Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[drsmith1072]

I asked this pages ago and still haven't got a response. Since the right claimed with in thsi thread that every PERSON is required to have insurance and that there are NO exemptions or exceptions could one of you please cite the part of the bill that states this is the case??

 

[drsmith1072]

Lets try again. The constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase any product from health insurance to guns.

So the Militia Act is unconstitutional? The guys who ratified COTUS disagree.

The Militia Act of 1792

The militia act does not mandate any purchases from private companies.

Please explain what your point is and what part of the militia act makes that point for you.

Just curious, but where exactly do you think they were suppose to get all of the things that they were required to "furnish themselves" or aquire "at their expense" in section IV from your own link?

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

 

[uscitizen]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun


Why would eveyone in SD do what this guy Bill tells them to anyway?

Bill O'Reilley?

 

[JBeukema]

Lets try again. The constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase any product from health insurance to guns.

So the Militia Act is unconstitutional? The guys who ratified COTUS disagree.

The Militia Act of 1792

The militia act does not mandate any purchases from private companies.

Please explain what your point is and what part of the militia act makes that point for you.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.


If he's not to buy if from the private sector, is he to buy it from the government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lets try again. The constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase any product from health insurance to guns.

So the Militia Act is unconstitutional? The guys who ratified COTUS disagree.

The Militia Act of 1792

The militia act does not mandate any purchases from private companies.

Technically true - it did not mandate that you -buy- the weapons and equipment it required, only that you so equip yourself. You could have, I suppose, made a musket, bayonette, black powder, etc, and equipped yourself with it.

But, for most people so ordered, this wasn't a possibility, and so the relevant equipment had to be purchased.

 

[JBeukema]

So all we need to do is change the language so you can buy health insurance from your neighbor so long as he is a billionaire and can offer the services?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So all we need to do is change the language so you can buy health insurance from your neighbor so long as he is a billionaire and can offer the services?

You continued non-sequitur/strawman posts only serve to indicate that you have no real desire to have an honest conversation.

 

[JBeukema]

You're the one evading the fact that there's a 200-year-old precedent from the FF for requiring private citizens to buy things they don't want to buy in the name of the good of the society as a whole.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're the one evading the fact that there's a 200-year-old precedent from the FF for requiring private citizens to buy things they don't want to buy in the name of the good of the society as a whole.

I have dealt with this at least three times in this thread.

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

The Obama's HCI mandate... is none of those things.

The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent.

 

[JBeukema]

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice

It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase whether they want anything to do with it or not

Now... where is that in the constitution? There are two possibilities:
-The mandate is constitutional... somehow- as the FF clearly believed

-The constitution doesn't give the federal government this authority, and the Militia Act is unconstitutional- meaning the FF who wrote, argued for, and ratified it didn't even want to live under the constitution

 

[Care4all]

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice

It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase whether they want anything to do with it or not

Now... where is that in the constitution? There are two possibilities:
-The mandate is constitutional... somehow- as the FF clearly believed

-The constitution doesn't give the federal government this authority, and the Militia Act is unconstitutional- meaning the FF who wrote, argued for, and ratified it didn't even want to live under the constitution

I think you have a fairly strong argument on this JB... I was unaware of the Militia Act and what it said, but it seems to me, that it does set precedence with the federal government mandating citizens purchase something....

yes, M14 has an argument of this mandate being for something, the Defense of our country, which is in the Constitution, but it is a mandate for citizens to buy things from private retailers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice

So? You are serving in the militia. That's service to the government.
The requirement is a condition related to that service, pursuant to an enumerated power of Congress.

The Obana's HCI mandate, a blanket condition imposed upon everyone, related to nothing other than their simple citizenship, and not pursuant to any enumerated power granted by the Constitution, is not anything like the same thing.

As I said:
The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent.

Now... where is that in the constitution?

The Power of Congress to provide for the organization, arming and discipline of the militia?
Have you read the constitution?

There are two possibilities:

False Dichotomy - there are many possibilities other than yours.

Fact is, because of the difference described above, the fact that Congress can mandate that certain people need to buy a weapon in no way supports the idea that Congress can mandate that everyone buy health insurance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice

It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase whether they want anything to do with it or not

Now... where is that in the constitution? There are two possibilities:
-The mandate is constitutional... somehow- as the FF clearly believed

-The constitution doesn't give the federal government this authority, and the Militia Act is unconstitutional- meaning the FF who wrote, argued for, and ratified it didn't even want to live under the constitution

I think you have a fairly strong argument on this JB... I was unaware of the Militia Act and what it said, but it seems to me, that it does set precedence with the federal government mandating citizens purchase something....

yes, M14 has an argument of this mandate being for something, the Defense of our country, which is in the Constitution, but it is a mandate for citizens to buy things from private retailers.

Actually the Floirida Judge that ruled obama care unconstitutional has more knownledge. But if thats how you want to go. The militia act was due to the second amendment. M14 Shooter has it just about right.

 

[Care4all]

Well, our government IS trying to use the commerce clause, I believe, in defense of this.....

Our government CAN mandate that we purchase something, but it has been at the State level as of late, and NOT the Federal level...ie Health Insurance in Massachusetts, automobile insurance....

 

[drsmith1072]

So the Militia Act is unconstitutional? The guys who ratified COTUS disagree.

The Militia Act of 1792

The militia act does not mandate any purchases from private companies.

