Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Bern80]

I'm late to this thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the authors of the bill do realize they're making the case for the constitutionality of the mandate, right? There have previously been federal requirements mandating the purchase of guns by private citizens.

At one time for a segment of the population, yes. Though it is hardly analogous in breadth and scope to the insurance mandate. Forgetting the WHAT government wants to make people buy, it's just scary to me that people are defending the notion that the federal government has the authority to make a citizen buy something from another private entity.

 

[drsmith1072]

This entire post is proof of my point.

That you are a coward who lacks the integrity to stand behind what he says and changes his arguments on a whim because he lacks the substance to back them up as he contradicts himself?? Yeah, I would say you have proven that point quite well.



I made several that coutnered every version of your argument that you presented and instead of addressing the fect that your spin has been countered you are trying desperately to make this about me.



Ther is plenty to respond to and your willful ignorance will not chagne that FACT.




actualy they get delelted becuase you can't coutner what was said so you claim it's irrelevant or does not make sense but can't show how it is either as you tunr tail and run.



You claim that my opinions are irrelevant and then fail to substantiate your claim. You made the claim that they irrelevant so it should be easy enough for you to show how they are irrelevant but the FACT is that you can't which is why you don't.



Why would I counter my own position?? I know contradicting yourself is a problem that you have but why would I try to counter my own position??



says the hack who delete's half of my posts because he lacks the ability to respond to the content.

How many times does this make that I've asked you to re-state/clarify your position? How manty times does this make that you've come up with some lame excuse not to? Maybe there is the sembelance of an actual argument in here some where, but what I bolded is about all I could find. I'm asking that so I don't continue to get a bunch more ridiculous posts in reply like this one.

I have already stated my position and asked you many, many questions about your ever shifting position as I pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments and yet you have failed to address my questions.
Why is it that you believe I don't deserve a real response to what I have said but that I should drop everything and follow your line of questioning and give you what I have already stated but you choose to ignore??

LOL

You would have been better off just cutting and pasting the post you made before this one. It's just more of the same. I don't know if things are getting worse or better for you. This time around you managed to not even come close to broaching the subject of health care.

I will grant you have made many counter arguments, but none of them really have had anything to do with health care. It's more of the same similar to the above. I'm dodging this or I'm not responding to that or I'm changing this. None of which is actually true. And yet here I am asking yet again, point blank, for you to actually state your position.

aww you finally came back and all you continue to do is offer more and more avoidance because you have nothing valid to offer. Once again you chime back in and make false allegations about my posts as you fail to address or comment on any of the SPECIFICS within my posts. The sad thing is that you have been asked several times to be specific about what in my posts does not make sense or is irrelevant and you have failed to offer anything of substance to show how either applies to anything that I have said.

Thanks for playing, you lose AGAIN, have a nice cowardly life as you die many, many times for your avoidance. LOL

 

[Polk]

I'm late to this thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the authors of the bill do realize they're making the case for the constitutionality of the mandate, right? There have previously been federal requirements mandating the purchase of guns by private citizens.

At one time for a segment of the population, yes. Though it is hardly analogous in breadth and scope to the insurance mandate. Forgetting the WHAT government wants to make people buy, it's just scary to me that people are defending the notion that the federal government has the authority to make a citizen buy something from another private entity.

In that case, there goes to GOP plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare, since both of those include a mandate for purchases from private bodies.

 

[Bern80]

I'm late to this thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the authors of the bill do realize they're making the case for the constitutionality of the mandate, right? There have previously been federal requirements mandating the purchase of guns by private citizens.

At one time for a segment of the population, yes. Though it is hardly analogous in breadth and scope to the insurance mandate. Forgetting the WHAT government wants to make people buy, it's just scary to me that people are defending the notion that the federal government has the authority to make a citizen buy something from another private entity.

In that case, there goes to GOP plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare, since both of those include a mandate for purchases from private bodies.

I don't think that would really be the same. That you pay SS and medicare tax would stay the same. You would just have the option to spend it where you wanted to.

