Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[drsmith1072]

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.

Based on the 10th and IF their state constitution allows it. Funny how you wait a week (or longer) to respond to an argument that you already lost in the hopes that people had forgotten about the context of the argument.

If you had read through this thread you would have realized that your argument has already been adressed and been shown to be less than correct. The fed had already mandated the purchase of items in the MA of 1792 that was required of all who met the standards of the document. So to claim that the constitution does not give that power is hardly a valid claim based on precedence.

I also find it funny how the right merely claims others are wrong as they insult them with the belief that merely saying it with an added insult makes it so. LOL

 

[Bern80]

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.



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.



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.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say you still think you're carrying on a conversation with someone else because basically none of what you said has anything do with or really even addresses anything I've said.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.



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.



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??

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.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say you still think you're carrying on a conversation with someone else because basically none of what you said has anything do with or really even addresses anything I've said.

I responded to everything that YOU just said. Pretending that it didn't happen as you run away after being shown to be WRONG won't change the FACTS. LOL

Thanks for once again showing that you've got NOTHING. I provide a well written and thorough counter to your dishonest spin and the best you can do is run away claiming that I am not responding to you when I responded to each and every point that you have made.
LOL
Oh and way to stick to your guns. LOL Still no response to post 553 where you were shown to be dishonest after you said

The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is.

and then tried to change the argument to exclude your assumption so you could attack me and call me a hypocrite.

 

[Bern80]

I responded to everything that YOU just said. Pretending that it didn't happen as you run away after being shown to be WRONG won't change the FACTS. LOL

Thanks for once again showing that you've got NOTHING. I provide a well written and thorough counter to your dishonest spin and the best you can do is run away claiming that I am not responding to you when I responded to each and every point that you have made.
LOL

Dude I have a Masters degree. You don't get one of those without being able to decipher the written word. I am more than happy to debate you when you can express things clearly and succinctly. Simply put, your responses make zero sense most of the time. I can't debate you, not because I'm on the losing side of the argument. I can't debate you because I can't tell WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE SAYING.

Oh and way to stick to your guns. LOL Still no response to post 553 where you were shown to be dishonest after you said

The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is.

and then tried to change the argument to exclude your assumption so you could attack me and call me a hypocrite.

Sure I stick by that statement. Do you know the difference between assuming something for argument's sake and arguing it's actual validity? My opinion hasn't changed nor have I back tracked from it. Perhaps it was YOU who reintroduced whether the insurance mandate was constitutional thus throwing out that presumption for the sake of argument

 

[Bern80]

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.

Based on the 10th and IF their state constitution allows it. Funny how you wait a week (or longer) to respond to an argument that you already lost in the hopes that people had forgotten about the context of the argument.

If you had read through this thread you would have realized that your argument has already been adressed and been shown to be less than correct. The fed had already mandated the purchase of items in the MA of 1792 that was required of all who met the standards of the document. So to claim that the constitution does not give that power is hardly a valid claim based on precedence.

I also find it funny how the right merely claims others are wrong as they insult them with the belief that merely saying it with an added insult makes it so. LOL

It's a perfectly valid claim. For YOU to be correct one first has to assume the premise that the MA of 1792 is analogous, at least analogous enough to make a comparison in the first place to the insruance mandate. The simple fact unfortuantely for you, is that it isn't. The MA of 1792 mandate doesn't have nearly the scope or breadth of the insurance mandate.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Based on the 10th and IF their state constitution allows it. Funny how you wait a week (or longer) to respond to an argument that you already lost in the hopes that people had forgotten about the context of the argument.

If you had read through this thread you would have realized that your argument has already been adressed and been shown to be less than correct. The fed had already mandated the purchase of items in the MA of 1792 that was required of all who met the standards of the document. So to claim that the constitution does not give that power is hardly a valid claim based on precedence.

I also find it funny how the right merely claims others are wrong as they insult them with the belief that merely saying it with an added insult makes it so. LOL

The length of time between my logins does not relate to the discussion. Bringing that up further proves the point that you were incorrect in your assesment of what I was saying and what the 10th ammendment says.

And yes it is IF the state's consitution allows it just like the 10th ammendment says "......To the states, or the people" If a state's constitution does not expressly give that state the power to compel purchases then that power rests in the hands of the people alone.

