Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

US Vs. Miller 1934 "Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE"

Which supports my point of view..rather nicely.

Thanks.:clap2:




Actually not true but nice try. They were referring to the militia (which is made up of the body of the people, in other words the citizens) and more importantly the decision specifies that hunting weapons AREN'T protected...military weapons are. Make's all those anti assault wepons null and void due to case law alone.

The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.

That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.
 
Just because you call an argument "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.
Correct. That fact that it doesnt address anything I said does.

The right to arms..is a collective one...
This statement is demonstrably incorrect, in historical, legal and constitutional terms.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.
 
Just because you call an argument "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.
Correct. That fact that it doesnt address anything I said does.

The right to arms..is a collective one...
This statement is demonstrably incorrect, in historical, legal and constitutional terms.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.

I've shown you the verbiage of both amendments and illustrated why one is collective and the other refers to the indivdual.

You've done nothing..absolutely nothing to dispute this except dismiss it.

That's not a good argument.
 
The vaccination 'mandate' is from the state, not the federal government.
That seems like a distinction without a difference, it is still a GOVERNMENT mandate that is not unconstitutional and can carry a penalty for noncompliance.
Its not. The state has the power to mandate such a thing, whereas the federal government does not.

Long and short of it is that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun.
The Federal government passed "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" that created government medical care and required private seamen to purchase health insurance.

This act was passed by congress and signed by president John Adams. I'm pretty sure Adams and his friends in congress were aware of what the founders might find constitutional.
 
Here is the ruling...
I quoted the ruling.

and while you are technically correct...
I am correct, period.
The court did not rule that Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed because they have no military purpose, but that it could not say that they fell under the protection of the 2nd because no evidence to that effect was presented.
The difference is clear.
 
The vaccination 'mandate' is from the state, not the federal government.
That seems like a distinction without a difference, it is still a GOVERNMENT mandate that is not unconstitutional and can carry a penalty for noncompliance.
Its not. The state has the power to mandate such a thing, whereas the federal government does not.

Long and short of it is that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun.
That is not necessarily true. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it and the Federal Government can set a minimum standard for vaccinations that each state must meet, while each state is free to set higher standards but not lower.

The long and short of it is if the state government can require you to get vaccinated they can also require you to buy a gun.
 
The "Citizen" has no right to bear arms except in the case of defending the country.
That's what the United States Constitution clearly says.
No matter how many times you say this, it is still historically, legally and constitutionally incorrect.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.
 
I've shown you the verbiage of both amendments and illustrated why one is collective and the other refers to the indivdual.
Both rights belong to The people. That, according to you, is the deciding factor and necessarily describes a collective right. The fact that the specifics of the right are spelled out is meaningless - the right is still collective as the right belongs to the people as a collective.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual.
 
So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....

Wait a minute....

Oh look, 1 person gets it...

Yeah, I saw the mandate as being the most corrupt and illegal part of that bill hands down. And lookey lookey, it's running into legal problems.

For the record, I think folks would all be a lot more polite if they knew everyone was packing a gun. I personally don't own a gun as I'm the single most clumsy person you will ever meet when it comes to such things, but I support the right of people to own and carry.

The only thing I'd ask is that a person has to get training before they carry concealed weapons, and as is that's the law in most states.
 
That seems like a distinction without a difference, it is still a GOVERNMENT mandate that is not unconstitutional and can carry a penalty for noncompliance.
Its not. The state has the power to mandate such a thing, whereas the federal government does not.

Long and short of it is that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun.
That is not necessarily true. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it and the Federal Government can set a minimum standard for vaccinations that each state must meet, while each state is free to set higher standards but not lower.
More correctly, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal govermnent the power to set such a standard.

The long and short of it is if the state government can require you to get vaccinated they can also require you to buy a gun.
OK... but that doesnt change the fact that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun
 
Not if you want to send your children to school or if you want to travel abroad. Without a vaccination the government has the power to limit your freedom!!! So there is a "price" to pay if you don't obey the mandate. How is the HC mandate any different from a vaccination mandate?

Bullshit. My youngest hasn't had any vaccinations since she was five. She's 14 tomorrow and in the eighth grade, public school.

Any more shit you want to spew?

You don't want to get vaccinations and uncle says you can't travel. Peachy. Do they fine you for not getting those vaccinations?

Again . . . can you opt out of the health care mandate?
Obviously she had her vaccinations up to 5 years old as ALL states require them to attend public school, either that or you are breaking the law.

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Laws/State Requirements

They deny you a Visa.