 

[Polk]

At one time for a segment of the population, yes. Though it is hardly analogous in breadth and scope to the insurance mandate. Forgetting the WHAT government wants to make people buy, it's just scary to me that people are defending the notion that the federal government has the authority to make a citizen buy something from another private entity.

In that case, there goes to GOP plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare, since both of those include a mandate for purchases from private bodies.

I don't think that would really be the same. That you pay SS and medicare tax would stay the same. You would just have the option to spend it where you wanted to.

Using that standard, the reason healthcare reform is unconstitutional is because it lacks a public option.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

I like this bill. Can we get it in NY?

 

[Greenbeard]

In that case, there goes to GOP plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare, since both of those include a mandate for purchases from private bodies.

I don't think that would really be the same. That you pay SS and medicare tax would stay the same. You would just have the option to spend it where you wanted to.

Using that standard, the reason healthcare reform is unconstitutional is because it lacks a public option.

Given the current interaction of premiums and partial privatization in Medicare (through Part C) and the fact that I don't believe anyone--particularly the Republicans who passed it--have challenged the constitutionality of that mandatory choice of public or private, at the very least that would seem to be the case. Not too difficult to fix that, though.

 

[iggy pop]

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.

Great law for a change

 

[Bern80]

That you are a coward who lacks the integrity to stand behind what he says and changes his arguments on a whim because he lacks the substance to back them up as he contradicts himself?? Yeah, I would say you have proven that point quite well.



I made several that coutnered every version of your argument that you presented and instead of addressing the fect that your spin has been countered you are trying desperately to make this about me.



Ther is plenty to respond to and your willful ignorance will not chagne that FACT.




actualy they get delelted becuase you can't coutner what was said so you claim it's irrelevant or does not make sense but can't show how it is either as you tunr tail and run.



You claim that my opinions are irrelevant and then fail to substantiate your claim. You made the claim that they irrelevant so it should be easy enough for you to show how they are irrelevant but the FACT is that you can't which is why you don't.



Why would I counter my own position?? I know contradicting yourself is a problem that you have but why would I try to counter my own position??



says the hack who delete's half of my posts because he lacks the ability to respond to the content.




I have already stated my position and asked you many, many questions about your ever shifting position as I pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments and yet you have failed to address my questions.
Why is it that you believe I don't deserve a real response to what I have said but that I should drop everything and follow your line of questioning and give you what I have already stated but you choose to ignore??

LOL

You would have been better off just cutting and pasting the post you made before this one. It's just more of the same. I don't know if things are getting worse or better for you. This time around you managed to not even come close to broaching the subject of health care.

I will grant you have made many counter arguments, but none of them really have had anything to do with health care. It's more of the same similar to the above. I'm dodging this or I'm not responding to that or I'm changing this. None of which is actually true. And yet here I am asking yet again, point blank, for you to actually state your position.

aww you finally came back and all you continue to do is offer more and more avoidance because you have nothing valid to offer. Once again you chime back in and make false allegations about my posts as you fail to address or comment on any of the SPECIFICS within my posts. The sad thing is that you have been asked several times to be specific about what in my posts does not make sense or is irrelevant and you have failed to offer anything of substance to show how either applies to anything that I have said.

Thanks for playing, you lose AGAIN, have a nice cowardly life as you die many, many times for your avoidance. LOL

There is nothing specfic in your posts to comment on you dumbass. I have said repeatedly what I don't understand about your posts. What I don't understand is what the **** your position even is. When I've asked you to state your position the response has been the same every time; that you've stated your position before and have implicitly refused to restate it. I have run trough the pages of this thread and I bolded what I could find of yours that resembles a declaritive statement on the health care issue of any type, which you declined to refute or even comment on. So the ball is your court. Either you agree that what I bolded constitutes your position on the issue or you correct it and explain what it really is. To avoid future confusion, here's a hint, your rantings that have nothing to do with health care at all, like the last half dozen posts or so will not be commented on.

 

[Bern80]

In that case, there goes to GOP plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare, since both of those include a mandate for purchases from private bodies.

I don't think that would really be the same. That you pay SS and medicare tax would stay the same. You would just have the option to spend it where you wanted to.

