Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[edthecynic]

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.

Vaccinations would fall under the general welfare clause of the Constitution, just as they do in state constitutions. There is nothing enumerated specifically naming vaccinations in any state constitution either. Compulsory vaccination laws have been passed, challenged in the courts and upheld as constitutional by the SCOUS.

 

[Avatar4321]

I thought the Federal Government DID have explicit authority in the area of Defense? That's what you idiots jabber about constantly. Requiring everyone to buy a gun for defense is perfectly in keeping with your Constitution.

The Federal Government does have explicit authority for National Defense. State, or individual defense, is another matter altogether. Having explicit power doesnt mean or imply that they have exclusive power.

But as this is a South Dakota Bill, the US Constitution doesn't even come into play. The States have the power to pass this law, even if it's not right, unless specifically outlawed by the State Constitution.

I'm not entirely sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So this is M14 Shooter's world -
1. As he has affirmed before, he thinks it's unconstitutional to ban convicted gun felons from buying guns.
2. As he has stated here, he supports the idea of a state requiring everyone to own a gun...
...see, if people like this ruled America, gangbangers convicted of felony gun crimes, once they served their sentence,
would be REQUIRED to own a gun.
See how easy it is, when you put the puzzle together?

Psssstt...
Before you embarass yourself further, read the story. The link is in the OP.

I'm not talking about the story I'm talking about what YOU believe.

Well in that case, you're simply self-sodomizing your credibility as a sentient being.
To wit:

Will you remind everyone that yes indeed you do think it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny a person convicted of a gun crime the right to own a gun?

I have never, ever said any such thing.

Do you want to deny that so I can pull up your post saying just that? Go ahead.

I -defy- you to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

The US Constitution doesn't give the States any power whatsoever. It does however reserve any authority not explicitly given to the Federal Government to the States only. It's called the 10th amendment.

Wrong. The states are given power via the Supremacy Clause. They get what's left over.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Vaccinations would fall under the general welfare clause of the Constitution...

Um... no. This is a common misconception among those that want the federal government to be able to do just about anything. Either you don't knoe any better, or you do and simply don't care. Either way...

The "power" you cite states that the federal governent has the power to tax and spend.
It grants no other power, especially the power to create the legislation thru which revenue is spent - the remianing powers specified in Article I Sec 8 do that.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but this bill is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

How would it be a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution for the State of South Dakota to require all citizens to purchase a firearm?

As I already responded to you, States cannot violate the Bill of Rights any more than the federal government can. If they could, Mormonism would be the state religion of Utah.

First, the Bill of Right is irrelevant to whether the State can mandate the purchase of firearms. The Second amendment has absolutely no effect on this legislation and the 10th amendment specifically says that the powers not given to the Federal Government reside in the States.

Second, The Bill of rights were never applied to the States prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. And even since then, not every right expounded in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to states as well.

Even before the Civil War, Utah was a territory dedicates to religious tolerance. Since settling the Salt Lake Valley the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has helped fascilate those of other faiths worship according to the dictates of their hearts by letting them use our buildings for worship purposes and helping them build their own places of worship.

So your assertion is wrong on both points.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The same clause that gives the state government this power.
Which clause of the Constitution limits this power ONLY to the state?

The US Constitution doesn't give the States any power whatsoever. It does however reserve any authority not explicitly given to the Federal Government to the States only. It's called the 10th amendment.

Wrong. The states are given power via the Supremacy Clause. They get what's left over.

Perhaps the best way for you to stop embarassig yourself is to simply not post...

 

[Avatar4321]

States are not allowed to violate the Bill of Rights any more than the federal government.

Geesh! You really should know that!

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that would make said bill unconstitutional, excluding the 10th amendment which, of course, wouldn't apply to the states.

This bill violates the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights.

No it doesn't. As the mandate doesnt infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. Quite the opposite. The law would facilitate all citizens' right to bear arms. And there is nothing in the Second amendment prohibiting any government from facilitating the right. only infringing on it.