No, she received vaccinations up to age five and NO MORE after that, including the ones they 'mandated' for her to enter kindergarten.

I'm not breaking any law. I signed a form stating our objections to the shots, everything is on the record. The school is well aware that she is not 'up to date' on her shots.

Know something else? When she was five we had her titers checked and with the exception of whooping cough (which was low immunization), she was fully immunized for everything. When I asked the doc if getting more vaccinations would protect her any further, the doc said no. Surprise, surprise. How's the pharma industry doing, uncle sam?

Three times . . . can you opt out of the heath care mandate?

Peachy on the Visa denial. Do they fine you for NOT getting vaccinations?
 
Peachy on the Visa denial. Do they fine you for NOT getting vaccinations?
I once wrote a bill for a a new militia act - the militis act of 2002.

Like the militia act of 1792, it required all able bodied citizens aged 18-55 that were legally able to own a gun to buy one - specifically, a rfile similar to an M1903, M1, M14 or M16 - and qualify with it each year by achieving an NRA Marksman rating at a NRA/SRA sanctioned highpower match.

You could opt out of buying the rifles and the quals by paying into a fund that would assist low-income citizend in the purchase of a rifle and donating time each year to the qualification events.

Failure to do so would have the same efffect as a man failing to register for the draft.


Not suprisingly, the liberals that read it whined and cried to no end.
 
Its not. The state has the power to mandate such a thing, whereas the federal government does not.

Long and short of it is that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun.
That is not necessarily true. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it and the Federal Government can set a minimum standard for vaccinations that each state must meet, while each state is free to set higher standards but not lower.
More correctly, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal govermnent the power to set such a standard.

The long and short of it is if the state government can require you to get vaccinated they can also require you to buy a gun.
OK... but that doesnt change the fact that if you ssupport The Obama's insurance mandate, then you have no argument against your state requiring you to buy a gun
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a vaccinations mandate solely to the states. It clearly is constitutional for government to mandate vaccinations and limit freedoms for noncompliance.

And I made no argument against a state government requiring you to buy a gun, in fact, I said it was just as valid as requiring vaccinations. I also argue that if vaccinations can be mandated then HC can also be mandated.
 
So its a good thing it turned out to be Constitutional to require people to buy into healthcare....

Wait a minute....

I understand that this is difficult for some of you on the left to understand. But States have much broader power than the Federal Government.

You see the Federal Government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It can only act in areas where they are given explicit power. Mandating anyone purchase something is not within their powers.

A state government, on the other hand, is given extremely broad powers. Any power not given to the Federal Government is reserved for the States. Thus, unless their state constitution prohibits requiring people to purchase something, the state can pass such a law according to the desires of the people.

Personally, I think requiring anyone to buy something is wrong, regardless of what level of government is requiring it. But simply because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

It's clearly constitutional at the Federal Level. I'm not familiar with South Dakota's Constitution, but if they have nothing prohibitting it, then it's clearly constitutional even if it's stupid.

Not at all true.

The Federal government doesn't have explicit enumerated powers.

When was Article 1 Section 8 removed?
 
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a vaccinations mandate solely to the states. It clearly is constitutional for government to mandate vaccinations and limit freedoms for noncompliance.
Which clause of the Constitution gives the federal government this power?

And I made no argument against a state government requiring you to buy a gun, in fact, I said it was just as valid as requiring vaccinations. I also argue that if vaccinations can be mandated then HC can also be mandated.
10-4.
 
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a vaccinations mandate solely to the states. It clearly is constitutional for government to mandate vaccinations and limit freedoms for noncompliance.
Which clause of the Constitution gives the federal government this power?
The same clause that gives the state government this power.
Which clause of the Constitution limits this power ONLY to the state?
 
Did anyone even bother to read the article? You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link. :rolleyes:

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

They don't want to require anyone to buy anything and they know it will never pass. They are making a point about the unconstitutionality of the hc mandate. If this gun mandate is ridiculous and out of reach then so is the hc mandate.

The problem is that mandating people own guns at a state level would not pose a problem for constitutionality.
 
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a vaccinations mandate solely to the states. It clearly is constitutional for government to mandate vaccinations and limit freedoms for noncompliance.
Which clause of the Constitution gives the federal government this power?
The same clause that gives the state government this power.
I think you do not understand how these things work.

The federal government has certain powers granted to it by the constitution.
Any powers not gtanted to the federal government by the Constitution are retained by the states or the people. The power you describe here is found nowhere in the Constitution, and so the federal government does not have it.

The powers of the individual states are gratned to those states by their respective constitutions, not the federal constitution.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top