Using that standard, the reason healthcare reform is unconstitutional is because it lacks a public option.

No because nothing in the constitution requires a public health care or retirement option in the fist place.

 

[drsmith1072]

You would have been better off just cutting and pasting the post you made before this one. It's just more of the same. I don't know if things are getting worse or better for you. This time around you managed to not even come close to broaching the subject of health care.

I will grant you have made many counter arguments, but none of them really have had anything to do with health care. It's more of the same similar to the above. I'm dodging this or I'm not responding to that or I'm changing this. None of which is actually true. And yet here I am asking yet again, point blank, for you to actually state your position.

aww you finally came back and all you continue to do is offer more and more avoidance because you have nothing valid to offer. Once again you chime back in and make false allegations about my posts as you fail to address or comment on any of the SPECIFICS within my posts. The sad thing is that you have been asked several times to be specific about what in my posts does not make sense or is irrelevant and you have failed to offer anything of substance to show how either applies to anything that I have said.

Thanks for playing, you lose AGAIN, have a nice cowardly life as you die many, many times for your avoidance. LOL

There is nothing specfic in your posts to comment on you dumbass.

Hey dumbass, I have presented many specific arguments that counter your spin and expose your contradictions and dishonesty. You choose to ignore them further exposing your dishonesty. The fact that you continue your avoidance only serves to back up my arguments.

I have said repeatedly what I don't understand about your posts.

Really?? when and where?? list the posts and show specifically how you showed what does not make sense or is irrelevant. The fact is that you can't because I have asked you to provide specifics many times and you have failed to do so.

What I don't understand is what the **** your position even is.

Your lack of comprehension and understanding is not my problem. go back and read the thread and you will see all of my posts in which you edited or omitted arguments that you refused to address because you claimed that they did not make sense or were irrelevant even though you have failed to show how any of my arguments are either.

When I've asked you to state your position the response has been the same every time; that you've stated your position before and have implicitly refused to restate it.

Once you go back and address my posts that you omitted or refused to respond to then I will get to your demands to respond to yours. That is the way this works, A position is given, questions are asked, answers are given and then a back and forth begins where questions are answered between the two parties debating the topic. you skipped the answer part and and now demand that I repeat my position that you obviously ignored the first time around even as you refuse to answer my questions or respond to my arguments.

I have run trough the pages of this thread and I bolded what I could find of yours that resembles a declaritive statement on the health care issue of any type, which you declined to refute or even comment on.

Perhaps "running through the pages of this thread" was not such a good idea? BTW, you cherry picking one sentence and demanding that i respond to it even as you ignore my questions and arguments only proves your cowardice, dishonesty and lack of integrity.

So the ball is your court.

Actually, it's been in your court for quite some time now but you refuse to respond to the actual content of my posts?? In order for the ball to be in my court you have to return a serve which you have failed to do.

Either you agree that what I bolded constitutes your position on the issue or you correct it and explain what it really is.

IF you could READ you would know that the one part that you put in bold type and continue to rant on was based on an argument presented by m14 who argued

The power may be exercised as Congres deems necessary and proper

and then I gave a valid argument based on your question which excluded the HC mandate under the assumption that it was constitutional but then you tried to dishonestly remove said assumption and apply my answer to your next argument about the HC mandate and didn't even bother responding to my argument as it applied to your question.

To avoid future confusion, here's a hint, your rantings that have nothing to do with health care at all, like the last half dozen posts or so will not be commented on.

and yet my "rantings" as you call them have poked holes in every argument that you have tried to make which is the real reason you are now omitting parts of my posts.

Here is a previous post that describes how the debate between the two of us has gone.

I do find it hilarious that when A right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess."

I took a break from the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??

Minus your new demands that I respond to your question about a single statement I made, that was in the context of an argument made by another poster, even as you refuse to respond to my arguments and questions that pretty much sums up our debate.

 

[Bern80]

aww you finally came back and all you continue to do is offer more and more avoidance because you have nothing valid to offer. Once again you chime back in and make false allegations about my posts as you fail to address or comment on any of the SPECIFICS within my posts. The sad thing is that you have been asked several times to be specific about what in my posts does not make sense or is irrelevant and you have failed to offer anything of substance to show how either applies to anything that I have said.

