Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

When was the last time you got vaccinated?

 

[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, 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.

When was the last time you got vaccinated?

The last time I wanted to travel abroad.
How about you? Do you ever travel outside the US?

 

[Mini 14]

I am stunned that no one has brought up Kennesaw, Georgia

Its a suburb of Atlanta, a fairly big one.

If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.

The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.

If South Dakota's Constitution is similar to Georgia's in allowing for such a law, precedent already exists that it would not be unconstitutional.

Just wanted to clear that part of it up.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am stunned that no one has brought up Kennesaw, Georgia

Its a suburb of Atlanta, a fairly big one.

If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.

The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.

If South Dakota's Constitution is similar to Georgia's in allowing for such a law, precedent already exists that it would not be unconstitutional.

Just wanted to clear that part of it up.

Interesting, Didn't know about that. But then I haven't been looking up case law on the issue. Just arguing from the text. Maybe Ill check it out.

 

[signelect]

The senator is right on. Everyone should have access to self defense but not everyone would know what to do with it or have enough sense to use it. Picking up a gun for self defense carries a tremendous responsibility. Misuse it and you should go to jail for a long long time or better yet check out early. Obama wants to tell us to buy insurance, we tell teenager to use condoms the result in both cases is the same. Someone is going to get *&^&%

 

[Mini 14]

I am stunned that no one has brought up Kennesaw, Georgia

Its a suburb of Atlanta, a fairly big one.

If you live there, you are required, by law, to own and maintain a firearm.

The law was challenged and was upheld by the Georgia and US Supreme Courts.

If South Dakota's Constitution is similar to Georgia's in allowing for such a law, precedent already exists that it would not be unconstitutional.

Just wanted to clear that part of it up.

Interesting, Didn't know about that. But then I haven't been looking up case law on the issue. Just arguing from the text. Maybe Ill check it out.

They passed the law in 1982. Crime immediately plummeted, presumably because the criminal element of nearby Atlanta knew they would find resistance in Kennessaw.

Depending on who you ask, it is still almost nil at best, and less than half of the average at worst.

Great, beautiful, historic City. And once you leave Kennessaw heading North, you know you've finally "escaped Atlanta."

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

It's funny how you argue that there is a distinction between the federal government and the states even as you try to claim that there is no difference if you support the HC mandate.

Do you not see the contradiction in your arguments??

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Why do you continue to bring up warrants when that doesn't address anything the other poster said?? It's a nice diversion if you ignore the actual wording of the 4th but it does NOTHING to address what the other poster said.

persons is a term that describes many individuals and their indivudual rights

people is a collective group

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[McDowell's]

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.

It's funny how you argue that there is a distinction between the federal government and the states even as you try to claim that there is no difference if you support the HC mandate.

Do you not see the contradiction in your arguments??

He's not saying there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. He's saying if you support the federal HC mandate, which the federal government has little or no justification in making, you have no basis for denying a state mandate, which state governments have a greater justification in making. There is a difference in the level of authority that the states and federal government have.

However, the underlying premise of their disagreement is false. There is no blanket mandate that all children be vaccinated in this country. The mandates currently in existence are required only as a condition of attending public schools. As a result, a vaccination mandate required for attendance of public schools has no bearing on the validity of a blanket mandate.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

It's funny how you argue that there is a distinction between the federal government and the states even as you try to claim that there is no difference if you support the HC mandate.

Do you not see the contradiction in your arguments??

He's not saying there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. He's saying if you support the federal HC mandate, which the federal government has little or no justification in making, you have no basis for denying a state mandate, which state governments have a greater justification in making. There is a difference in the level of authority that the states and federal government have.

However, the underlying premise of their disagreement is false. There is no blanket mandate that all children be vaccinated in this country. The mandates currently in existence are required only as a condition of attending public schools. As a result, a vaccination mandate required for attendance of public schools has no bearing on the validity of a blanket mandate.

It's not just public schools that require vaccinations, as I pointed out travel can be restricted, and employment can also require vaccinations. Again all these compulsory vaccinations have been upheld by the SCOTUS as constitutional.

 

[McDowell's]

It's funny how you argue that there is a distinction between the federal government and the states even as you try to claim that there is no difference if you support the HC mandate.

Do you not see the contradiction in your arguments??

He's not saying there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. He's saying if you support the federal HC mandate, which the federal government has little or no justification in making, you have no basis for denying a state mandate, which state governments have a greater justification in making. There is a difference in the level of authority that the states and federal government have.

However, the underlying premise of their disagreement is false. There is no blanket mandate that all children be vaccinated in this country. The mandates currently in existence are required only as a condition of attending public schools. As a result, a vaccination mandate required for attendance of public schools has no bearing on the validity of a blanket mandate.

It's not just public schools that require vaccinations, as I pointed out travel can be restricted, and employment can also require vaccinations. Again all these compulsory vaccinations have been upheld by the SCOTUS as constitutional.