Again you need to brush up on the federalist papers, #45 is the one you want.

Your MA of 1972 is a specific instance of an express and specific power given to the United States by the Constitution. This specific instance does not give the federal government the authority to expand said power. Please brush up on our founding documents. Let me help you below:

1) First read federalist #45
2) Then read the constitution: 10th ammendment's "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."
3) Then read the bill of right's stating "Article XII
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."

 

[drsmith1072]

I responded to everything that YOU just said. Pretending that it didn't happen as you run away after being shown to be WRONG won't change the FACTS. LOL

Thanks for once again showing that you've got NOTHING. I provide a well written and thorough counter to your dishonest spin and the best you can do is run away claiming that I am not responding to you when I responded to each and every point that you have made.
LOL

Dude I have a Masters degree. You don't get one of those without being able to decipher the written word. I am more than happy to debate you when you can express things clearly and succinctly. Simply put, your responses make zero sense most of the time. I can't debate you, not because I'm on the losing side of the argument. I can't debate you because I can't tell WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE SAYING.

and yet you can't even follow a simple conversation and having a masters degree does mean shite as far as your lacking tha ability to understand simple english. So please explain what i said that didn't make sense and i will clarfiy for you. It should be easy enough for you to give specific examples and yet apparently you believe that merely saying it makes it so. My guess is that it's merely a ploy so you can avoid points that you wish to avoid because you know that you can't counter them. Prove me wrong and give me examples of what I said that did not make sense.

Oh and way to stick to your guns. LOL Still no response to post 553 where you were shown to be dishonest after you said

The point of this debate is not wither the insurance mandate is constitutional. For the sake of this argument we're assuming it is.

and then tried to change the argument to exclude your assumption so you could attack me and call me a hypocrite.

Sure I stick by that statement. Do you know the difference between assuming something for argument's sake and arguing it's actual validity? My opinion hasn't changed nor have I back tracked from it. Perhaps it was YOU who reintroduced whether the insurance mandate was constitutional thus throwing out that presumption for the sake of argument

WOW more dishonest spin from you. You asked a question based on your assumption and I gave you an answer based on your assumption and then you discard you assumption so you can call me a hypocrite and you have the nerve to even try to criticize others for being dishonest and hypocritical?? LOL

Funny how you finally chose to respond to post 553 and only served to make you look even more dishonest. LOL

oh and thanks for once again showing you cowardice as you cherry pick what to respond to and delete the rest.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Based on the 10th and IF their state constitution allows it. Funny how you wait a week (or longer) to respond to an argument that you already lost in the hopes that people had forgotten about the context of the argument.

If you had read through this thread you would have realized that your argument has already been adressed and been shown to be less than correct. The fed had already mandated the purchase of items in the MA of 1792 that was required of all who met the standards of the document. So to claim that the constitution does not give that power is hardly a valid claim based on precedence.

I also find it funny how the right merely claims others are wrong as they insult them with the belief that merely saying it with an added insult makes it so. LOL

It's a perfectly valid claim. For YOU to be correct one first has to assume the premise that the MA of 1792 is analogous, at least analogous enough to make a comparison in the first place to the insruance mandate. The simple fact unfortuantely for you, is that it isn't. The MA of 1792 mandate doesn't have nearly the scope or breadth of the insurance mandate.

What is a perfectly valid claim?? Care to get specfics or are vague generalities all that you have to offer??
My primary point of bringing up the MA of 1792 in response to pilgrim is that he said that the MA of 1792 did not require people to purchase items from private companies

The Militia Act of 1792

The militia act does not mandate any purchases from private companies.

and yet it did require them to purchase the necessary equipment if they did not already own said equipment. Of course, he bypassed my response to that post and apparently pretended that it never happened.

Then there was the argument where pilgrim defended comparing apples(state mandate) to oranges(fed mandate) becaue someone said the comparison was "stupid" and pilgrim asked "why is it stupid?"

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.

He claims they are comparable but you claim that it is something that can't be done.