Thanks for playing, you lose AGAIN, have a nice cowardly life as you die many, many times for your avoidance. LOL

There is nothing specfic in your posts to comment on you dumbass.

Hey dumbass, I have presented many specific arguments that counter your spin and expose your contradictions and dishonesty. You choose to ignore them further exposing your dishonesty. The fact that you continue your avoidance only serves to back up my arguments.



Really?? when and where?? list the posts and show specifically how you showed what does not make sense or is irrelevant. The fact is that you can't because I have asked you to provide specifics many times and you have failed to do so.




Your lack of comprehension and understanding is not my problem. go back and read the thread and you will see all of my posts in which you edited or omitted arguments that you refused to address because you claimed that they did not make sense or were irrelevant even though you have failed to show how any of my arguments are either.



Once you go back and address my posts that you omitted or refused to respond to then I will get to your demands to respond to yours. That is the way this works, A position is given, questions are asked, answers are given and then a back and forth begins where questions are answered between the two parties debating the topic. you skipped the answer part and and now demand that I repeat my position that you obviously ignored the first time around even as you refuse to answer my questions or respond to my arguments.




Perhaps "running through the pages of this thread" was not such a good idea? BTW, you cherry picking one sentence and demanding that i respond to it even as you ignore my questions and arguments only proves your cowardice, dishonesty and lack of integrity.



Actually, it's been in your court for quite some time now but you refuse to respond to the actual content of my posts?? In order for the ball to be in my court you have to return a serve which you have failed to do.





IF you could READ you would know that the one part that you put in bold type and continue to rant on was based on an argument presented by m14 who argued



and then I gave a valid argument based on your question which excluded the HC mandate under the assumption that it was constitutional but then you tried to dishonestly remove said assumption and apply my answer to your next argument about the HC mandate and didn't even bother responding to my argument as it applied to your question.

To avoid future confusion, here's a hint, your rantings that have nothing to do with health care at all, like the last half dozen posts or so will not be commented on.

and yet my "rantings" as you call them have poked holes in every argument that you have tried to make which is the real reason you are now omitting parts of my posts.

Here is a previous post that describes how the debate between the two of us has gone.

I do find it hilarious that when A right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess."

I took a break from the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??

Minus your new demands that I respond to your question about a single statement I made, that was in the context of an argument made by another poster, even as you refuse to respond to my arguments and questions that pretty much sums up our debate.

Sorry dude. Not playing. If there is something specific you want addressed, go back, copy it and re-post. I'm not gonna go through pages of your meaningless drivel that you think is important and guess at what you would like addressed.

 

[Spoonman]

i have stated my postion clearly and have maintained the same position throughout this thread. Where as your postion has shifted and changed based on expediency as you try to make corrections to your previous arguments which were countered and shot down.




I tried talking to you directly but you chose to act like a child and stick your fingers in your ears and whine as you ignored the full and complete context of my posts so you could take small excerpts out of context in a dishonest attempt to get a gotcha moment.

Furthermore, talking about you in the third person does not change the fact that everything i said is completely true.


lol that's the best you've got?? Really?? Btw why are you so interested in making me restate my opinion when you will just ignore it as you have done previously? Why do you need me to spell things out for you??
Although it is funny how you continue to falsley claim that my arguments are irrelevant and don't make sense and yet you cannot show how they are either. That pretty much shows that you are only making those claims so you can avoid arguments that you can't counter.

Face it, the fact is that your arguments have been all over the place and you have been busted for contradicting yourself and being a dishonest hack. Desperately trying to make this about me and my opinons as you ignore the very opinions that you claim to want to talk about will not change that fact.

this entire post is proof of my point.

that you are a coward who lacks the integrity to stand behind what he says and changes his arguments on a whim because he lacks the substance to back them up as he contradicts himself?? Yeah, i would say you have proven that point quite well.



I made several that coutnered every version of your argument that you presented and instead of addressing the fect that your spin has been countered you are trying desperately to make this about me.



