Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[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.

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??

Stop blathering about making an argument and actually make one. Then I'll respond to it. Pretty simple concept.

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

First off, how do you define analogous?? If you mean similar in order to make an analogy then there are two primary similarities.

1. They both mandate a purchase. (thank pilgrim for that comparison as he tried to compare the fed mandate to the state mandate because they both required a purchase)

2. Neither are blanket mandate in that if you already had the mandated item(s) then you are not required to buy it.

So why is it that you don't see those?? or is this just more of your usual willful ignorance?

 

[drsmith1072]

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??

Stop blathering about making an argument and actually make one. Then I'll respond to it. Pretty simple concept.

I made several but instead of responding to them you deleted them and pretended that they never happened all so you could run away because you know that you have nothing valid to offer.

 

[drsmith1072]

for instance, you said

Well such an argument presumes that said act is analgous to the fed unconditionally requring every citizen to purchase something today.

implying that the HC madnate is unconditional and has no exemptions. So I asked

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?

and you avoided it. YOU made the claim and when asked for proofof YOUR own claim you turn tail and run. How typical.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Apparently you did NOT read it because the MA of 1792 mandated that EVERY able-bodied white male CITIZEN between 18 and 45 was required to enter the militia, which pretty much applied to every citizen excluding only those citizens with actual rights who were considered elderly at the time. Your analogy of making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns does NOT apply.

 

[Bern80]

I made several but instead of responding to them you deleted them and pretended that they never happened all so you could run away because you know that you have nothing valid to offer.

And yet here I am challenging you to make an argument again. Bizarre behavior for someone trying to get away from an argument, wouldn't you say?

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?
and you avoided it. YOU made the claim and when asked for proofof YOUR own claim you turn tail and run. How typical.

When I say unconditional I mean whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual. There is no choice one can make that would exclude themselves from having to make the purchase

Apparently you did NOT read it because the MA of 1792 mandated that EVERY white male between 18 and 45 was required to enter the militia, which pretty much applied to every citizen excluding only those citizens with actual rights who were considered elderly at the time. Your analogy of making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns does NOT apply.

Oh yes it does. It's titled the MILITIA ACT. Not the citizens act. It was requirement of a specific group, the militia. At the time certain people were required to enter the milita; men, ages 18-45, and able bodied. You would be lucky if that's 25% of the actual population. To say we're comparing like objects when we compare what citizens were required to do then vs. now is simply itellectually dishonest.

The act applies to what constituted the army at the time, so we would have to apply it to what constitutes the army today for the analogy to remain intact. There are obviously some major difference between then and now. Primarily being the army is voluntary now. In short the militia act just isn't a good example of a previous mandated purchase similar to the insurance mandate. yes it's a case where government has required people to purchase something, but that's about where the similarity ends. It didnt apply to the same type or numbers of people or people of certain groups as the insurance mandate.

 

[drsmith1072]

I made several but instead of responding to them you deleted them and pretended that they never happened all so you could run away because you know that you have nothing valid to offer.

And yet here I am challenging you to make an argument again. Bizarre behavior for someone trying to get away from an argument, wouldn't you say?

Funy but i am stillwaiting on you to address my posts and admit that you tried to catch me in a gotcha moment as you took my statements out of context, attributed an argument to me that I did NOT make and stop cherrypicking and deleting the sections of my post that you wish to pretend never happened.

IF you cna show that you can be hoenst and do those things then we can talk. Until then you only further expose your dishoensty as you continue to avoid and adit my posts to suit your dishonest needs.

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?
and you avoided it. YOU made the claim and when asked for proofof YOUR own claim you turn tail and run. How typical.

When I say unconditional I mean whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual. There is no choice one can make that would exclude themselves from having to make the purchase

uh exactly, PROVE IT. Show proof that there are NO exemptions and that ever person has to purchase it no matter what. This is what I am asking you to do. Prove you statement or retract it. BTW the same can be said about the MA of 1792. If you were a white male citizen you were required to purchase the necessary items. Or did you miss that??