Since we can't compare apples (a state law requiring the purchase of soemthing) to oranges (a federal law requiring the purchase of something),

Then there is pilgrim's new offshoot that has already been addressed in this thread with the mention of the MA of 1792 and if he bothered reading the thread he would have known that and not wasted everyone's time with his pointless whining. Pilgrim claims that "The consitution does not give the power to force purchases of private products to the United States" and yet precedence has shown that the fed CAN and did do just that.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Based on the 10th and IF their state constitution allows it. Funny how you wait a week (or longer) to respond to an argument that you already lost in the hopes that people had forgotten about the context of the argument.

If you had read through this thread you would have realized that your argument has already been adressed and been shown to be less than correct. The fed had already mandated the purchase of items in the MA of 1792 that was required of all who met the standards of the document. So to claim that the constitution does not give that power is hardly a valid claim based on precedence.

I also find it funny how the right merely claims others are wrong as they insult them with the belief that merely saying it with an added insult makes it so. LOL

The length of time between my logins does not relate to the discussion.

It does when you chime in later in the hopes that people don't remember the actual context of the discussion as you bypass and ignore other posts that already addressed and countered your current argument.

Bringing that up further proves the point that you were incorrect in your assesment of what I was saying and what the 10th ammendment says.

How does pointing out you taking an argument out of context and ignoring other posts in this thread prove anything of the kind?? Oh that's right it doesn't. Thanks for being your usual dishonest self.

And yes it is IF the state's consitution allows it just like the 10th ammendment says "......To the states, or the people" If a state's constitution does not expressly give that state the power to compel purchases then that power rests in the hands of the people alone.

so as i stated and you ingored it isn't doesn't rely solely on what is said in the 10th. Thanks for agreeing with me that you were wrong. LOL

Again you need to brush up on the federalist papers, #45 is the one you want.

do you own homework and instead of merely presenting vague generalities. Why don't you try showing how federalist papers, #45 applies?? Or is asking you make a real argument too much for you to handle??

Your MA of 1972 is a specific instance of an express and specific power given to the United States by the Constitution. This specific instance does not give the federal government the authority to expand said power. Please brush up on our founding documents. Let me help you below:

Really?? How is the mandated purchase of the necessary equipment stated in the MA of 1792 an express and specfic power?? Please explain how it is stated SPECIFICALLY that it is a power if you can??


Funny how you make all of those bold unsubstantiated statements and then tell me to look it up. Perhaps it's because you know that you can't prove your own arguments.

 

[Bern80]

and yet you can't even follow a simple conversation and having a masters degree does mean shite as far as your lacking tha ability to understand simple english. So please explain what i said that didn't make sense and i will clarfiy for you. It should be easy enough for you to give specific examples and yet apparently you believe that merely saying it makes it so. My guess is that it's merely a ploy so you can avoid points that you wish to avoid because you know that you can't counter them. Prove me wrong and give me examples of what I said that did not make sense.

You spend more time CLAIMING you've said this or that than you have actually making any type of argument. Look at your last few posts. There isn't an acutal position on the issue to be found in any of them. YOU are the one doing the dodging smith, not me. I don't even know where to begin making a counter argument because I have no idea what your position even is.

As best I can tell it's that this MA of 1792 is somehow analagous to the insurance mandate which you have used to conclude the insurance mandate constitutional. We can debate that assuming we agree that those two things are actually analagous. The problem is they're not. If they were what would the MA of 1792 look like if applied today? And is THAT in any way analagous to the insurance mandate?

WOW more dishonest spin from you. You asked a question based on your assumption and I gave you an answer based on your assumption and then you discard you assumption so you can call me a hypocrite and you have the nerve to even try to criticize others for being dishonest and hypocritical?? LOL

Try to follow along. When, for the sake of argument, I assumed the insurance mandate was constitutional, you proceeded to use the enumerated powers to show how requring the militia to purchase guns was constititional (that presumption in of itself is debatable, btw). For the required purchase of guns to remain analagous to the required purchase of health insurance you would have to show where the enumerated powers mention health care as well.

OR

We could stick to debating whether a hypothetical mandate that everyone purchase a gun is constitutional. You claimed it would be based on this MA of 1792. Well such an argument presumes that said act is analgous to the fed unconditionally requring every citizen to purchase something today. The fact is it isn't. In practice today it would require something of the vast majority of citizens where as the MA of 1792 was on a small minority of citizens designated as a specific group. And even that presumes that the act when enacted was constituonal which is open for debate as well. It doesn't make much sense to me that while it is the feds responsibility to defend the citizenry per the constitution, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to take it upon themselve to purchase the arms for doing so. Sort of defeats the purpose if you aske me.