Ther is plenty to respond to and your willful ignorance will not chagne that fact.




Actualy they get delelted becuase you can't coutner what was said so you claim it's irrelevant or does not make sense but can't show how it is either as you tunr tail and run.



You claim that my opinions are irrelevant and then fail to substantiate your claim. You made the claim that they irrelevant so it should be easy enough for you to show how they are irrelevant but the fact is that you can't which is why you don't.



Why would i counter my own position?? I know contradicting yourself is a problem that you have but why would i try to counter my own position??

calerly you are the one more interested in avoiding things.

says the hack who delete's half of my posts because he lacks the ability to respond to the content.

how many times does this make that i've asked you to re-state/clarify your position? How manty times does this make that you've come up with some lame excuse not to? Maybe there is the sembelance of an actual argument in here some where, but what i bolded is about all i could find. I'm asking that so i don't continue to get a bunch more ridiculous posts in reply like this one.

i have already stated my position and asked you many, many questions about your ever shifting position as i pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments and yet you have failed to address my questions.
Why is it that you believe i don't deserve a real response to what i have said but that i should drop everything and follow your line of questioning and give you what i have already stated but you choose to ignore??

Lol

tl:dr

 

[drsmith1072]

There is nothing specfic in your posts to comment on you dumbass.

Hey dumbass, I have presented many specific arguments that counter your spin and expose your contradictions and dishonesty. You choose to ignore them further exposing your dishonesty. The fact that you continue your avoidance only serves to back up my arguments.



Really?? when and where?? list the posts and show specifically how you showed what does not make sense or is irrelevant. The fact is that you can't because I have asked you to provide specifics many times and you have failed to do so.




Your lack of comprehension and understanding is not my problem. go back and read the thread and you will see all of my posts in which you edited or omitted arguments that you refused to address because you claimed that they did not make sense or were irrelevant even though you have failed to show how any of my arguments are either.



Once you go back and address my posts that you omitted or refused to respond to then I will get to your demands to respond to yours. That is the way this works, A position is given, questions are asked, answers are given and then a back and forth begins where questions are answered between the two parties debating the topic. you skipped the answer part and and now demand that I repeat my position that you obviously ignored the first time around even as you refuse to answer my questions or respond to my arguments.




Perhaps "running through the pages of this thread" was not such a good idea? BTW, you cherry picking one sentence and demanding that i respond to it even as you ignore my questions and arguments only proves your cowardice, dishonesty and lack of integrity.



Actually, it's been in your court for quite some time now but you refuse to respond to the actual content of my posts?? In order for the ball to be in my court you have to return a serve which you have failed to do.





IF you could READ you would know that the one part that you put in bold type and continue to rant on was based on an argument presented by m14 who argued



and then I gave a valid argument based on your question which excluded the HC mandate under the assumption that it was constitutional but then you tried to dishonestly remove said assumption and apply my answer to your next argument about the HC mandate and didn't even bother responding to my argument as it applied to your question.




and yet my "rantings" as you call them have poked holes in every argument that you have tried to make which is the real reason you are now omitting parts of my posts.

Here is a previous post that describes how the debate between the two of us has gone.

I do find it hilarious that when A right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess."

I took a break from the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??

Minus your new demands that I respond to your question about a single statement I made, that was in the context of an argument made by another poster, even as you refuse to respond to my arguments and questions that pretty much sums up our debate.

Sorry dude. Not playing. If there is something specific you want addressed, go back, copy it and re-post. I'm not gonna go through pages of your meaningless drivel that you think is important and guess at what you would like addressed.

Uh I already did list several specifics. I listed the majority of our debate and how you cut and ran from the content in my previous post. So claiming that I didn't present anything specific when I did just further shows how delusional you truly are. I have been very specifc and meticulously addressed every point that you have tried to make and your best response is to pretend it never happened. LOL

 

[Bern80]

Hey dumbass, I have presented many specific arguments that counter your spin and expose your contradictions and dishonesty. You choose to ignore them further exposing your dishonesty. The fact that you continue your avoidance only serves to back up my arguments.



