermore, YOUR own argument required the assumption that the mandated HC was constitutional so it's funny how you now avoid your own assumption to try and catch me in a "gotcha" moment that is solely based on your own dishonesty.

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.

or did you forget about that??
Oh and in case you missed it, YOU pointed out that the POINT of this argument in this thread, which is comparing a state's mandate to a fed's mandate, is like comparing apples to oranges. So the only point is that there is no REAL point.

 

[drsmith1072]

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;

Except the guys who wrote it disagreed- as proven by the mandate during Washington's first term

My personal belief is that the constitution is open for interpretation. However, when right wingers are against something they are the ones that argue if it doesn't sepcifically state it in the constitution that congress has the power to do so then it is not one of their enumerated powers.
I merely pointed out that it SPECIFICALLY states that congress has the power to PROVIDE for ARMING of militias and that in no way shape or form states that congress has the power to force all citizens to purchase firearms, which is the argument m14 is trying to make.

 

[drsmith1072]

the constitution is the only LEGAL grounds you have to fight it.

Except that it's already been shown in this thread to be constitutional. The idea that 'cotus doesn't say they can mandate you buy shit' was rejected by the guys who wrote, argued for, and ratified cotus.

If making you buy a gun counts as providing for the common defense, then making you buy medical coverage is providing for the general welfare per the same goddam sentence

Either the mandate is constitutional or the the guys who wrote, signed, and ratified cotus didn't even want to live under it

Wrong on both counts and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the constitution was written (and maybe basic english) on your part.

How typical, he claims that J is wrong and that he lacks the understanding on how the constitution was written and yet bern lacks the abiltiy to provide a "correction" of j's interpretation, which usually means he is just blowing smoke because he has NOTHING valid to offer as a counter.

Claiming someone is wrong merely because you say so as you try to insult them shows that you've got NOTHING.

 

[drsmith1072]

You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.

The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something. As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear. This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.

Pretend for a second you are writing a document that is going to be about the rules under which government must operate. Which makes more sense? To try and figure out and put to paper everything government should NOT do? Or to write a document that tells government what it can do, with the understanding that anything not their is not allowed?

Actually based on the document in question every ablebodied adult white male was only required to purchase the necessary equipment if you didn't already own said equipment. Due to the fact that adult white males were the only people who actually counted as a citizens it was pretty much a blanket mandate at that time.

That is how it is with the healthcare mandate. If you already have insurance then you are NOT required to buy it.

BTW you still haven't actually shown how anything he said in his previous post was wrong. What are you afraid of?? If he is wrong as you say then it should be easy enough for you to PROVE.

 

[drsmith1072]

You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.

The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something. As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear. This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.

They were not. Only those who were part of the militia, pursuant to the Congressional power to provide for the arming of said militia.
Constitutional? Absolutely. The power is in black and white.

Actually according to the MA of 1792 every able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to enter the milita. They had NO choice in the matter. That pretty much included every citizen except those who were considered elderly at the time.

 

[Bern80]

You have failed to show how any of it is wrong.

The mandate has been proven to be constitutional in the eyes of those wh write the constitution. Unless, that is, you posit that they threw the constitution out in under four years, rendering the whole thing moot anyway.

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something. As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear. This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.

Pretend for a second you are writing a document that is going to be about the rules under which government must operate. Which makes more sense? To try and figure out and put to paper everything government should NOT do? Or to write a document that tells government what it can do, with the understanding that anything not their is not allowed?

Actually based on the document in question every ablebodied adult white male was only required to purchase the necessary equipment if you didn't already own said equipment. Due to the fact that adult white males were the only people who actually counted as a citizens it was pretty much a blanket mandate at that time.

That is how it is with the healthcare mandate. If you already have insurance then you are NOT required to buy it.

I'm not sure what is scarier; that you think the constitution allows that, or that you don't really seem to care. You are making quite the intellectually dishonest stretch comparing requiring a specific age group (18-45), with a specific condition (able bodied), of ANOTHER specific group (the militia) being required to purchase something in order to a member of that group and requiring every U.S. citizen, period to purchase health insurance. If you were to wager that the framers would conclude that the government could reqire every citizen of the U.S.A to purchase a private product because they made militia members purchase guns, I hope that is a wager you're prepared to lose. I think they would rather quickly see the remaifactions to the freedom they sought to protect and defend in allowing the fed the authority to make everyone purchase anything they wanted them to or face financial penalty.

BTW you still haven't actually shown how anything he said in his previous post was wrong. What are you afraid of?? If he is wrong as you say then it should be easy enough for you to PROVE.

He who and what argument? I'm talking to YOU.

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something. As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear. This was a requirement? I would like to see some evidence that the government forced everty citizen (or what counted as a citizen at the time) to purchase these things.

Pretend for a second you are writing a document that is going to be about the rules under which government must operate. Which makes more sense? To try and figure out and put to paper everything government should NOT do? Or to write a document that tells government what it can do, with the understanding that anything not their is not allowed?

Actually based on the document in question every ablebodied adult white male was only required to purchase the necessary equipment if you didn't already own said equipment. Due to the fact that adult white males were the only people who actually counted as a citizens it was pretty much a blanket mandate at that time.

That is how it is with the healthcare mandate. If you already have insurance then you are NOT required to buy it.

I'm not sure what is scarier; that you think the constitution allows that, or that you don't really seem to care.

Please learn how to READ. The document in question is the MA of 1792 which was passed and did allow for that. I really wish you would read the thread so I and others don't have to continue to go back and explain things to you because you choose to be willfully illinformed.

You are making quite the intellectually dishonest stretch comparing requiring a specific age group (18-45), with a specific condition (able bodied), of ANOTHER specific group (the militia) being required to purchase something in order to a member of that group and requiring every U.S. citizen, period to purchase health insurance.

In that post I am not making the comparison that because one is allowed the other is but I did point out some of the specifics of the MA of 1792 to the poster who seems willfully illinformed about what it required when he provided a link to the document. LOL Furthermore, I did claim that they were similar in that neither is a blanket requirement and that is the only comparison I drew in that post. If you knew how to comprehend what you allegedly read then you would have already know that.

If you were to wager that the framers would conclude that the government could reqire every citizen of the U.S.A to purchase a private product because they made militia members purchase guns, I hope that is a wager you're prepared to lose. I think they would rather quickly see the remaifactions to the freedom they sought to protect and defend in allowing the fed the authority to make everyone purchase anything they wanted them to or face financial penalty.

Thanks for the strawman where you also presume that you know what the framers were thinking. Now if you could please go back and respond to my previous post that you obviously cut and ran from because it exposed your own dishonesty and hypocrisy.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-sd-citizens-to-buy-a-gun-37.html#post3324900

currently post #553 funny how you skipped over that isn't it??

BTW you still haven't actually shown how anything he said in his previous post was wrong. What are you afraid of?? If he is wrong as you say then it should be easy enough for you to PROVE.

He who and what argument? I'm talking to YOU.

Are you really this dense or do you just play stupid to CYA??

You claimed that jbeuk was wrong while failing to provide anything of substance to show how he was wrong and unfortunately for you, saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

I didn't dream up anything. Its ok for the state based on the 10th and its not ok for the fed based on the 10th. Have you read it recently?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The consitution does not give the power to force purchases of private products to the United States, therefore that power is reserved to the states or the people.

Maybe you should read Federalist Papers #45 since the intent of the 10th ammendment eludes your grasp.