Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Lets Talk About Mandates...

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062

    Lets Talk About Mandates...

    South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law

    A group of South Dakota lawmakers has introduced a bill that would require almost everyone in their state to buy a gun once they turn 21.

    Turns out it's not a serious attempt. Rather, the lawmakers are trying to make a point about the new health care law -- that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether it requires everyone to buy health insurance or, in South Dakota's case, a firearm.

    Rep. Hal Wick, one of five co-sponsors, told The Argus Leader newspaper that he expects the bill to fail.

    "Do I or the other co-sponsors 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.

    The South Dakota proposal would require anyone over 21 to purchase a firearm by Jan. 1, 2012, provided they are not legally disqualified from owning one. It would extend a six-month grace period for residents who turn 21 after the beginning of 2012.

    "Each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of 21 years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense," the bill states.

    The proposal comes as a federal judge in Florida rules that the individual mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday that the entire law, as a result, should be declared void.

    The opinion is the latest in a string of conflicting rulings which, once resolved, will determine whether the Obama administration can, in fact, force people to buy health insurance. Many expect the Supreme Court to decide the case.
    So, mandate to buy insurance. Mandate to buy a gun.

    Compare and contrast the legal authority in each case. If one is legal, is the other?

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    honestly if this is what it took for people to grow up and move on, yes make everyone buy a gun too. The gun industry would love it... and it would create jobs.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    So, mandate to buy insurance. Mandate to buy a gun.
    Awesome. I'll take one of these:


  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    I'm fine with everyone over 21 in South Dakota being forced to buy a gun. Make a nice sociology experiment, no? Let's split the state in quarters, and work some other things out too: in one quadrant, they smoke a pack a day; another, marijuana/no alcohol; a third, alcohol/no marijuana; the last will try a rotating litany of pharmaceuticals.

    Of course, they can pay to opt-out. This is America.

    Last edited by isired; 02-01-2011 at 04:37 PM.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    but they can only buy smith and wessons. none of these foreign glocks please

  6. #6
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    OK, **** it. I get the point they're trying to make, but where does logic come into play in any of this? I always have such a hard time with these issues (and a hard time holding back comment ) because people will argue directly in the face of logic until they're blue in the face. Probably why I was a 'love me or hate me' student, to my teachers, in school. Some could allow for rational discussion, others had the 'because I said so' or, worse, 'because the book says so' mentality (you might imagine, in CCD classes, it was strictly 'hate me').

    If you set the healthcare system up such that some can intentionally (i.e., make a decision to) risk draining the system, there's a logical reason to tax/penalize/impose a fee on them. The only other logical option is to remove the risk, i.e. tell them they are on their own if they get sick and can't pay for care. Of course, this gets tricky when their illness may 'impose upon the constitutional rights of others' - i.e., makes that person a risk to your life/liberty/pursuit via untreated contagious disease/ mental illness leading to spreading of disease, violence, crime, etc., so the tax/penalty/fee is really the only logical option. And I don't think it's against the Constitution, there are numerous things that our government mandates us to do where we face penalty for non-compliance.

    Conversely, if you set up the system such that everyone must own a gun, gun-related death/injury will rise, causing a drain on the system - so tax/penalize those that are NOT causing the drain? I question the intelligence of these people for suggesting this, even just to prove a point. And of those that elected them as well, of course.

  7. #7
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    but they can only buy smith and wessons. none of these foreign glocks please
    I assumed most would go for the less reliable (but cheaper) homemade zip guns. After all, if we give them the guns, they get mandatory healthcare too. A coat hanger, some rubber bands, and some .22's and you're compliant. A few pieces short of whole maybe, but compliant. It would create a whole new cottage industry - you'd probably attract street gangs into rural SD to provide this service.

  8. #8

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    OK, **** it. I get the point they're trying to make,

    I question the intelligence of these people for suggesting this, even just to prove a point. And of those that elected them as well, of course.
    Seems you didn't get the point at all.

    The point, in brief, is that if the Government can force the citizenry to buy X, there is NOTHING that can stop the Government from making the citizenry buy, Y, Z, and Q, for whatever reason the Government chooses on that day.

    Hence why most of the Libs in this thread made jokes instead of tackling the issue. They know as well as I, there is no portion ofthe Constitution that allows this power, and nothing (if the power is given by the courts) to limit this power once in place.

    Everyone gets all cuddly over free healthcare for kids. Not so much for other potential uses.

    Ask yourself this: Would you knowing give G.W.Buch the power to compel every citizen of the United States to buy X?

    I wouldn't.

    Everyone complains about the system, they system, the system, and the evil insuance companies. Yet no one wants, for example, to hold someone liek Plumber responsible for the healthcare he got when he choose not to buy insurance of any kind. Why hold the user of the service responsible, right? Better to make the taxpayers pay for it, they're too dumb and easily manipulated by ideas of sick kids and evil companies, to notice.