Really?? when and where?? list the posts and show specifically how you showed what does not make sense or is irrelevant. The fact is that you can't because I have asked you to provide specifics many times and you have failed to do so.




Your lack of comprehension and understanding is not my problem. go back and read the thread and you will see all of my posts in which you edited or omitted arguments that you refused to address because you claimed that they did not make sense or were irrelevant even though you have failed to show how any of my arguments are either.



Once you go back and address my posts that you omitted or refused to respond to then I will get to your demands to respond to yours. That is the way this works, A position is given, questions are asked, answers are given and then a back and forth begins where questions are answered between the two parties debating the topic. you skipped the answer part and and now demand that I repeat my position that you obviously ignored the first time around even as you refuse to answer my questions or respond to my arguments.




Perhaps "running through the pages of this thread" was not such a good idea? BTW, you cherry picking one sentence and demanding that i respond to it even as you ignore my questions and arguments only proves your cowardice, dishonesty and lack of integrity.



Actually, it's been in your court for quite some time now but you refuse to respond to the actual content of my posts?? In order for the ball to be in my court you have to return a serve which you have failed to do.





IF you could READ you would know that the one part that you put in bold type and continue to rant on was based on an argument presented by m14 who argued



and then I gave a valid argument based on your question which excluded the HC mandate under the assumption that it was constitutional but then you tried to dishonestly remove said assumption and apply my answer to your next argument about the HC mandate and didn't even bother responding to my argument as it applied to your question.




and yet my "rantings" as you call them have poked holes in every argument that you have tried to make which is the real reason you are now omitting parts of my posts.

Here is a previous post that describes how the debate between the two of us has gone.



Minus your new demands that I respond to your question about a single statement I made, that was in the context of an argument made by another poster, even as you refuse to respond to my arguments and questions that pretty much sums up our debate.

Sorry dude. Not playing. If there is something specific you want addressed, go back, copy it and re-post. I'm not gonna go through pages of your meaningless drivel that you think is important and guess at what you would like addressed.

Uh I already did list several specifics. I listed the majority of our debate and how you cut and ran from the content in my previous post. So claiming that I didn't present anything specific when I did just further shows how delusional you truly are. I have been very specifc and meticulously addressed every point that you have tried to make and your best response is to pretend it never happened. LOL

So that's a 'no'? You're not going to take the time to tell me specifically what it is you want addressed. I guess we're done here.

 

[jasonmorston]

excellent! i support more guns for the simple fact a random shooter is better than the government having all the guns. (that creates genocide) it helps keep a check on their more tyrranical impulses

 

[drsmith1072]

Sorry dude. Not playing. If there is something specific you want addressed, go back, copy it and re-post. I'm not gonna go through pages of your meaningless drivel that you think is important and guess at what you would like addressed.

Uh I already did list several specifics. I listed the majority of our debate and how you cut and ran from the content in my previous post. So claiming that I didn't present anything specific when I did just further shows how delusional you truly are. I have been very specifc and meticulously addressed every point that you have tried to make and your best response is to pretend it never happened. LOL

So that's a 'no'? You're not going to take the time to tell me specifically what it is you want addressed. I guess we're done here.

Read this very slowly and please try to understand it even though simple english is apparently beyond your understanding.

I ALREADY DID.

You have chosen to edit and ingore the specifics that you wish to avoid and then ask me to provided them again all so you can avoid them again as you dishonestly claim that I haven't provided specifics.

Here is one that you avoided early on and are still avoiding.
Remember your argument that was based on the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional where you wanted to compare apples (fed mandate) to apples (fed mandate) I responded to your question under your assumption and showed how one can argue that the gun mandate is not constitutional based on the fact that congress has the power to provide for arming the militia but nowhere in their enumerated powers does it say that they can require that the militia arm themselves.
Instead of addressing my response you dishonestly tried to strip the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional from the argument as you ran away from my argument that directly countered your argument. So why didn't you address my response in the context of your argument including the assumption?

Is that specific enough for you??

 

[drsmith1072]

Bern80, how about your claim that the HC mandate applies to every person?? I asked you to prove that claim and you turned tail and ran from doing so.