Apparently you did NOT read it because the MA of 1792 mandated that EVERY white male between 18 and 45 was required to enter the militia, which pretty much applied to every citizen excluding only those citizens with actual rights who were considered elderly at the time. Your analogy of making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns does NOT apply.

Oh yes it does. It's titled the MILITIA ACT. Not the citizens act. It was requirement of a specific group, the militia. At the time certain people were required to enter the milita; men, ages 18-45, and able bodied. You would be lucky if that's 25% of the actual population. To say we're comparing like objects when we compare what citizens were required to do then vs. now is simply itellectually dishonest.

The act applies to what constituted the army at the time, so we would have to apply it to what constitutes the army today for the analogy to remain intact. There are obviously some major difference between then and now. Primarily being the army is voluntary now. In short the militia act just isn't a good example of a previous mandated purchase similar to the insurance mandate. yes it's a case where government has required people to purchase something, but that's about where the similarity ends. It didnt apply to the same type or numbers of people or people of certain groups as the insurance mandate.

and yet it was required of almost every citizen at that time to be a part of it. How old do you think people got back then? what was the average life expectancy?? Funny how you just make up stats when you feel the need. Got any proof of your 15% number or not??

NO it did not apply to waht was considered the army at that time. They had an army the modern day equivalent to the militia is the NG.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Then it's the law that becomes irrelevant when you believe something is right or wrong?

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.

I can pass an identical act or change the act again to reinstatement the mandate

Not in a way that's analogous to the insurance mandate anyway.

Requiring citizens to buy something whether they want to or not because

x=x

the mandates are identical in all relevant regards

The militia act applied to the militia, which doesn't exist anymore.

United States Code: Title 10,311. Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute § 311. Militia: composition and classes




(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.





If attempted to be applied today the closest application would be something like making all members of the armed forces purchase their own guns.[/quote]


Other than counting blacks and letting women opt-in, nothing much has changed regarding the 'unorganized' militia

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh yes it does. It's titled the MILITIA ACT. Not the citizens act. It was requirement of a specific group, the militia.

You are correct.

The compulsion found in the MA1792 was limited to a subset of the population, pursuant to a specific power of Congress. As such, it cannot be used to support the Constitutionality of a completely dissimilar compulsion across the entire population that is not pursuant to a specific power of Congress.

At this point, you'd do well to stop feeding the trolls.

 

[drsmith1072]

Oh yes it does. It's titled the MILITIA ACT. Not the citizens act. It was requirement of a specific group, the militia.

You are correct.

The compulsion found in the MA1792 was limited to a subset of the population, pursuant to a specific power of Congress. As such, it cannot be used to support the Constitutionality of a completely dissimilar compulstion across the entire population that is not pursuant to a specific power of Congress.

At this point, you'd do well to stop feeding the trolls.

yeah sure, except that it was only limited to every adult white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. I read somewhere thet the average life expectancy of the 1790s was about 37 for men. That made it pretty much include every citizen who had any rights at that time.

BTW since you failed to answer it before care to show how "provide for ARMING the militia" can realistically be interpreted as "mandating that the militia arm themselves at their own expence" or are you going to avoid it again?
If you are arguing that "provide for arming of the militia" can be interpreted as mandating that the militia purchase their own firearms then "provide for the general welfare" can be interpreted as mandating that the general public can be mandated to provide for their own welfare and prucahse their own insurance. One broad interpretation deserves another.

With the way you and pilgrim pop in and out as you parrot the same moronic talking points while failing to provide anything of substance to back up those talking points I am beginning to think that you two are the same person.

 

[Bern80]

Funy but i am stillwaiting on you to address my posts and admit that you tried to catch me in a gotcha moment as you took my statements out of context, attributed an argument to me that I did NOT make and stop cherrypicking and deleting the sections of my post that you wish to pretend never happened.

