Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[M14 Shooter]

Is this a debate about guns or insurance?
rb

This topic is meant to question the assertion from the left that the government has the power to make you buy good/services from private companies.

If you believe that the government has the power to make you buy health insurwnce, then it has the power to make you buy a gun. Not surpisingly, those that carry the former belief have balked at the latter.

 

[Garfield]

Crazy bill, just like ObamaCare.

 

[RevBig]

Is this a debate about guns or insurance?
rb

This topic is meant to question the assertion from the left that the government has the power to make you buy good/services from private companies.

If you believe that the government has the power to make you buy health insurwnce, then it has the power to make you buy a gun. Not surpisingly, those that carry the former belief have balked at the latter.

Yes I suspected as much. I have made the same comparisons. I think that the powers that be finally removed that stupid requirement. Still Obamacare stinks to high heaven it su*ks its awful, rotten and Un-American. I don't like it, and btw sorry for the preacher words.

rb

 

[Spoonman]

I'm arguing for guns

 

[drsmith1072]

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??

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.

WOW you are retarded. Thanks for spelling that out for all to see. It's your question. You asked it, recieved an answer but instead of addressing my response in the context of your question you turn tail and run. How typical.

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.

PROVE IT!
How about some specifics as to what doesn't make sense or lacks credibility. To quote you "just becuase you say something is so, doesn't make it so." Your own arguments expose your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

You started responding to me by assuming right off the bat my argument was the same as someone elses.

NO, I was debating someone else and asked you a question based on your arguments. When I posted their argument I was merely showing you how their argument was contrdictory to yours and you tried to hide behind CLAIMING that I was talking to somone else as you avoided responding to my questions.

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.

and yet it is true and you show how it is in the following spin.

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.

and you failed to address my response because you knew you couldn't counter my response. Then your argument changed to exclude your previously mentioned assumption about the hc mandate.

That opened a bit of paradox.

If you had made an argument claiming why you assumed that the hc mandate was constitutional and it had any coorelation to my response to your question then you could claim a paradox. However, since you failed to provide any such foundation for your assumption there is NO paradox.

We can no longer continue to assume something when the justification for the assumption does't exist.

"Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so."

You asked a very specific question and I gave a response to your question. Instead of addressing my response in the context of your question you tried to change the argument to exclude your assumption.

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.

Not according to your question which assumes that the hc mandate is constitutional. You asked a question with a specific set of parameters, then after getting a response that you couldn't counter and refused to address you decided to change the parameters as you tried to apply my response to a completely different argument.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Due to the fact that it has been argued in this thread that the past mandates discussed in this thread didn't count because they do not apply to every person even as those making this argument claim that the current hc mandate does apply to every person, how can you argue that it doesn't have anything to do with the subject??

So is that a NO that you can't prove that it applies to every person?? You make the claim how about proving it??

"Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so."

 

[drsmith1072]

Is this a debate about guns or insurance?
rb

This topic is meant to question the assertion from the left that the government has the power to make you buy good/services from private companies.

If you believe that the government has the power to make you buy health insurwnce, then it has the power to make you buy a gun. Not surpisingly, those that carry the former belief have balked at the latter.

Is that why you cut and ran from your own thread pages upon pages ago and only now chime back in to make claims not supported but the debate in this thread??

LOL Imagine that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is this a debate about guns or insurance?
rb

This topic is meant to question the assertion from the left that the government has the power to make you buy good/services from private companies.

If you believe that the government has the power to make you buy health insurwnce, then it has the power to make you buy a gun. Not surpisingly, those that carry the former belief have balked at the latter.

Yes I suspected as much. I have made the same comparisons.

Of course - they are obvious and inescapable. No way to honestly argue for The Obama's insurance mandate w/o accepting the (far stronger) argument for a firearms mandate.

I think that the powers that be finally removed that stupid requirement. Still Obamacare stinks to high heaven it su*ks its awful, rotten and Un-American.

There are numeous, completely sound, arguments aagainst Obamacare.

 

[RevBig]

I'm arguing for guns

Your my kind of guy spoon man!

rb

 

[drsmith1072]

This topic is meant to question the assertion from the left that the government has the power to make you buy good/services from private companies.

If you believe that the government has the power to make you buy health insurwnce, then it has the power to make you buy a gun. Not surpisingly, those that carry the former belief have balked at the latter.

Yes I suspected as much. I have made the same comparisons.

Of course - they are obvious and inescapable. No way to honestly argue for The Obama's insurance mandate w/o accepting the (far stronger) argument for a firearms mandate.

LOL stronger?? and yet your arguments failed at every attempt that you made to spin them. The "best" part of your argument is that where firearms were concerned you had a broad interpretation of the constitution and where the HC mandate was concerned you had a narrow interpretation. Nice contradiction on your part.

I think that the powers that be finally removed that stupid requirement. Still Obamacare stinks to high heaven it su*ks its awful, rotten and Un-American.

There are numeous, completely sound, arguments aagainst Obamacare.

And yet you only argue about the one that you based this thread on. Imagine that.

It's really funny how you depserate right wingers will say anything and pretend that it becomes fact the moment the words are typed.