Health Care or Guns

[Missourian]

Is the government supplying free guns to the less fortunate, or subsidizing firearm purchases for the poverty stricken?

Then this is a stupid analogy.

You have a constitutionally protected right to BUY a firearm and keep it.

If you think a constitutionally protected right to BUY and keep health insurance is a necessity, hey, go for it...I'm not going to stand in your way, and neither are the founding fathers.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Do you think the founding Fathers were living today they would think the right to possess guns or the ability to have access to good healthcare would be more important in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No. They knew the healthcare at that time sucked.

They chose the right to bear arms to ensure we could pursue better health care freely.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Do you think the founding Fathers were living today they would think the right to possess guns or the ability to have access to good healthcare would be more important in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

WHAT A ******* RETARD.

A FIREARM PROTECTS MY LIFE . SO IT IS A MEANS OF PROVIDING HEALTHCARE.

SO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RIGHT TO FIREARMS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE RIGHT TO ACCESS HEALTH CARE IS SIMPLY RETARDED.

HAVING A RIGHT TO ACCESS HEALTH CARE IS NOT THE SAME AS THE "RIGHT" TO COMPEL TAXPAYERS TO PROVIDE YOU HEALTHCARE.


.

An example of a person in desperate need of mental healthcare and does not realize it. As you are having a heart attack grab your gun and see what happens.

Nope. He grabs his insurance card and heads to the hospital.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you think the founding Fathers were living today they would think the right to possess guns or the ability to have access to good healthcare would be more important in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nobody is stopping anybody from the pursuit of life, liberty or happiness.

It's easier if you're not born into poverty. Those on the far right actually believe we should, literally, abandon them. That's absurd.

How is it easier than if you were not born poor?

When you get out of school, you get a job, stay out of trouble with the law, don't have any children intentionally or by accident, and you'll live a satisfactory life. That's what we middle-class people do.

 

[PredFan]

Do you think the founding Fathers were living today they would think the right to possess guns or the ability to have access to good healthcare would be more important in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They are two different issues. If the Founding Fathers were around right now, they would smack you in the back of the head and ask: "What the **** is wrong with you?"

 

[eagle1462010]

The founding fathers limited gov't to specific tasks...................all else reserved to the states...............

They would ask why this govt hadn't been overthrown for the abuse to the Constitution................Stupid thread...............with the OP not having a bit of understanding of the Founding Fathers.............I suggest he read the Federalist Papers...........

 

[eagle1462010]

The Powers Delegated to the Federal Government are Few and Defined | Tenth Amendment Center

LIMITED: THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Federal violations of the Constitution goes beyond anything the founders and ratifiers would have accepted.

James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”


This article is New Hampshire's legislation to establish a committee to check the Constitution on laws and regulations by the Federal Gov't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The founding fathers limited gov't to specific tasks...................all else reserved to the states...............

They would ask why this govt hadn't been overthrown for the abuse to the Constitution................Stupid thread...............with the OP not having a bit of understanding of the Founding Fathers.............I suggest he read the Federalist Papers...........

Agreed. Certainly people back then had different issues more serious than our healthcare situation. But government didn't run in to try and fix every problem.

People used to starve to death back then, but our founders didn't come up with the equivalent of SNAP's cards. People needed horses to get to and from town, but I don't recall the founders making a program called Cash for Carriages. Up north the winters are deadly with no heat, but we didn't have free government firewood. If you didn't have firewood, you simply froze to death.

 

[Moonglow]

Do you think the founding Fathers were living today they would think the right to possess guns or the ability to have access to good healthcare would be more important in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I think they'd tell you to lie down and let the bleeding or leeching begin..

 

[eagle1462010]

Federalist Papers No. 45

America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be,

 

[eagle1462010]

Best story I've ever heard on this issue.

Enjoy.

Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"

The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. "'If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. "'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give.

 

[pismoe]

Best story I've ever heard on this issue.

Enjoy.

Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"

The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. "'If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. "'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give.

--------------------------- yep , good one , it perfectly illustrates the issue Eagle !!