IF you cna show that you can be hoenst and do those things then we can talk. Until then you only further expose your dishoensty as you continue to avoid and adit my posts to suit your dishonest needs.

Then YOU need to be more specific about what it is that you want me to be honest about.

uh exactly, PROVE IT. Show proof that there are NO exemptions and that ever person has to purchase it no matter what. This is what I am asking you to do. Prove you statement or retract it. BTW the same can be said about the MA of 1792. If you were a white male citizen you were required to purchase the necessary items. Or did you miss that??

The only exceptions would be those that can't afford it. Or already have coverage of some type. AND as you pointed out below, it did NOT apply to every white male between the ages of 18-45. It ONLY applied to the militia.

and yet it was required of almost every citizen at that time to be a part of it. How old do you think people got back then? what was the average life expectancy?? Funny how you just make up stats when you feel the need. Got any proof of your 15% number or not??

NO it did not apply to waht was considered the army at that time. They had an army the modern day equivalent to the militia is the NG.

25% (if you really want to get nitpicky about misquoting) is a pretty educated guess I would say. We can take of 50% of the population right away as it didn't apply to woman. Able-bodied men between 18-45 AND not already members of the army? What percent of the population do you suppose that might be? On top of that our militia is now essentially voluntary so you've changed another variable in terms of the action required by the individual for the mandate to apply. On one hand a person would now first have to CHOOSE to be part of the militia for the gun mandate to apply.

Now compare that to the people now that the insurance mandate applies to. All adults that can afford it less those on medicare are required to purchase insurance.

 

[Bern80]

Then it's the law that becomes irrelevant when you believe something is right or wrong?

It's not the simple. One weighs the consequences of one's actions when making a decision. If it's legal, the likelihood of getting caught, etc. My point is what actions one believes to be right or wrong are irrelevant where the law is concerned because it is the law that ultimately determines your future. You may think killing someone in vigilante justice isjustified and have no moral compunction over it whatsoever. That doesn't change the fact that the law says you're going to go to jail if you get caught.

I can pass an identical act or change the act again to reinstatement the mandate

Actually you can only try. And given how much the variables have changed over time like what constitutes a citizen or militia it is difficult to determine what it would even look like if applied today. Only memers of the militia as you noted below? Of course our militia's are voluntary now so that makes it even less analogous.

Requiring citizens to buy something whether they want to or not because

x=x

the mandates are identical in all relevant regards

Then you are blind. The MA would have affected a mere fraction of the actual population at the time. ONLY men. ONLY those in the militia. ONLY able bodied. ONLY between ages of 18-48. Compared to a mandate now that requires a purchase of EVERYONE over the age of 18 (unless their parents plan allows them to stay on it).

 

[drsmith1072]

Funy but i am stillwaiting on you to address my posts and admit that you tried to catch me in a gotcha moment as you took my statements out of context, attributed an argument to me that I did NOT make and stop cherrypicking and deleting the sections of my post that you wish to pretend never happened.

IF you cna show that you can be hoenst and do those things then we can talk. Until then you only further expose your dishoensty as you continue to avoid and adit my posts to suit your dishonest needs.

Then YOU need to be more specific about what it is that you want me to be honest about.

I have been completely specific you are either too stupid to understand simple english or you are playing stupid in order to avoid responding.

Here we go again. Let's see if you can folow along this time.

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.

So i gave you an answer to YOUR question that was based on YOUR assumption.

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.

After that YOU dishonestly tried to used my answer which was in response to the question you asked including the assumption that HC mandate is constitutional and then you tired to apply my answer to another argument excluding your assumption.

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 asked for an argument against the gun mandate assuming that the HC mandate was constitutional. You got what you asked for but then you tried to apply my answer to a different argument. Based on the fact that for the sake of that argument we are assuming that the hc mandate is constitutional I do not have to show how it is constitutional.

Do you got it yet or are you going to continue to play stupid??