Technically true - it did not mandate that you -buy- the weapons and equipment it required, only that you so equip yourself. You could have, I suppose, made a musket, bayonette, black powder, etc, and equipped yourself with it.

But, for most people so ordered, this wasn't a possibility, and so the relevant equipment had to be purchased.

LOL Thanks for conceding the point that most people had to purchase the relevant equipment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, our government IS trying to use the commerce clause, I believe, in defense of this.....

Our government CAN mandate that we purchase something, but it has been at the State level as of late, and NOT the Federal level...

That's not true - the MA1792 is a prime example. The Federal government absolutealy has the power to require members of the miltia to purchase their own equipment.

Another example is the federal requirement that cargo handling companies - even those that don't actually physically touch the freight - can be forced to purchase cargo liability insurance.

As noted several times, however, the particulars of these requirements preclude them from supporting the idea that the federal government can create a blanket requirement of everyone to buy health insurance.

 

[drsmith1072]

You're the one evading the fact that there's a 200-year-old precedent from the FF for requiring private citizens to buy things they don't want to buy in the name of the good of the society as a whole.

I have dealt with this at least three times in this thread.

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

The Obama's HCI mandate... is none of those things.

The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent.

This wasn't a volunteer force. According to the act it was a draft.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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.

They were given NO choice and were forced to buy something whether they wanted it or not.

Furthermore, your false claim of "dealing with this" does nothing to address or counter what has been said. It was a requirement which required the purchase of the relevent equipment your ridiculous attempts to claim that it doesn't matter because it was limited to those who were forced to serve does nothing to counter the fact that it was still a forced purchase.

None of your spin or non-sequitur/strawman posts will change that FACT.

 

[auditor0007]

Did anyone even bother to read the article? You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.

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.

Honestly, I really don't think we should mandate anyone to buy anything including health insurance. However, I do not believe we should deny anyone the right to buy health insurance either. Back to the main point. If you choose not to buy auto insurance, you cannot legally drive. If you do, you can be fined or imprisoned. It is your choice.

Now let's look at health insurance. I understand why we should not force anyone to buy something they don't want or feel they don't need. My problem is with the fact that we force healthcare providers to treat people who cannot pay and who do not have insurance. If everyone had the option to purchase health insurance, for those who can afford it, then if they choose not to, they should not be treated unless they can pay. So if you choose not to purchase health insurance and you get cancer, then they send you home to die. It's really quite simple. Why is it I don't hear those who oppose being forced to purchase health insurance screaming about the fact that providers must treat people who don't have insurance? I would think they would agree that it is unconstitutional to force a private provider to provide a service to someone who can't pay. If I can't pay for a new car, GM isn't forced to give me one anyway. If I don't have any money, McDonald's doesn't have to give me a free meal anyway. If I don't pay my electric bill, the electric company isn't forced to keep providing me with electricity. If I don't pay my rent or mortgage, I don't have a right to stay in my home. So why should a medical provide be forced into providing services to someone who can't pay? If someone has the choice of purchasing health insurance and chooses not to, then why should a hospital or any other provider be forced to treat the person if they become ill?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is it I don't hear those who oppose being forced to purchase health insurance screaming about the fact that providers must treat people who don't have insurance?

I -fully- support this - no one should be forced to provide goods and services of any kind to those that cannot pay for it, directly or indirectly. You should be free to choose to do so, but then you do so with the understanding that you may not receive any sort of compenation.

 

[drsmith1072]

The requirement to buy a musket and associated military equipment was in relation to a condition of service to the government, as prescribed by congress, pursuant to one of the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Service to the government? It says that if you're a white male, you have no choice

So? You are serving in the militia. That's service to the government.
The requirement is a condition related to that service, pursuant to an enumerated power of Congress.

The Obana's HCI mandate, a blanket condition imposed upon everyone, related to nothing other than their simple citizenship, and not pursuant to any enumerated power granted by the Constitution, is not anything like the same thing.

As I said:
The distinction, and thus the difference, is readily apparent.

Now... where is that in the constitution?

The Power of Congress to provide for the organization, arming and discipline of the militia?
Have you read the constitution?

There are two possibilities:

False Dichotomy - there are many possibilities other than yours.

Fact is, because of the difference described above, the fact that Congress can mandate that certain people need to buy a weapon in no way supports the idea that Congress can mandate that everyone buy health insurance.

Your continued need to take things out of context out depseration to make a point when you have no valid points only serves to expose your own dishonesty.

The question

Now... where is that in the constitution?

was preceded by this statement

It's not people who choose to sign up- it declares every white male within a certain age range to be a member of a group that must make this purchase whether they want anything to do with it or not

which you excluded so you could respond the the question asked out of context and give a response that was not an answer to the question that was actually asked.

So can you actually answer the question as asked or is this just another one of your many broad interpretations where you create something out of thin air and try to claim that it's there when it's NOT?

Furthermore, your "difference" shows nothing other than you have no clue as to what you aree talking about. LOL YOU making the unsubstantiated claim that one is justified based on YOUR broad interpretation while claiming the other is not justified based on YOUR narrow interpretation is proof of only how desperate you are to spin this because you have nothing meaningful to offer.

BTW still waiting on you to show PROOF that no one can be exempt from the health insurance mandate. You continue to make that claim but as of yet have failed to prove it. How typical. LOL