A Question for Rightwingers

[logical4u]

Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?

It was re-defined as a "TAX". Along with several other taxes in the obama care bill, it will hurt the middle class that this President has claimed to "protect". It will hurt women when they discover their "femine hygiene" products are now "taxed" as medical devices (wasn't this the team that was accusing the other side of a war against women? Now the gov't will pay for your birth control, but the "poor" will not be able to afford napkins and tampons). Vote the fraud in again, he hasn't "bilked" the taxpayer out of enough money. Bernie Madoff is probably thinking he should have been a politician instead of investment banker, then he would have gotten away with it, just like the fraud in the white house.

It was defined as a tax by one justice. The others concurred in the result.

As for the rest of your rant.... *yawn*

It cannot be "enforced", except as a TAX.

As for the "yawn", typical lib.... "I didn't KNOW that was happening" (it was because you shut your eyes real tight, put your fingers in your ears and made funny noises at anyone that tried to warn you. Once, you feel the pain, it will be "pity me, I didn't know they meant to hurt everyone, I just thought the "rich" would be hurt".

There is a difference between WISDOM and intellect. You have shown wisdom eludes you.

 

[logical4u]

Oh, and the ACA is actually a tax break for the Middle Class, despite what RW rhetoric says.

How about the taxes increased on "medical devices" (to include femine hygiene products and toothbrushes)? How about the increased taxes on retirement accounts (capital gains)? How about the other taxes included in this bill that the public is largely unaware are there? Do you think those are going to bother the "rich", or do you think those taxes are going to hurt the middle and lower class?

 

[koshergrl]

So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?

Got it.

Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.

more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.

Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."

The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.

 

[USMCSergeant]

I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...

how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?

Actually according to you, your household also has a gun thing going on..... Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[daveman]

A mandate forcing concealed carry is nonsense. It's a personal choice to own a firearm, and a choice to carry concealed.

I think an abortion is a horrific, disgusting act.. BUT, it is their choice and I will support the right to choose. Individual liberty is an amazing thing.

A mandate to buy health insurance is different than buying car insurance. How are these two compared?
Each state has their own insurance laws, requiring you to have insurance coverage while operating a vehicle. Owning a car is optional. In large cities there are many people that use public transportation or walk, take a taxi, bike to their destinations.

Some people own scooters or mopeds and most states depending on the cc's of the engine do not require them to carry insurance. Your auto insurance quote depends more on your individual driving record and experience, along with the type of vehicle you drive. You are not require by law to have auto insurance. You are not required to own a vehicle. If you own a vehicle, you are not required to drive it. You could choose at any time to park it in your garage and turn the tags in and cease paying insurance for it. You have options. Obamacare gives you no options. If you're born, you will either buy insurance or pay a tax.

I hear people say, usually liberals, that this will lower healthcare costs. I can't refute that because I'm not in the healthcare industry. Let's hope this has a positive affect. I'm very skeptical anytime our government gets involved with anything due to waste, fraud, and inefficiency. Can anyone here name a government program that is efficient and saves money?

ACA lower healthcare costs?

Let's just see.

Millions of people will now be covered. However, there are no more health care providers than there were before. In other words, health care suddenly got scarcer.

What happens to the price of a commodity when it becomes less available?

 

[daveman]

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” Exactly. But the majority didn’t stop there.​

No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).

Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?

Hahaha! Exactly. Sorry Daveman, but the whole point of the ruling was that the mandate is Constitutional.

Having trouble reading, are you?

It wasn't Constitutional as a mandate. It is as a tax for doing nothing.

 

[daveman]

I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...

how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?

Actually according to you, your household also has a gun thing going on..... Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Hers is different. Somehow. It just is.

Right, jillian?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How about supreme court ruling lewis vs. u.s. or miller vs. u.s.?

Not following the significance of those cases to the topic of the thread or my reply (unless I missed some drift along the way).

In both case they ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment were those of military grade and had to be bought kept and maintained by the individual.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?

Got it.

Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.

My point exactly.

 

[Abatis]

In both case they ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment were those of military grade and had to be bought kept and maintained by the individual.

I don't agree with that, especially about Lewis. The body of the Lewis opinion refers to "a/the firearm" or "a/the gun" . . . A descriptor of the type of firearm (pistol/shotgun/rifle/revolver) is never offered and Lewis' gun's conformance or lack thereof to the Miller "rule" is never alluded to. Many legal scholars have questioned why the quote of Miller appears in footnote 8 or the citation of Miller happens at all; Miller had nothing to say about felony disablement of the right to arms. Footnote 8 has never been cited as deliberative in any other case, the only people who regularly cited it were anti-gunners . . . Why? I can't say other than they want to make the ridiculous argument that because felon disablement does not violate the 2nd Amendment, every gun control law they ever wanted to enact also passes constitutional muster.

The only thing that stood in the way of George Calvin Lewis, Jr. freely owing a gun was his prior felony conviction. The Court makes the point a couple times that he could have used the remedies within the law that created the felony disability to remove the disability and then own the firearm legally (if he were successful in those appeals).

As an aside, I have always noted when discussing Lewis with anti-gunners, (who have always claimed Lewis for their -collective right- side), that the Court never says Mr. Lewis, if he were successful in his appeals to have his conviction expunged, would still need to join his state's militia to have his right to keep and bear arms restored. I could never figure out how that little detail escaped them . . .