 

[manifold]

How would it be a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution for the State of South Dakota to require all citizens to purchase a firearm?

As I already responded to you, States cannot violate the Bill of Rights any more than the federal government can. If they could, Mormonism would be the state religion of Utah.

First, the Bill of Right is irrelevant to whether the State can mandate the purchase of firearms. The Second amendment has absolutely no effect on this legislation and the 10th amendment specifically says that the powers not given to the Federal Government reside in the States.

Second, The Bill of rights were never applied to the States prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. And even since then, not every right expounded in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to states as well.

Even before the Civil War, Utah was a territory dedicates to religious tolerance. Since settling the Salt Lake Valley the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has helped fascilate those of other faiths worship according to the dictates of their hearts by letting them use our buildings for worship purposes and helping them build their own places of worship.

So your assertion is wrong on both points.

You're clearly out of your depth here.

This bill is blatantly unconstititional as it's a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But I can see that it would be a colossal waste of time to try to educate you of this fact since you'd much rather wallow in ignorance.

Enjoy your bliss and have a nice day, I have to go shovel snow now.

 

[Avatar4321]

This bill violates the 2nd Amendment for exactly the same reason that a bill requiring people to recite the Pledge of Allegiance would violate the 1st Amendment. Forced speech is an infringement of free speech, and forced gun ownership is an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Not at all. Owning a gun doesn't force you to use it.

 

[manifold]

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that would make said bill unconstitutional, excluding the 10th amendment which, of course, wouldn't apply to the states.

This bill violates the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights.

No it doesn't. As the mandate doesnt infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. Quite the opposite. The law would facilitate all citizens' right to bear arms. And there is nothing in the Second amendment prohibiting any government from facilitating the right. only infringing on it.

If the right to choose is taken, the right is infringed.

It's that simple.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wrong. The states are given power via the Supremacy Clause. They get what's left over.

I guantee you are the only person on earth who thinks that the State gets power from the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Vast LWC]

I thought the Federal Government DID have explicit authority in the area of Defense? That's what you idiots jabber about constantly. Requiring everyone to buy a gun for defense is perfectly in keeping with your Constitution.

The Federal Government does have explicit authority for National Defense. State, or individual defense, is another matter altogether. Having explicit power doesnt mean or imply that they have exclusive power.

But as this is a South Dakota Bill, the US Constitution doesn't even come into play. The States have the power to pass this law, even if it's not right, unless specifically outlawed by the State Constitution.

I'm not entirely sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Yep, I agree. If the legislature of South Dakota agrees that gun ownership is important for South Dakotans, they can certainly pass a law requiring gun ownership.

Just like states can pass laws concerning auto insurance, etc.

I do disagree with the idea that the Health Care bill is unconstitutional, as I believe the Welfare Clause covers it, as it covers Social Security, etc., but there is no denying that S Dakota certainly has the right to do this.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Vaccinations would fall under the general welfare clause of the Constitution...

Um... no. This is a common misconception among those that want the federal government to be able to do just about anything. Either you don't knoe any better, or you do and simply don't care. Either way...

The "power" you cite states that the federal governent has the power to tax and spend.
It grants no other power, especially the power to create the legislation thru which revenue is spent - the remianing powers specified in Article I Sec 8 do that.

Actually, Article I Sec 8 does not end where you do. There is no denying that promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Article I Sec 8 clearly does grant the power to create legislation to carry into execution that enumerated power.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually, Article I Sec 8 does not end where you do. There is no denying that promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Article I Sec 8 clearly does grant the power to create legislation to carry into execution that enumerated power.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Word.

 

[Avatar4321]

As I already responded to you, States cannot violate the Bill of Rights any more than the federal government can. If they could, Mormonism would be the state religion of Utah.

First, the Bill of Right is irrelevant to whether the State can mandate the purchase of firearms. The Second amendment has absolutely no effect on this legislation and the 10th amendment specifically says that the powers not given to the Federal Government reside in the States.

