Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[McDowell's]

This is, of course, true.

Never mind that the federal government -certainly- has the power to require everyone to own a gun. You might argue that this violates the 2nd amendment, in that the state cannot force you to exercise a right, but as far as the power to do so, it is unquestionably there.

Of course "the state cannot force you to exercise a right" argument would then apply to The Obama's insurance mandate.

You are wrong because I like Obama and guns are the devil.

I believe that sums it up with the same quality of logic.

I don't know...that's a pretty nice horn!

 

[gekaap]

nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws, the only thing that keeps us safe is laws.

This is widely presumptive. Just because one state has a below average fatality rate in spite of having no seat belt or helmet laws does not mean that generally speaking all roads will be safer without regulatory laws. Obviously NH has a lesser issue with road fatalities than other states. But there is nothing to connect that fact to a lack of seat belt or helmet laws. In fact, it could be that enacting seat belt and helmet laws would reduce their fatality rate even lower. Using a singular example as indicative of general correlation is flawed, as well as relying on any correlation as an indication of causation without being able to explain how any causal mechanism would function.

What would be more useful would be data that analyze the effects of seat belt and helmet usage in preventing fatalities subsequent to traffic accidents. Also possibly useful would be data that addresses people's driving habits. It could be that NH residents tend to use seat belts and helmets moreso than many other states, even though they are not so required by law. It could be that they have other driving habits that are more responsible and safer (like obeying speed limits and signaling properly) than the habits of people in other states. Maybe their lower death rate is associated with more effectively calculated speed limits (some states don't do a good job of setting safe limits, while other states are better at determining safe speed limits for various sections of road). Maybe it has something to do with the compositional content of the materials used to build the road (which could make a difference by helping to prevent skidding and hydroplaning, and increase braking ability). Hell, even the weather patterns may have something to do with it. I lived in Texas for many years, and people there tended to fall apart behind the wheel over even the slightest weather. But people in NH are probably much more used to driving in snow and icy conditions, and are thus probably more skilled at compensating for these things.

 

[edthecynic]

The words I added to your posts made them accurate, so that they were worth a response - its not MY fault you don't know what you're talking about.

A typical CON$ervoFascist rationalization, it's not YOUR fault YOU altered my posts.

I see that your education also did not include reading comprehension.
Either that or you're willfully ignorant. You choose.

Either way:
My statement stands - your citation is meaningless as it no way supports the argument that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations.

Take your arrogant condescension and shove it where it gets no light.

And my citation in no way says the federal government does not have the power as you falsely claim. It merely says the power is constitutional.

 

[gekaap]

In the end, the Constitution defines enumerated and limited powers for the federal government; and does not prevent the states from doing what SD has done. The real question is what is in the SD constitution.

This reasoning continues to be flawed. There are a great many things that the federal government does do, which have been upheld as constitutional, that are not specifically enumerated as a power in the constitution. But the federal government is able to do them because they have a legitimate interest in the matter.

No state can restrict a person's liberties that are guaranteed by the federal constitution. If a requirement to buy a product and/or service suffices as a violation of some protected liberty under the constitution, then no state, county, or municipality can make such a requirement.

Let's take gun laws as an example, because there can be no debate that the right to bear arms is a protected liberty under the constitution. The 2nd amendment explicitly addresses this right, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the meaning of the second amendment to protect an individual's right to bear arms even if said individual's interests or purposes are not participation in the militia.

It is not uncommon for states to require a person to buy permits in order to carry a handgun. States also may at times require a person to attend gun safety classes, at their own expense, in order to own such a permit. And while I don't actually know if it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some state out there requires purchase of some kind of insurance or other service in order to own said permit.

Unless one is ready to claim that these measures are illegal, (which the courts have rejected anyway) then it is clear that a government of a given level does not infringe a person's protected liberties by requiring a person to buy a product. Since there is no infringement of liberty, any level of government that has a legitimate interest in requiring the purchase a product can pass a law that reasonably serves that interest.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Actually one of the comments made by the right was that it wasn't universal healthcare because it didn't require everyone to have it. So can you site the part of the bill which states that every PERSON is required to have health insurance and that there are no exemptions??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358

You do realize that that case actually proves your assertion that the federal government has the power to enforce vaccinations wrong, don't you?

 

[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.

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.