 

[drsmith1072]

uh exactly, PROVE IT. Show proof that there are NO exemptions and that ever person has to purchase it no matter what. This is what I am asking you to do. Prove you statement or retract it. BTW the same can be said about the MA of 1792. If you were a white male citizen you were required to purchase the necessary items. Or did you miss that??

The only exceptions would be those that can't afford it. Or already have coverage of some type.

Do you know what PROOF is?? I have to ask because you seem to believe that saying it is proving it. So can you PROVE there are no expemptions including the one that you listed??

AND as you pointed out below, it did NOT apply to every white male between the ages of 18-45. It ONLY applied to the militia

Sorry but that is NOT the case. Why don't you try READING the MA of 1792, it clearly says

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

It bascially drafted EVERY white male CITIZEN betwen those ages. Learn to read.

 

[drsmith1072]

and yet it was required of almost every citizen at that time to be a part of it. How old do you think people got back then? what was the average life expectancy?? Funny how you just make up stats when you feel the need. Got any proof of your 15% number or not??

NO it did not apply to waht was considered the army at that time. They had an army the modern day equivalent to the militia is the NG.

25% (if you really want to get nitpicky about misquoting) is a pretty educated guess I would say. We can take of 50% of the population right away as it didn't apply to woman. Able-bodied men between 18-45 AND not already members of the army? What percent of the population do you suppose that might be? On top of that our militia is now essentially voluntary so you've changed another variable in terms of the action required by the individual for the mandate to apply. On one hand a person would now first have to CHOOSE to be part of the militia for the gun mandate to apply.

Once again do you know what PROOF is?? It's a GUESS that is all that it is. Claiming it's educated when it is ONLY based on your opinion proves nothing.

Yeah take out women. Since they had no real rights comparable to white males and could barely count as a citizen at that time. Excluding them was done back then so it's only appropriate not to include them in this discussion.

In case you missed it the MA of 1792 mandated that every white male CITIZEN between the ages listed was required to be in their states' militia. That is pretty much a mandate that all white male citizens have to buy their equipment if they don't already have it.

Not already member of the army? Our militia? Didn't you previously say,

The act applies to what constituted the army at the time, so we would have to apply it to what constitutes the army today for the analogy to remain intact.

So it's funny how you stick your foot in your mouth and then blindly march on as you try to pretend it didn't happen. LOL

Now compare that to the people now that the insurance mandate applies to. All adults that can afford it less those on medicare are required to purchase insurance.

You continue to make claims about what is mandated in the HC bill and yet I am still waiting on you to provide PROOF of what is NOT excluded or exempt from the HC mandate. You made the argument that it was unconditional meaning that "whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual." now PROVE IT.

 

[jillian]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

the hypocrites think it's ok to be forced to buy a gun but it's not ok to have to buy health insurance... because heaven forbid you do anything that would benefit other people.


now blowing them off the face of the earth is a whole other subject.

 

[Bern80]

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

Specifically it's this paragraph that's rather confusing. The first sentence; How did congress justify it? Well essentially because they said they could. Am I the only one that finds that rather convenient? It really isn't accurate to state that if they could justify they could mandate it. Congress doesn't get to justify anything. The either have the power or they don't. And they probably did have the power at the time. But it's a power and act that doesn't transcend time very well even on it's own because so many variables are so different.

Secondly YOU still haven't made an argument or stated a position. In the above paragraph of yours you are content to tell us what you think someone else should argue.

After that YOU dishonestly tried to used my answer which was in response to the question you asked including the assumption that HC mandate is constitutional and then you tired to apply my answer to another argument excluding your assumption.

In truth the only part of your above answer that is actually YOUR opinion is the first sentence. Which is rather nonsensical in of itself. Hence why am asking YOU to state your actual position.

You asked for an argument against the gun mandate assuming that the HC mandate was constitutional. You got what you asked for but then you tried to apply my answer to a different argument. Based on the fact that for the sake of that argument we are assuming that the hc mandate is constitutional I do not have to show how it is constitutional.