Second, The Bill of rights were never applied to the States prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. And even since then, not every right expounded in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to states as well.

Even before the Civil War, Utah was a territory dedicates to religious tolerance. Since settling the Salt Lake Valley the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has helped fascilate those of other faiths worship according to the dictates of their hearts by letting them use our buildings for worship purposes and helping them build their own places of worship.

So your assertion is wrong on both points.

You're clearly out of your depth here.

This bill is blatantly unconstititional as it's a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But I can see that it would be a colossal waste of time to try to educate you of this fact since you'd much rather wallow in ignorance.

Enjoy your bliss and have a nice day, I have to go shovel snow now.

Funny thing here is that I would have to conclude from your response that you are "clearly out of your depth here."

I've already explained to you multiple times how 2nd amendment does not apply to this law. I've also explained to you that the doctrine of incorporation, which the courts adopted after the 14th amendment to apply certain aspects of the Bill of Rights to the States, does not apply to every right in every circumstance.

Your response has been to simply ignore it and start with insults. And that's really uncalled for since I haven't insulted you at all.

If you want me to except what you are saying, make a good argument for it. You haven barely even attempted to do so. So why should I ignore the clear text of the 2nd amendment which does nothing to ban the facilitation of the right only the infringment?

How is anyone's right to bear arms infringed by requiring people to own guns? You aren't forced to use it. You arent prohibitted from using it. There is no infringment. The Second Amendment doesn't apply.

Your use of parallels notwithstanding, the First amendment does allow laws facilitating both speech and the freedom of religion according to various case law of the United States.

You're free to disagree and argue for your point, but you are going to need something more convincing then saying "you're ignorant".

 

[Avatar4321]

This bill violates the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights.

No it doesn't. As the mandate doesnt infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. Quite the opposite. The law would facilitate all citizens' right to bear arms. And there is nothing in the Second amendment prohibiting any government from facilitating the right. only infringing on it.

If the right to choose is taken, the right is infringed.

It's that simple.

But not right to choose has been taken. That's your problem right there.

 

[Avatar4321]

Vaccinations would fall under the general welfare clause of the Constitution...

Um... no. This is a common misconception among those that want the federal government to be able to do just about anything. Either you don't knoe any better, or you do and simply don't care. Either way...

The "power" you cite states that the federal governent has the power to tax and spend.
It grants no other power, especially the power to create the legislation thru which revenue is spent - the remianing powers specified in Article I Sec 8 do that.

Actually, Article I Sec 8 does not end where you do. There is no denying that promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Article I Sec 8 clearly does grant the power to create legislation to carry into execution that enumerated power.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The necessary and proper clause is not a grant of power to do whatever you want.

 

[edthecynic]

Um... no. This is a common misconception among those that want the federal government to be able to do just about anything. Either you don't knoe any better, or you do and simply don't care. Either way...

The "power" you cite states that the federal governent has the power to tax and spend.
It grants no other power, especially the power to create the legislation thru which revenue is spent - the remianing powers specified in Article I Sec 8 do that.

Actually, Article I Sec 8 does not end where you do. There is no denying that promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power, and Article I Sec 8 clearly does grant the power to create legislation to carry into execution that enumerated power.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The necessary and proper clause is not a grant of power to do whatever you want.

That is true, but the SCOUS has already decided that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution. So I say if vaccinations can be constitutionally mandated then why not HC???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What kind of extremist, gun happy bill is that?

Taking time travel back to the wild wild West?

Naw..it's not that unusual..

Most male citizens of the American Colonies were required by law to own arms and ammunition for militia duty.[2] The Long Land Pattern was a common firearm in use by both sides in the American Revolutionary War.[3]
Brown Bess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the real reason for the second amendment..by the way.

Really? Where does the 2nd say I have to own a gun? Where does it say that I have to join a militia?