You know it's just hilarious how you have to come in and try to explain what he MEANT to say but didn't. LOL It's a good thing that you can read his mind and interpret for him. Why are you choosing to focus only on his comparison of the two as you ignore the fact that he argued that they are different?

Simply put, you can't HONESTLY claim that they are both different even as you try to argue that they are the same in a desperate attempt to make a point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)

If you believe that the government has the power to compel people to buy health insurance, then you have no way to argue that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun.
Its really that simple.

I think a lot of people here are comparing this bill to Obamacare erroneously, although IMO both are unconstititional. However, they are unconstitutional for different reasons, again IMO.

This bill is an obvious 2nd Amendment violation and is therefore unconstitutional. Case closed.

So far, I've not heard much opposition to Obamacare suggesting that it's a violation of the Bill of Rights to mandate the purchase of insurance. If that were the case, many similar mandates at the state level would also be a violation. The unconstitutionality of Obamacare would stem from the fact that the federal government is overstepping the authority granted to it by the Constitution. That is different than saying it's a BoR violation. And if the USSC court rules against Obamacare on this basis, it wouldn't mean that similar mandates at the state level are also unconstitutional.

How does this violate the 2nd Amendment? Especially when you factor in SCOTUS decisions that have upheld the right of the federal government to mandate gun ownership?

 

[Immanuel]

In reality, what the legislators of South Dakota are attempting to do fails miserably.

We would have to examine the Constitution of the State of South Dakota to know if this was permissible or not. A better example would be if a few Congressmen decided to force a law upon all citizens of the U.S. requiring them to purchase a gun.

I can't wait to see left-wing anti-gun, pro-Health Care Reform people shuffle between why they think the government has the right to make us purchase health insurance but does not have the right to make us purchase a gun.

That would be fun to watch!

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

The sad thing is that they are trying to argue that it's ok for the state to impose such a mandate but not ok for the fed to have such a mandate because they are different even as they admit that they are only proposing this mandate to own a gun in an attempt to show how ridiculous they believe the HC mandate is as they try to claim that they are the same.

They are spinning so much they don't even see the contradiction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

nor does the fact that roads are actually safer without laws, the only thing that keeps us safe is laws.

This is widely presumptive. Just because one state has a below average fatality rate in spite of having no seat belt or helmet laws does not mean that generally speaking all roads will be safer without regulatory laws. Obviously NH has a lesser issue with road fatalities than other states. But there is nothing to connect that fact to a lack of seat belt or helmet laws. In fact, it could be that enacting seat belt and helmet laws would reduce their fatality rate even lower. Using a singular example as indicative of general correlation is flawed, as well as relying on any correlation as an indication of causation without being able to explain how any causal mechanism would function.

What would be more useful would be data that analyze the effects of seat belt and helmet usage in preventing fatalities subsequent to traffic accidents. Also possibly useful would be data that addresses people's driving habits. It could be that NH residents tend to use seat belts and helmets moreso than many other states, even though they are not so required by law. It could be that they have other driving habits that are more responsible and safer (like obeying speed limits and signaling properly) than the habits of people in other states. Maybe their lower death rate is associated with more effectively calculated speed limits (some states don't do a good job of setting safe limits, while other states are better at determining safe speed limits for various sections of road). Maybe it has something to do with the compositional content of the materials used to build the road (which could make a difference by helping to prevent skidding and hydroplaning, and increase braking ability). Hell, even the weather patterns may have something to do with it. I lived in Texas for many years, and people there tended to fall apart behind the wheel over even the slightest weather. But people in NH are probably much more used to driving in snow and icy conditions, and are thus probably more skilled at compensating for these things.

Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.

 

[drsmith1072]

Correct. That fact that it doesnt address anything I said does.

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 does, directly Her argument that the 2nd protects a collective right is based on the term "right of the people", with "people" denoting a collective rather than an individual.
If that argument is valid, then it applies wherever the term is used; necessarily, then, the rights protected by the 4th Amendment is collective as well.

This, you wll note, has not been effectively addressed.


Then...
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....?
Even if you are right in that persons, individually, have the right to be secure in ther person, that protection does not apply, individually, to their papers and effect - so, you could argue that an arrest warrant is necessary, but not a search warrant.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And, of course, all --opinion-- to the contrary is moot as the SCotUS has directly addressed the people/persons issue in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And then in DC v Heller

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And, of course, the direct statement that the 2nd protects am individual right

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.