    I'm honestly at a loss these days over Politics. I canot fathom how in the minority simple, basic ideas like personal responsabillity and taking care of oneself and working hard and keeping what you work for are now in our society. It's frankly not worth tryign to convine anyone, other than CBTNY, all of you seem to lap up this socialism stuff, utopian pipe dreams of from each what they can offer, to each what they need.

    And now some of you can;t even see basic issues of power. Doing nothing is now commerce, and giving the Government unlimited power to make you buy whatever they want is logical, for the sick kids donchaknow.

    It's infuriating, and I'm the bad guy.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Seems you didn't get the point at all.

    The point, in brief, is that if the Government can force the citizenry to buy X, there is NOTHING that can stop the Government from making the citizenry buy, Y, Z, and Q, for whatever reason the Government chooses on that day.

    Hence why most of the Libs in this thread made jokes instead of tackling the issue. They know as well as I, there is no portion ofthe Constitution that allows this power, and nothing (if the power is given by the courts) to limit this power once in place.

    Everyone gets all cuddly over free healthcare for kids. Not so much for other potential uses.

    Ask yourself this: Would you knowing give G.W.Buch the power to compel every citizen of the United States to buy X?

    I wouldn't.

    Everyone complains about the system, they system, the system, and the evil insuance companies. Yet no one wants, for example, to hold someone liek Plumber responsible for the healthcare he got when he choose not to buy insurance of any kind. Why hold the user of the service responsible, right? Better to make the taxpayers pay for it, they're too dumb and easily manipulated by ideas of sick kids and evil companies, to notice.

    I'm honestly at a loss these days over Politics. I canot fathom how in the minority simple, basic ideas like personal responsabillity and taking care of oneself and working hard and keeping what you work for are now in our society. It's frankly not worth tryign to convine anyone, other than CBTNY, all of you seem to lap up this socialism stuff, utopian pipe dreams of from each what they can offer, to each what they need.

    And now some of you can;t even see basic issues of power. Doing nothing is now commerce, and giving the Government unlimited power to make you buy whatever they want is logical, for the sick kids donchaknow.

    It's infuriating, and I'm the bad guy.
    The funniest thing is that you and the people of South Dakota agree the states can mandate things, not the federal gov't. South Dakota is free to do it then right?

  11. #11
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Seems you didn't get the point at all.

    The point, in brief, is that if the Government can force the citizenry to buy X, there is NOTHING that can stop the Government from making the citizenry buy, Y, Z, and Q, for whatever reason the Government chooses on that day.

    Hence why most of the Libs in this thread made jokes instead of tackling the issue. They know as well as I, there is no portion ofthe Constitution that allows this power, and nothing (if the power is given by the courts) to limit this power once in place.

    Everyone gets all cuddly over free healthcare for kids. Not so much for other potential uses.

    Ask yourself this: Would you knowing give G.W.Buch the power to compel every citizen of the United States to buy X?

    I wouldn't.

    Everyone complains about the system, they system, the system, and the evil insuance companies. Yet no one wants, for example, to hold someone liek Plumber responsible for the healthcare he got when he choose not to buy insurance of any kind. Why hold the user of the service responsible, right? Better to make the taxpayers pay for it, they're too dumb and easily manipulated by ideas of sick kids and evil companies, to notice.

    I'm honestly at a loss these days over Politics. I canot fathom how in the minority simple, basic ideas like personal responsabillity and taking care of oneself and working hard and keeping what you work for are now in our society. It's frankly not worth tryign to convine anyone, other than CBTNY, all of you seem to lap up this socialism stuff, utopian pipe dreams of from each what they can offer, to each what they need.

    And now some of you can;t even see basic issues of power. Doing nothing is now commerce, and giving the Government unlimited power to make you buy whatever they want is logical, for the sick kids donchaknow.

    It's infuriating, and I'm the bad guy.
    This is what I'm talking about - it's not "X" - it's healthcare coverage, or guns. It's not carte blanche, and it's not a secret ballot. You can't apply logic to X, it's an unknown. You have to apply logic (IMO) to law.

    I don't know if doing nothing is commerce, again, I try to apply logic to the situation. Can the gov't mandate that we do something, or that we NOT do something? Seems to me they can, and do, all the time. You can take issue with that, and fight to minimize the powers of the federal and even state and local government. I get that, it's an argument that you can logically build, and I can agree or disagree.
    Last edited by isired; 02-01-2011 at 07:00 PM.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    This is what I'm talking about - it's not "X" - it's healthcare coverage, or guns. It's not carte blanche, and it's not a secret ballot. You can't apply logic to X, it's an unknown. You have to apply logic (IMO) to law.
    Such limited thinking. /facepalm

    The power that allows then to mandate "heathcare" is a power, it's not a one-time-only thing, Government simply does not work like that in the U.S. The Government either has a power, or it does not. Power has limits, or it does not. Discussing this ONLY as "heathcare" is ignoring the entire point.