 

[drsmith1072]

and yet you can't even follow a simple conversation and having a masters degree does mean shite as far as your lacking tha ability to understand simple english. So please explain what i said that didn't make sense and i will clarfiy for you. It should be easy enough for you to give specific examples and yet apparently you believe that merely saying it makes it so. My guess is that it's merely a ploy so you can avoid points that you wish to avoid because you know that you can't counter them. Prove me wrong and give me examples of what I said that did not make sense.

You spend more time CLAIMING you've said this or that than you have actually making any type of argument. Look at your last few posts. There isn't an acutal position on the issue to be found in any of them. YOU are the one doing the dodging smith, not me. I don't even know where to begin making a counter argument because I have no idea what your position even is.

As best I can tell it's that this MA of 1792 is somehow analagous to the insurance mandate which you have used to conclude the insurance mandate constitutional. We can debate that assuming we agree that those two things are actually analagous. The problem is they're not. If they were what would the MA of 1792 look like if applied today? And is THAT in any way analagous to the insurance mandate?

Actually i usually quote what was actually said and you cut it out and delete it instead of responding to it and now I see why you do that. It makes it easier for you to be dishonest as you claim that I am not making sense. Why don't you try addressing what was actually said instead of attacking me becuase you don't have a real argument??

WOW more dishonest spin from you. You asked a question based on your assumption and I gave you an answer based on your assumption and then you discard you assumption so you can call me a hypocrite and you have the nerve to even try to criticize others for being dishonest and hypocritical?? LOL

Try to follow along.

take your own advise and the next statement that you make shows that you aren't.

When, for the sake of argument, I assumed the insurance mandate was constitutional, you proceeded to use the enumerated powers to show how requring the militia to purchase guns was constititional (that presumption in of itself is debatable, btw). For the required purchase of guns to remain analagous to the required purchase of health insurance you would have to show where the enumerated powers mention health care as well.

First of, I did not argue that the fed mandating the purchase of guns was constitutional in response to your hypothetical with assumption included. That was NOT what I said. The fact that you would wrongly attribute that argument to me shows that you are NOT following along. I did state later that in the past mandated purchases have been imposed so one could NOT argue that the government does not have that power.

Secondly, my answer was in direct response to the question that you asked based on the standards that you set up where the assumption is that the HC mandate is constitutional. Then you take my response to your hypothectical and dishonestly apply it to the hc mandate which you had already said was constitutional for the sake of that argument.

Do you see how you have exposed yourself as being dishonest??

OR

We could stick to debating whether a hypothetical mandate that everyone purchase a gun is constitutional. You claimed it would be based on this MA of 1792. Well such an argument presumes that said act is analgous to the fed unconditionally requring the every citizen to purchase something today. The fact is it isn't. In practice today it would require something of the vast majority of citizens where as the MA of 1792 was on a small minority of citizens designated as a specific group. And even that presumes that the act when enacted was constituonal which is open for debate as well. It doesn't make much sense to me that while it is the feds responsibility to the defend the citizenry per the constitution, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to take it upon themselve to purchase the arms for doing. Sort of defeats the purpose if you aske me.

You are confusing two arguments. The one with your hypothetical and the one I am having with pilgrim. You are taking my responses to pilgrim and trying to apply them to your hypothetical and vice versa. So please take your own advise and "Try to follow along."

BTW I asked this earlier in the thread and not one of the right wingers making the claim that there are no exemptions to the HC mandate answered. So can you show how it is an unconditional mandate and that every person has to purchase insurance?

 

[Bern80]

First of, I did not argue that the fed mandating the purchase of guns was constitutional in response to your hypothetical with assumption included. That was NOT what I said. The fact that you would wrongly attribute that argument to me shows that you are NOT following along. I did state later that in the past mandated purchases have been imposed so one could NOT argue that the government does not have that power.

The reason little of what you say gets responded to is so much of it is irrelevant. This right here is the only paragraph in the entire post that even comes close to you committing to a position of any type. You're a common troll smith. Someone who is disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable and is too spineless to actually have a position

And even when you make some lame ass attempt at one even that is inaccurate. If government did it, it must have been constitutional? Try again.