 

[Bern80]

Uh I already did list several specifics. I listed the majority of our debate and how you cut and ran from the content in my previous post. So claiming that I didn't present anything specific when I did just further shows how delusional you truly are. I have been very specifc and meticulously addressed every point that you have tried to make and your best response is to pretend it never happened. LOL

So that's a 'no'? You're not going to take the time to tell me specifically what it is you want addressed. I guess we're done here.

Read this very slowly and please try to understand it even though simple english is apparently beyond your understanding.

I ALREADY DID.

You have chosen to edit and ingore the specifics that you wish to avoid and then ask me to provided them again all so you can avoid them again as you dishonestly claim that I haven't provided specifics.

Here is one that you avoided early on and are still avoiding.
Remember your argument that was based on the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional where you wanted to compare apples (fed mandate) to apples (fed mandate) I responded to your question under your assumption and showed how one can argue that the gun mandate is not constitutional based on the fact that congress has the power to provide for arming the militia but nowhere in their enumerated powers does it say that they can require that the militia arm themselves.
Instead of addressing my response you dishonestly tried to strip the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional from the argument as you ran away from my argument that directly countered your argument. So why didn't you address my response in the context of your argument including the assumption?

Is that specific enough for you??

Uh I already did list several specifics. I listed the majority of our debate and how you cut and ran from the content in my previous post. So claiming that I didn't present anything specific when I did just further shows how delusional you truly are. I have been very specifc and meticulously addressed every point that you have tried to make and your best response is to pretend it never happened. LOL

So that's a 'no'? You're not going to take the time to tell me specifically what it is you want addressed. I guess we're done here.

Read this very slowly and please try to understand it even though simple english is apparently beyond your understanding.

I ALREADY DID.

You have chosen to edit and ingore the specifics that you wish to avoid and then ask me to provided them again all so you can avoid them again as you dishonestly claim that I haven't provided specifics.

Here is one that you avoided early on and are still avoiding.
Remember your argument that was based on the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional where you wanted to compare apples (fed mandate) to apples (fed mandate) I responded to your question under your assumption and showed how one can argue that the gun mandate is not constitutional based on the fact that congress has the power to provide for arming the militia but nowhere in their enumerated powers does it say that they can require that the militia arm themselves.
Instead of addressing my response you dishonestly tried to strip the assumption that the hc mandate was constitutional from the argument as you ran away from my argument that directly countered your argument. So why didn't you address my response in the context of your argument including the assumption?

Is that specific enough for you??

Smith, you don't get it. Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so. I have gone back and re-read all my posts in this thread and every nonseniscal reply you've made to them. There simply isn't any credibility to anything you say. You started responding to me by assuming right off the bat my argument was the same as someone elses.

You continue to debate me for three pages before calling me on this ridiculous changing my position claim, which upon greater scrutiny isn't true. When I assumed the insurance mandate was constitutional you replied by saying IF they can justify the insurance mandate, they can justify the gun mandate. But you expounded on that but explaining where the constitution would have not justified the gun mandate, pointing to the enumerated powers. That opened a bit of paradox. We can no longer continue to assume something when the justification for the assumption does't exist. If you point to the enumerated powers to show a lack of justification for the gun mandate, then to keep apples to apples that same justification (or lack of) has to be applied to insurance. At that point, assumption or not, the argument falls a part. If the enumerated powers don't allow for a purchase of firearms then it doesn't allow for the insurance mandate so there is no point in continuing to assume its constitutionality.

And last but not least, you are extremely inchorrent. We're 40 some odd pages into this thing and you haven't made an argument on the subject yet. All this crap you want addressed has nothing to do with the subject. It's deflection on your part to avoid having to take a position.

Bern80, how about your claim that the HC mandate applies to every person?? I asked you to prove that claim and you turned tail and ran from doing so.

So every person is NOT actually required under the mandate to have insurance coverage. That would be news to me. Perhaps you are talking about who actually has to purchase it. Fine we can debate that, but that's not what I said. That everyone must indeed to be covered in some form or other does indeed apply to everyone.

 

[RevBig]

Is this a debate about guns or insurance?

rb