Even for Miller, the correct way to read the Court's 'suitable for militia use' (paraphrase) criteria is to always restrain government not the citizen. The Court is telling us that type of firearm always enjoys the highest degree of exemption from governmental impact. If one were to take a "you're not allowed to have that" from Miller you would need to refer back to Aymette and its "dangerous or unusual" threshold. But that, in and of itself, is NOT a criteria to trigger governmental action to restrain civilian action.

Under Aymette, the ownership of a dangerous or unusual weapon could be protected if it meets the criteria that renders government impotent. They are, if the weapon is of the type "as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment" or that it could be "employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens".

In Miller, there was nobody there to represent Miller's side so there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that "a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length" met any of those standards, thus it was deemed dangerous and unusual and the federal government was legitimately empowered to restrict its ownership via the taxing authority.

And with all that I still don't see the connection to the topic of the thread or my post.

 

[jillian]

I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...

how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?

Actually according to you, your household also has a gun thing going on..... Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Hers is different. Somehow. It just is.

Right, jillian?

doesn't have anything to do with my question.

and my husband isn't complaining about people having to buy health insurance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In both case they ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment were those of military grade and had to be bought kept and maintained by the individual.

I don't agree with that, especially about Lewis. The body of the Lewis opinion refers to "a/the firearm" or "a/the gun" . . . A descriptor of the type of firearm (pistol/shotgun/rifle/revolver) is never offered and Lewis' gun's conformance or lack thereof to the Miller "rule" is never alluded to. Many legal scholars have questioned why the quote of Miller appears in footnote 8 or the citation of Miller happens at all; Miller had nothing to say about felony disablement of the right to arms. Footnote 8 has never been cited as deliberative in any other case, the only people who regularly cited it were anti-gunners . . . Why? I can't say other than they want to make the ridiculous argument that because felon disablement does not violate the 2nd Amendment, every gun control law they ever wanted to enact also passes constitutional muster.

The only thing that stood in the way of George Calvin Lewis, Jr. freely owing a gun was his prior felony conviction. The Court makes the point a couple times that he could have used the remedies within the law that created the felony disability to remove the disability and then own the firearm legally (if he were successful in those appeals).

As an aside, I have always noted when discussing Lewis with anti-gunners, (who have always claimed Lewis for their -collective right- side), that the Court never says Mr. Lewis, if he were successful in his appeals to have his conviction expunged, would still need to join his state's militia to have his right to keep and bear arms restored. I could never figure out how that little detail escaped them . . .

Even for Miller, the correct way to read the Court's 'suitable for militia use' (paraphrase) criteria is to always restrain government not the citizen. The Court is telling us that type of firearm always enjoys the highest degree of exemption from governmental impact. If one were to take a "you're not allowed to have that" from Miller you would need to refer back to Aymette and its "dangerous or unusual" threshold. But that, in and of itself, is NOT a criteria to trigger governmental action to restrain civilian action.

Under Aymette, the ownership of a dangerous or unusual weapon could be protected if it meets the criteria that renders government impotent. They are, if the weapon is of the type "as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment" or that it could be "employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens".

In Miller, there was nobody there to represent Miller's side so there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that "a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length" met any of those standards, thus it was deemed dangerous and unusual and the federal government was legitimately empowered to restrict its ownership via the taxing authority.

And with all that I still don't see the connection to the topic of the thread or my post.

Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.

 

[Abatis]

Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, . . . <snip>

Sigh . . .

Never mind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, . . . <snip>

Sigh . . .

Never mind.

That's what I thought you would say. To protect my guns I have to be watchful of all second amendments cases and be very knowledgeable on the second amendment.

 

[daws101]

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.

Really? Let's examine this, shall we?

Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left. This shows that:

1. He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).

2. He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).

Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?

well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
talking points are a Conservative's only argument .
the statement "he can't think for himself" is from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't think the way I want them too is dangerous."
I've already given my opinion on the op.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.

Really? Let's examine this, shall we?

Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left. This shows that:

1. He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).

2. He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).

Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?

well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
talking points are a Conservative's only argument .
the statement "he can't think for himself" is from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't think the way I want them too is dangerous."
I've already given my opinion on the op.

And you use democratic talking points. WTF don't think the bullshit you use to defend obama is based on facts.

 

[manifold]

Why would any leftist goombah be against it?

Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.

^ Claims to be non-partisan.

 

[daws101]

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.

A self-proclaimed "deep thinker"? Please in all your great thought processes can you demonstrate where another country that has no "Bill of Rights" is as great as this one? It must be really easy, all you that live in fear of "guns", and want to see them banned, to just show these great societies that top the USA in freedom and productivity.

let's play count the bogus assumptions!
I never proclaimed TO BE "a deep thinker"( bogus assumption #1.)
countries that have no bill of rights have a vastly different Ideology then the U.S.A.
comparing them to us is meaningless.(bogus assumption#2.)
great is subjective ,we are great at some things, terrible at others,proclaiming the U.S.A IS GREAT AT EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME IS IGNORANT.( bogus assumption #3.)

"all you that live in fear of "guns", and want to see them banned,"logical 4u..
"ALL" assumes facts not in evidence.
I have no fear of guns, I grew up in a military family .
banning guns would be just about as effective the war on drugs.
but you go head and make those bogus assumptions you have that right!

 

[daws101]

Really? Let's examine this, shall we?

Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left. This shows that:

1. He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).

2. He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).

Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?

well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
talking points are a Conservative's only argument .
the statement "he can't think for himself" is from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't think the way I want them too is dangerous."
I've already given my opinion on the op.

And you use democratic talking points. WTF don't think the bullshit you use to defend obama is based on facts.

off topic

 

[daws101]

So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?

Got it.

Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.

more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.

Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."

The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.