 

[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.

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that the framers were okay with unconditionally requiring every citizen to purchase something.

because they did just that

'every white male...'

the very definition of who was even considered human, at the time

As far all people had to purchase a gun a horse and gear

Not what it says. read it more slowly.

. 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.

Then read the fucking act. It's been quoted and linked to countless times in this thread, you idiot.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Tell it to Washington and the framers of COTUS who passed the Militia Act


They didn't think what they wrote meant what you think it does

 

[JBeukema]

You're a common troll smith. Someone who is disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable and is too spineless to actually have a position

says the idiot who needs a 200-year-old piece of animal skin to tell him what's right or wrong.

Only one person in this thread has had the balls to stand for anything- but you haven't let reality bother you

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.

.

And even when you make some lame ass attempt at one even that is inaccurate. If government did it, it must have been constitutional? Try again.

The guys who wrote and ratified the fucking constitution thought it was constitutional

 

[Bern80]

because they did just that

'every white male...'

the very definition of who was even considered human, at the time

I have since read it actually. I just don't see how someone who reads it with any frame of context can conclude that it is remotely analogous to the health insurance mandate. And did it never occur to those arguing this as precedent to ask why this act is no longer in affect?

 

[Bern80]

says the idiot who needs a 200-year-old piece of animal skin to tell him what's right or wrong.

And I quite clearly stated that is not the case. You either believe me when I say that or you don't. What someone believes is right or wrong ultimately becomes irrelevant in a society ruled by law.

Only one person in this thread has had the balls to stand for anything- but you haven't let reality bother you

Read, realized and responded to several pages ago you fucking liar.

The guys who wrote and ratified the fucking constitution thought it was constitutional

I'm sure it was.....THEN. The question is would it be now.

 

[JBeukema]

What someone believes is right or wrong ultimately becomes irrelevant in a society ruled by law.

There you have it folks. Bern would turn in Anne Frank, chase down an escaped slave, or turn his daughter over to the the secret police's hired rapist- because the law says me must.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/150337-is-it-the-law-to-which-men-are-bound.html

Gotta love statism

The guys who wrote and ratified the fucking constitution thought it was constitutional

I'm sure it was.....THEN. The question is would it be now.

Yes, it would, unless you can show me the constitutional amendment that made it otherwise.

 

[Bern80]

There you have it folks. Bern would turn in Anne Frank, chase down an escaped slave, or turn his daughter over to the the secret police's hired rapist- because the law says me must.

Yeah.....that's exactly what I said. Either you are willing to have an objective conversation or you're content to be a fucktard. Pick one. Would I do any of those things above if they were the law of the land? Of course not. Does it change the fact that I will still have to answer to the law much as I may disagree with it? No. THAT was the point you dishonest prick.

Yes, it would, unless you can show me the constitutional amendment that made it otherwise.

Except it isn't applied today and it was actually the act itself that was ammended over the years that got rid of that particular provision. You couldn't apply it today if you wanted to. Not in a way that's analogous to the insurance mandate anyway. The militia act applied to the militia, which doesn't exist anymore. If attempted to be applied today the closest application would be something like making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns.

 

[drsmith1072]

First of, I did not argue that the fed mandating the purchase of guns was constitutional in response to your hypothetical with assumption included. That was NOT what I said. The fact that you would wrongly attribute that argument to me shows that you are NOT following along. I did state later that in the past mandated purchases have been imposed so one could NOT argue that the government does not have that power.

The reason little of what you say gets responded to is so much of it is irrelevant. This right here is the only paragraph in the entire post that even comes close to you committing to a position of any type. You're a common troll smith. Someone who is disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable and is too spineless to actually have a position

And even when you make some lame ass attempt at one even that is inaccurate. If government did it, it must have been constitutional? Try again.

Wow more vague generalities from you so you can turn tail and run away from points that you can't counter.

Come on hack, give some specifics and show how what I said was either irrelevant or doesn't make sense. Saying it doesn't make it so and if you continue to fail to provide specifics then it's obvious that you are merely avoiding points that you can't counter.

BTW did you happen to notice how I showed that you were wrongly attributing an argument to me that I did NOT make?? Stop running away and address what was said or is that too much to ask of you??