And all of those are conditional mandates not blanket mandates. So your point is still not valid.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

It's funny how you argue that there is a distinction between the federal government and the states even as you try to claim that there is no difference if you support the HC mandate.

Do you not see the contradiction in your arguments??

He's not saying there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. He's saying if you support the federal HC mandate, which the federal government has little or no justification in making, you have no basis for denying a state mandate, which state governments have a greater justification in making. There is a difference in the level of authority that the states and federal government have.

However, the underlying premise of their disagreement is false. There is no blanket mandate that all children be vaccinated in this country. The mandates currently in existence are required only as a condition of attending public schools. As a result, a vaccination mandate required for attendance of public schools has no bearing on the validity of a blanket mandate.

Actually IF you could read he said that one has no bearing on the other because there IS a distinction between the two and THEN tries to make a direct comparison between the two as he tries to link the two claiming that if you support one then you can't argue against the other.

If it is as he says and there is a distinction between the two then why would an opinion on one have any bearing on the other?? Accoridng to M14 They are two different situations. One state and one federal. Therefore to link the two is a contradiction of the previous opinion that they are different.

 

[drsmith1072]

He's not saying there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. He's saying if you support the federal HC mandate, which the federal government has little or no justification in making, you have no basis for denying a state mandate, which state governments have a greater justification in making. There is a difference in the level of authority that the states and federal government have.

However, the underlying premise of their disagreement is false. There is no blanket mandate that all children be vaccinated in this country. The mandates currently in existence are required only as a condition of attending public schools. As a result, a vaccination mandate required for attendance of public schools has no bearing on the validity of a blanket mandate.

It's not just public schools that require vaccinations, as I pointed out travel can be restricted, and employment can also require vaccinations. Again all these compulsory vaccinations have been upheld by the SCOTUS as constitutional.

And all of those are conditional mandates not blanket mandates. So your point is still not valid.

So based on the FACT that the HC mandate is not a blanket mandate due to the fact that if you have insurance you are not required to buy then your argument is baseless and nothing but spin.
The HC mandate is conditional and is not a blanket mandate.
Thanks for the argument.

 

[McDowell's]

It's not just public schools that require vaccinations, as I pointed out travel can be restricted, and employment can also require vaccinations. Again all these compulsory vaccinations have been upheld by the SCOTUS as constitutional.

And all of those are conditional mandates not blanket mandates. So your point is still not valid.

So based on the FACT that the HC mandate is not a blanket mandate due to the fact that if you have insurance you are not required to buy then your argument is baseless and nothing but spin.
The HC mandate is conditional and is not a blanket mandate.
Thanks for the argument.

Under the HC law, is every person required to have health insurance? Yes. That is a blanket mandate. Noone is talking about the method of acquisition as a blanket mandate. Sorry you can't stay on track with the matter under discussion.

 

[McDowell's]

It's funny how you argue that there is a distinction between the federal government and the states even as you try to claim that there is no difference if you support the HC mandate.

Do you not see the contradiction in your arguments??

He's not saying there is no difference if you support the HC mandate. He's saying if you support the federal HC mandate, which the federal government has little or no justification in making, you have no basis for denying a state mandate, which state governments have a greater justification in making. There is a difference in the level of authority that the states and federal government have.

However, the underlying premise of their disagreement is false. There is no blanket mandate that all children be vaccinated in this country. The mandates currently in existence are required only as a condition of attending public schools. As a result, a vaccination mandate required for attendance of public schools has no bearing on the validity of a blanket mandate.

Actually IF you could read he said that one has no bearing on the other because there IS a distinction between the two and THEN tries to make a direct comparison between the two as he tries to link the two claiming that if you support one then you can't argue against the other.

If it is as he says and there is a distinction between the two then why would an opinion on one have any bearing on the other?? Accoridng to M14 They are two different situations. One state and one federal. Therefore to link the two is a contradiction of the previous opinion that they are different.

He's saying that states have more justification for making blanket mandates than the federal government. As an extension of that, he's saying a person who supports a blanket federal mandate has NO basis for not supporting a blanket state mandate which uses the same logic as the justification for that mandate. Those are not incongruous arguments. If you can't understand that, I pity you. If you continue to be an overbearing ass, I'm going to just ignore you.

 

[JFK_USA]

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

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Promoting the general welfare is not a power given to Congress.

Lets assume you're right:
Why was it then -necessary- to include clauses 2-16?

 

[Mini 14]

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

No kidding.

Mandate to Buy health insurance? UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the law

Mandate to buy a gun? Perfectly okay.

You republicans have some messed up morals.

2 different jurisdictions.....

but don't let that get in your way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.

Oh WOW. Where to begin?
1: Cite?
2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.

 

[Charles_Main]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com



Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Absolute absurdity. I am all for gun rights, but the government of SD forcing you to buy one? Sounds unconstitutional to me. Though I admit I have never read the SD constitution.