Uuummmm.....okay.

 

[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.

Specifically it's this paragraph that's rather confusing. The first sentence; How did congress justify it? Well essentially because they said they could. Am I the only one that finds that rather convenient? It really isn't accurate to state that if they could justify they could mandate it. Congress doesn't get to justify anything. The either have the power or they don't. And they probably did have the power at the time. But it's a power and act that doesn't transcend time very well even on it's own because so many variables are so different.

Secondly YOU still haven't made an argument or stated a position. In the above paragraph of yours you are content to tell us what you think someone else should argue.



In truth the only part of your above answer that is actually YOUR opinion is the first sentence. Which is rather nonsensical in of itself. Hence why am asking YOU to state your actual position.

You asked for an argument against the gun mandate assuming that the HC mandate was constitutional. You got what you asked for but then you tried to apply my answer to a different argument. Based on the fact that for the sake of that argument we are assuming that the hc mandate is constitutional I do not have to show how it is constitutional.

Uuummmm.....okay.

OK now please go back and address my post in it's FULL and COMPLETE context. I will respond to your baseless sidestepping and out of context spin when you show that you can be an adult and respond to my posts properly.

 

[Bern80]

Specifically it's this paragraph that's rather confusing. The first sentence; How did congress justify it? Well essentially because they said they could. Am I the only one that finds that rather convenient? It really isn't accurate to state that if they could justify they could mandate it. Congress doesn't get to justify anything. The either have the power or they don't. And they probably did have the power at the time. But it's a power and act that doesn't transcend time very well even on it's own because so many variables are so different.

Secondly YOU still haven't made an argument or stated a position. In the above paragraph of yours you are content to tell us what you think someone else should argue.



In truth the only part of your above answer that is actually YOUR opinion is the first sentence. Which is rather nonsensical in of itself. Hence why am asking YOU to state your actual position.



Uuummmm.....okay.

OK now please go back and address my post in it's FULL and COMPLETE context. I will respond to your baseless sidestepping and out of context spin when you show that you can be an adult and respond to my posts properly.

I did respond to it. You're either too dense to get that or you just don't like the answer.

 

[Bern80]

Once again do you know what PROOF is?? It's a GUESS that is all that it is. Claiming it's educated when it is ONLY based on your opinion proves nothing.

Yeah take out women. Since they had no real rights comparable to white males and could barely count as a citizen at that time. Excluding them was done back then so it's only appropriate not to include them in this discussion.

In case you missed it the MA of 1792 mandated that every white male CITIZEN between the ages listed was required to be in their states' militia. That is pretty much a mandate that all white male citizens have to buy their equipment if they don't already have it.

No it's not a guess. It's math you idiot. We are attempting to create an analogy here. The simple fact is, it is most convenient for your argument to talk simply about citizens and ignore what constitutes one. But you're not so stupid as to not know what constituted a citizen then was far more restrictive than what constitutes one now. So like I said, it's very convenient to say the MA mandate at the time covered almost every citizen. And you'll conveniently sweep under the rug the fact that 'citizen' was a mere fraction of the population then. So don't lecture me about intellectual dishonesty.

And fraction of the population is not an opinion. The population is who we are talking about. How many people in our society the mandate effects. We KNOW in 1798 it was AT LEAST less than half the population. Woman didn't count. We KNOW it has to be less than 50% of the population because YOU would have to be truly dishonest to try to think that the remaining 50% is comprised entirely of able bodied white men between 18-45.

You continue to make claims about what is mandated in the HC bill and yet I am still waiting on you to provide PROOF of what is NOT excluded or exempt from the HC mandate. You made the argument that it was unconditional meaning that "whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual." now PROVE IT.

You tell me. I would personally love to know what choice I, a 30 year old white male, could make that would not require to purchase health insurance when the mandate takes effect. As far as I can tell the only choice I can make is to be poor in which case the government will provide it for me.