I know about the ruling of the scotus and scalia's broad rewriting and misinterpretation on this issue but i disagree with it and maybe some day down the line when a less partisan and less right leaning activist court is in power this will be revisited and corrected.
He actually rephrases the amendment to suit his interpretation of it. How sad is that?

 

[drsmith1072]

the court decided that the power did not violate the constitution, not who wielded the power.

and, as i said:
This in no way supports the argument that the federal government has that power as well.

Your cite means nothing, you continue to fail.

stop altering my posts!!!!! Restored
.

Did you also happen to notice that he cotinues to claim that you are wrong even as he fails to show anything that supports that position??

You provide the facts that counter his spin, then he edits them to suit his needs and declares that you are wrong as he ignores the actual content of your posts. It's hilarious. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

This is, of course, true.

Never mind that the federal government -certainly- has the power to require everyone to own a gun. You might argue that this violates the 2nd amendment, in that the state cannot force you to exercise a right, but as far as the power to do so, it is unquestionably there.

Of course "the state cannot force you to exercise a right" argument would then apply to The Obama's insurance mandate.

You are wrong because I like Obama and guns are the devil.

Sadly, that's the best counter-argument in this topic so far...

Actually there have been several valid counter arguments, the problem is that you ignore anything that counters your own baseless opinions as you merely claim that what others have offered isn't relevent when it is. You edit and delete the parts of other people posts that deal directly with this discussion so you can avoid giving a response to their actual content, which is quite cowardly of you. What are you afraid of?? Why not respond to the posts in their entirety instead of editing them??

 

[manifold]

If you believe that the government has the power to compel people to buy health insurance, then you have no way to argue that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun.
Its really that simple.

I think a lot of people here are comparing this bill to Obamacare erroneously, although IMO both are unconstititional. However, they are unconstitutional for different reasons, again IMO.

This bill is an obvious 2nd Amendment violation and is therefore unconstitutional. Case closed.

So far, I've not heard much opposition to Obamacare suggesting that it's a violation of the Bill of Rights to mandate the purchase of insurance. If that were the case, many similar mandates at the state level would also be a violation. The unconstitutionality of Obamacare would stem from the fact that the federal government is overstepping the authority granted to it by the Constitution. That is different than saying it's a BoR violation. And if the USSC court rules against Obamacare on this basis, it wouldn't mean that similar mandates at the state level are also unconstitutional.

How does this violate the 2nd Amendment? Especially when you factor in SCOTUS decisions that have upheld the right of the federal government to mandate gun ownership?

The only such precedent I'm aware of is Kennesaw GA, but since any resident can simply declare himself exempt it's hardly any precedent at all. If you can provide a precedent whereby a private citizen was penalized in any way for refusing to own a gun, and such a penalty was upheld by the USSC, I will reconsider my position.

 

[Charles_Main]

have SD give each head of Household a gun.

Problem Solved.

The unconstitutionality of it comes from Forcing them to BUY IT!

 

[grunt11b]

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.”

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

I seen that, I am still waiting for the justice department to step forward and say that that is unconstitutional. HAHA!!!

 

[gekaap]

Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.

In the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe. But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.

 

[manifold]

have SD give each head of Household a gun.

Problem Solved.

The unconstitutionality of it comes from Forcing them to BUY IT!

I see it just a wee bit differently. I see the unconstitutionality coming from penalizing someone for refusing to own a gun, regardless of whether one might be provided by the taxpayers.

A hair worth splitting IMO.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A typical CON$ervoFascist rationalization, it's not YOUR fault YOU altered my posts.

I see that your education also did not include reading comprehension.
Either that or you're willfully ignorant. You choose.

Either way:
My statement stands - your citation is meaningless as it no way supports the argument that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations.

Take your arrogant condescension and shove it where it gets no light.

Awww.. whaddamadda puddy? Can't handle being wrong?
You should be used to it by now.
:shrug:

And my citation in no way says the federal government does not have the power as you falsely claim.

Either you can't read and therefore cannot understand what I wrote, or you do understand what I wrote and choose to misrepresent it. Either way, that's not what I posted.

Why don't you actually read what I wrote, try -very- hard to comprehend it - it is, after all, in plain English and you therefore might find doing so to a substantial challenge - and then return with an effective response:

My statement stands - your citation is meaningless as it no way supports the argument that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations.