Let's pass a law

[KevinWestern]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

I'm not a big fan of mandated healthcare, but I'll say that I do understand where supporters are coming from. Healthcare is unique in that consumers:

(a) know nothing about the cost of the services they're buying (due to insurance)
(b) have zero knowledge on the quality of the services they're buying (because not everyone's a doctor)

So who's driving efficiencies in that market exactly? The insurance companies?

Proposing that everyone buy a gun is NOT a relatable example, because healthcare is a wholly unique case study in economics (should there be a role for gov't?), whereas the gun market is not. Consumers can evaluate price/quality of guns on their own - no need for gov't intervention.

Make sense?

I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a very good example.

.

 

[P@triot]

now all of the sudden its NOT unconstitutional?

The Constitution pertains to FEDERAL government, stupid. You guys don't understand the difference between state, local, and federal government (which is why you ask federal governmentn to provide you with everything from your food, to your healthcare, to your panties...)

 

[P@triot]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

I'm not a big fan of mandated healthcare, but I'll say that I do understand where supporters are coming from. Healthcare is unique in that consumers:

(a) know nothing about the cost of the services they're buying (due to insurance)
(b) have zero knowledge on the quality of the services they're buying (because not everyone's a doctor)

So who's driving efficiencies in that market exactly? The insurance companies?

Proposing that everyone buy a gun is NOT a relatable example, because healthcare is a wholly unique case study in economics (should there be a role for gov't?), whereas the gun market is not. Consumers can evaluate price/quality of guns on their own - no need for gov't intervention.

Make sense?

I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a very good example.

.

No - it doesn't make any sense. That's a completely bullshit answer - you're literally makingi up that "people don't know the cost, etc.". I could say the exact same thing about guns - people don't know the models, the cost, the features (and it would actually be more true than healthcare for the idiot liberals), but I realize what an assinine excuse that is....

 

[P@triot]

'The people' didn't want the Iraq invasion, either, but the poorer segments of the nation are being taxed to pay for it. It was unconstitutional, too.
Of course, the US does not currently function according to 'the spirit and the letter' of the Constitution. If people voted, especially in House elections, and threw out traitors and big spenders, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. If people were more generous with the fantastic wealth accumulated in America, there would be less pressure to pass laws forcing redistribution.
We forget that our forefathers were not only energetically individualistic, but also caring, sharing, co-operative and humane.

Uh, stupid, the millitary action in Iraq was 100% Constitutional. George W. Bush was the Constitutional Commander in Chief and made the decision. Furthermore, to be Constitutional, he want before Congress and got their approval for the operations to oust Saddam Hussein. And further still, had it been "unconstitutional", there is a far cry from military action and action that strips away the freedoms of Americans here in America.

God almighty are you people unedcated about both our history (look up the info on Iraq stupid) and our government/Constitution/etc.

 

[buckeye45_73]

go ahead and do it.

if the people want it

The people dont want Obamacare

 

[Avatar4321]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

I'm not a big fan of mandated healthcare, but I'll say that I do understand where supporters are coming from. Healthcare is unique in that consumers:

(a) know nothing about the cost of the services they're buying (due to insurance)
(b) have zero knowledge on the quality of the services they're buying (because not everyone's a doctor)

So who's driving efficiencies in that market exactly? The insurance companies?

Proposing that everyone buy a gun is NOT a relatable example, because healthcare is a wholly unique case study in economics (should there be a role for gov't?), whereas the gun market is not. Consumers can evaluate price/quality of guns on their own - no need for gov't intervention.

Make sense?

I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a very good example.

.

I couldn't tell one gun from another except in very general terms.

So no. I dont buy that argument. It's nonsense. Not to mention it's irrelevant to the comparison. It doesn't matter how complex an issue is or not. The principle is the same. The Government can now punish people for not buying healthcare, guns, ipods, a politician's book, etc by taxing us if we dont purchase it. It's perfectly constitutional regardless of how complex the issues are or how reasonable the justifications might be.

That's absurd. It's totally contrary to the concept of liberty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

You're a couple hundred years too late with your attempted brilliance.

The Militia Act of 1792 effectively did that:

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SniperFire]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

They could tax you for not buying said gun.

The Supremes have once again confirmed the broad taxing authority of the Federal gubmint, as poorly defined in the Constitution.

What we need is a Constitutional amendment, not judicial activism.

 

[KevinWestern]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

I'm not a big fan of mandated healthcare, but I'll say that I do understand where supporters are coming from. Healthcare is unique in that consumers:

(a) know nothing about the cost of the services they're buying (due to insurance)
(b) have zero knowledge on the quality of the services they're buying (because not everyone's a doctor)

So who's driving efficiencies in that market exactly? The insurance companies?

Proposing that everyone buy a gun is NOT a relatable example, because healthcare is a wholly unique case study in economics (should there be a role for gov't?), whereas the gun market is not. Consumers can evaluate price/quality of guns on their own - no need for gov't intervention.

Make sense?

I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a very good example.

.

No - it doesn't make any sense. That's a completely bullshit answer - you're literally makingi up that "people don't know the cost, etc.". I could say the exact same thing about guns - people don't know the models, the cost, the features (and it would actually be more true than healthcare for the idiot liberals), but I realize what an assinine excuse that is....

No, it's not a bullshit answer. Anyone who has a background in economics will know that Healthcare is a completely unique sector of our economy.

With regards to "people don't know the costs" I'm obviously referring to the element of insurance. In the healthcare world, insurance covers great portions of the cost of doctor appointments, emergency room visits, and surgeries (to name a few). People rarely pay the full price of their healthcare service, and therefore generally don't have a good grasp at evaluating the true monetary cost of what they are receiving. One doctor could charge $250 and the other $500 but it won't really matter to the consumer because he/she only has to cover the $15 copay.

So Rottweiler, do you have "gun insurance" that you pay a monthly premium on, that will cover 90% of your next rifle?


Finally, with regards to quality, I'm talking largely about the fact that the doctor prescribes things to you and tells you what to buy (rather than you deciding for yourself). If the doctor tells you to take "Medication A" because he/she thinks you have a certain type of bacterial infection, (generally speaking) you'll take it with no questions asked. The doctor and the insurance company will judge the quality of procedures, medicines, and services for you, whereas when you're buying a gun you are judging quality for yourself.

That is unless..

Do you have a gun insurance company that will choose what guns and ammunition are best for you?




.

 

[KevinWestern]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

I'm not a big fan of mandated healthcare, but I'll say that I do understand where supporters are coming from. Healthcare is unique in that consumers:

(a) know nothing about the cost of the services they're buying (due to insurance)
(b) have zero knowledge on the quality of the services they're buying (because not everyone's a doctor)

So who's driving efficiencies in that market exactly? The insurance companies?

Proposing that everyone buy a gun is NOT a relatable example, because healthcare is a wholly unique case study in economics (should there be a role for gov't?), whereas the gun market is not. Consumers can evaluate price/quality of guns on their own - no need for gov't intervention.

Make sense?

I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a very good example.

.

I couldn't tell one gun from another except in very general terms.

So no. I dont buy that argument. It's nonsense. Not to mention it's irrelevant to the comparison. It doesn't matter how complex an issue is or not. The principle is the same. The Government can now punish people for not buying healthcare, guns, ipods, a politician's book, etc by taxing us if we dont purchase it. It's perfectly constitutional regardless of how complex the issues are or how reasonable the justifications might be.

That's absurd. It's totally contrary to the concept of liberty.

Please see response I gave Rottweiler.

And on a side note, do you complain about being forced to buy a police dept, fire dept or military? I'm a generally safe person, why do I have to pay for all those firetrucks, uniforms, hoses, ect that will go into protecting careless fire-starting citizens? That's bullshit.

Why do I have to pay for the invasion of Iraq when the country posed absolutely zero threat to my safety or well being?





.

 

[HUGGY]

Before anyone says anything, Im suggesting this to make a point, not because I support this.

Let's have Congress pass a mandate that requires every citizen to purchase a gun.

The Supreme Court has already said it's Constitutional.

Is this seriously what we want the Federal Govenrment doing?

They already did...

"President George Washington. In 1792, Washington signed another bill, passed by a Congress with 17 framers, requiring that all able-bodied men buy firearms."

Did The Founding Fathers Back Health Insurance Mandates? (Updated) « JONATHAN TURLEY

 

[JDzBrain]

LOL. What a whiney, sack cloth and ashes thread.

The Health Care Law was declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court, end of statement.

Actually...NO...it was NOT! It was basically a ruling that Congress DOES have the power to lay taxes. The question of if they can do it in a punitive way was NOT addressed since none of the litigants had standing to argue that point and won't until and IF it goes into law in 2014 and someone is taxed.

What was ruled was that Congress can NOT force us to buy anything under the guise of the commerce clause or public good.

They also ruled that the fed could NOT penalize states by withholding funds from a state that doesn't spend money that the fed sends them the way they are told to by the fed.

Roberts THEN held that Congress could pass individual mandate since it has the power to make law and lay taxes. What he did NOT rule is that the practice by Congress of targeting individuals for a punitive TAX is constitutional...cause it is NOT!!!!

If it is unconstitutional for the fed to act punitively, in a targeted and unequal way, against a state...it IS unconstitutional to do the same to individual citizens or groups of citizens within those states! END OF STORY!

So far, 19 states have ALREADY drafted legislation to opt out of Obamacare in anticipation of this ruling. This ruling makes it so that they can do that and this administration NOR Congress can do SHIT about it.

You can bet your butt that when it's all said and done...the 8 or 10 states that DON'T opt out have to more than double their state taxes to meet the medicaid requirements in this monstrosity...or Harry Reid has to pass the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD...Congress WILL move to repeal it!

That aside, this is a win for dems in the sort term and the END OF OBAMACARE!

 

[P@triot]

go ahead and do it.

if the people want it

The people dont want Obamacare

And that is the bottom line! The American people overwhelmingly don't want this, and that's why the liberals were sent home in record number in November 2010 and it's why they will be sent home once again in record number in November 2012.

Barack Hussein and his radical Marxist minions are the best thing that ever happened to conservatives

 

[P@triot]

I'm not a big fan of mandated healthcare, but I'll say that I do understand where supporters are coming from. Healthcare is unique in that consumers:

(a) know nothing about the cost of the services they're buying (due to insurance)
(b) have zero knowledge on the quality of the services they're buying (because not everyone's a doctor)

So who's driving efficiencies in that market exactly? The insurance companies?

Proposing that everyone buy a gun is NOT a relatable example, because healthcare is a wholly unique case study in economics (should there be a role for gov't?), whereas the gun market is not. Consumers can evaluate price/quality of guns on their own - no need for gov't intervention.

Make sense?

I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a very good example.

.

I couldn't tell one gun from another except in very general terms.

So no. I dont buy that argument. It's nonsense. Not to mention it's irrelevant to the comparison. It doesn't matter how complex an issue is or not. The principle is the same. The Government can now punish people for not buying healthcare, guns, ipods, a politician's book, etc by taxing us if we dont purchase it. It's perfectly constitutional regardless of how complex the issues are or how reasonable the justifications might be.

That's absurd. It's totally contrary to the concept of liberty.

See response I gave Rottweiler...

And by the way, why the heck to I have to pay for a police dept, fire dept, and military? Isn't the government already FORCING you to buy those things whether or not you think you need them? Can't healthcare just be another "pooled" cost that we are forced to buy in the name of public safety?

.

The federal government does NOT force you to pay taxes for police, fire, etc. How stupid are you people? Why is it so hard for you people to comprehend the difference between FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL? Most 4 year olds can tell you the difference...

 

[KevinWestern]

I couldn't tell one gun from another except in very general terms.

So no. I dont buy that argument. It's nonsense. Not to mention it's irrelevant to the comparison. It doesn't matter how complex an issue is or not. The principle is the same. The Government can now punish people for not buying healthcare, guns, ipods, a politician's book, etc by taxing us if we dont purchase it. It's perfectly constitutional regardless of how complex the issues are or how reasonable the justifications might be.

That's absurd. It's totally contrary to the concept of liberty.

See response I gave Rottweiler...

And by the way, why the heck to I have to pay for a police dept, fire dept, and military? Isn't the government already FORCING you to buy those things whether or not you think you need them? Can't healthcare just be another "pooled" cost that we are forced to buy in the name of public safety?

.

The federal government does NOT force you to pay taxes for police, fire, etc. How stupid are you people? Why is it so hard for you people to comprehend the difference between FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL? Most 4 year olds can tell you the difference...

Wow, you sound like a real dick. Note my inclusion of the word military, pea-brain.

Note at the beginning of all this I said that I wasn't a fan of mandated healthcare, but that I could at least understand (civilly) where supporters are coming from. As a background, I'm generally a very fiscally conservative person from a gov't perspective. I'm somewhat of a libertarian.

But you on the other hand whine and name-call like a child because you can't get it through your head that there are different viewpoints that exist within this country. You're like a crying baby who can't man up and debate like an adult..

Talking to you is equivalent to wasting my time...

 

[JDzBrain]

Kevin,

Pooled cost for services IS within the constitutional powers of congress and governments....as long as it's EQUAL. A discriminatory and/or punitive tax or sanction for not using that service is NOT equal and not within their power!

 

[P@triot]

See response I gave Rottweiler...

And by the way, why the heck to I have to pay for a police dept, fire dept, and military? Isn't the government already FORCING you to buy those things whether or not you think you need them? Can't healthcare just be another "pooled" cost that we are forced to buy in the name of public safety?

.

The federal government does NOT force you to pay taxes for police, fire, etc. How stupid are you people? Why is it so hard for you people to comprehend the difference between FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL? Most 4 year olds can tell you the difference...

Wow, you sound like a real dick. Note my inclusion of the word military, pea-brain.

Note at the beginning of all this I said that I wasn't a fan of mandated healthcare, but that I could at least understand (civilly) where supporters are coming from. As a background, I'm generally a very fiscally conservative person from a gov't perspective. I'm somewhat of a libertarian.

But you on the other hand whine and name-call like a child because you can't get it through your head that there are different viewpoints that exist within this country. You're like a crying baby who can't man up and debate like an adult..

Talking to you is equivalent to wasting my time...

And you sound like a BIGGER DICK and a DUMBER PEA-BRAIN! You cited several examples of institutions that are NOT run by the federal government - so that doesn't apply. When I point that out, suddenly I'm the "dick"? You're an idiot, don't blame me for that.

Furthermore, the ONE single freaking institution you did point out that is a federal institution (military) is the #1 responsibility of the federal government as cited by the Constitution. So that also doesn't apply (because if it's the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government, it's legal and proper and it really doesn't matter if you "don't like it").

So your entire post was irrelevant and wrong, and you're pissed at me for pointing out your ignorance. Sorry dude if I don't support your misinformation posted for others to read.

Talking to me has provided you with more accurate information that you've apparently acquired in your whole damn miserable life. But, apparently like liberals, you prefer to be misinformed becase ignorance is bliss.

 

[KevinWestern]

And you sound like a BIGGER DICK and a DUMBER PEA-BRAIN! You cited several examples of institutions that are NOT run by the federal government - so that doesn't apply. When I point that out, suddenly I'm the "dick"? You're an idiot, don't blame me for that.

Furthermore, the ONE single freaking institution you did point out that is a federal institution (military) is the #1 responsibility of the federal government as cited by the Constitution. So that also doesn't apply (because if it's the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government, it's legal and proper and it really doesn't matter if you "don't like it").

So your entire post was irrelevant and wrong, and you're pissed at me for pointing out your ignorance. Sorry dude if I don't support your misinformation posted for others to read.

Talking to me has provided you with more accurate information that you've apparently acquired in your whole damn miserable life. But, apparently like liberals, you prefer to be misinformed becase ignorance is bliss.

Rottweiler – I completely understand the difference between federal and state entities, and my post – bringing up things that we are forced to pay for by various forms of government – was one that was simply pointing out a concept. You’re being petty/nitpicky, which (to me) is a sign that you’re incapable of debating topics of true substance. How about you start by responding to post #69 (it was directed straight at you)? Why'd you skip over that one?

Also, I’d like to let you know that you sound like a sad and angry person, Rott.

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin,

Pooled cost for services IS within the constitutional powers of congress and governments....as long as it's EQUAL. A discriminatory and/or punitive tax or sanction for not using that service is NOT equal and not within their power!

That's fine, I agree to a good extent.

And let me make something clear (there seems to be some confusion), I'm not an Obamacare supporter.

All I'm saying is that the healthcare economy is unique from other free market economies (such as the market for sports drinks, and TVs) and I think there are valid arguments on both sides of the aisle as to what role the government should play in ensuring that it operates at the most beneficial level possible for consumers.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm sick of all of the babies and whiners on this board (like Rottweiler) who will insult you at the first sign that you might not totally agree with 100% everything that they do. And the sad thing is, Rottweiler is making enemies with me despite the fact that I too want to make large cuts to the federal government and support a very fiscally conservative approach to politics.

He's the quintessential example of a polarizing moron, and one who fuels the fire of dysfunctional politics. People like him are ruining our country (and I'm not exaggerating).

That is why I said that it is a waste of my time to talk with him...


.

 

[The Professor]

Link?

Google

Ah, thanks. Your claim is bullshit.

The city is Kennesaw, GA. It was all over the news when it first happened. Here's a link, but there are many more:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia: Crime Rate Plummets! « Political Vel Craft