    I can disagree with some random Law, and still admit it's legal and constitutional. Thats politics. This is a whole other bag of fish, this is an entirely new power for the Feds, with no basis in our core legal document, and with no express limits on it's use.

    You say "it's just healthcare". I say "prove it". SHOW ME where the constitution says "just healthcare, thats ok". Show me that Congress will never ever again use this power to make us buy some other vital-I'm-sure thing they want us to buy.

    You can't. None of you can, I've been asking since this law was first raised. Not once has anyoen replied with the section of teh Constituion or the limits. Not once.

    Like Is aid, you all have eaten up the PR of sick little kids and poor innocent poor folks just trying to get by, and refuse to support ANY form of personal responsabillity in our healthcare system. Hold the service user to pay for his services? Hell no is the only answer you all have, make John Dumbass Taxpayer pay for Plumber, Plumber is too f'ing cool to pay.

    It's a lost cause.

  13. #13
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    So this was just done, behind everyone's back? Did they have proposal, debate, oversight, revision, etc.? Did they make this gun law in SD, or is there a process?

    By the way, I do support personal responsibility, and personal choice, but I sometimes think tithe greater good had to be served (you'll love that, I know). I would be down for your 'debt' solution, but there's no way to collect, so what then, debtors prison?

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    JetsFan2012
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    The funniest thing is that you and the people of South Dakota agree the states can mandate things, not the federal gov't. South Dakota is free to do it then right?
    That is the concept of states' rights, yes.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Seems you didn't get the point at all.

    The point, in brief, is that if the Government can force the citizenry to buy X, there is NOTHING that can stop the Government from making the citizenry buy, Y, Z, and Q, for whatever reason the Government chooses on that day.

    Hence why most of the Libs in this thread made jokes instead of tackling the issue. They know as well as I, there is no portion ofthe Constitution that allows this power, and nothing (if the power is given by the courts) to limit this power once in place.

    Everyone gets all cuddly over free healthcare for kids. Not so much for other potential uses.

    Ask yourself this: Would you knowing give G.W.Buch the power to compel every citizen of the United States to buy X?

    I wouldn't.

    Everyone complains about the system, they system, the system, and the evil insuance companies. Yet no one wants, for example, to hold someone liek Plumber responsible for the healthcare he got when he choose not to buy insurance of any kind. Why hold the user of the service responsible, right? Better to make the taxpayers pay for it, they're too dumb and easily manipulated by ideas of sick kids and evil companies, to notice.

    I'm honestly at a loss these days over Politics. I canot fathom how in the minority simple, basic ideas like personal responsabillity and taking care of oneself and working hard and keeping what you work for are now in our society. It's frankly not worth tryign to convine anyone, other than CBTNY, all of you seem to lap up this socialism stuff, utopian pipe dreams of from each what they can offer, to each what they need.

    And now some of you can;t even see basic issues of power. Doing nothing is now commerce, and giving the Government unlimited power to make you buy whatever they want is logical, for the sick kids donchaknow.

    It's infuriating, and I'm the bad guy.
    Because healthcare IS different.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Such limited thinking. /facepalm

    The power that allows then to mandate "heathcare" is a power, it's not a one-time-only thing, Government simply does not work like that in the U.S. The Government either has a power, or it does not. Power has limits, or it does not. Discussing this ONLY as "heathcare" is ignoring the entire point.

    I can disagree with some random Law, and still admit it's legal and constitutional. Thats politics. This is a whole other bag of fish, this is an entirely new power for the Feds, with no basis in our core legal document, and with no express limits on it's use.

    You say "it's just healthcare". I say "prove it". SHOW ME where the constitution says "just healthcare, thats ok". Show me that Congress will never ever again use this power to make us buy some other vital-I'm-sure thing they want us to buy.

    You can't. None of you can, I've been asking since this law was first raised. Not once has anyoen replied with the section of teh Constituion or the limits. Not once.

    Like Is aid, you all have eaten up the PR of sick little kids and poor innocent poor folks just trying to get by, and refuse to support ANY form of personal responsabillity in our healthcare system. Hold the service user to pay for his services? Hell no is the only answer you all have, make John Dumbass Taxpayer pay for Plumber, Plumber is too f'ing cool to pay.

    It's a lost cause.
    Take a step back and count to 3. This isn't some giant conspiracy. This is not some slippery slope or a giant step into communism.

    If health insurance is a commodity, which it is hard to say it is not, why can't the commerce clause be used?

  17. #17
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Take a step back and count to 3. This isn't some giant conspiracy. This is not some slippery slope or a giant step into communism.

    If health insurance is a commodity, which it is hard to say it is not, why can't the commerce clause be used?
    It's not worth the time.

    Even I can see when I'm jousting windmills here.

    Clearly doing nothing is now commerce, fair enough.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    It's not worth the time.

    Even I can see when I'm jousting windmills here.

    Clearly doing nothing is now commerce, fair enough.
    Doing nothing? Is healthcare a money maker or not?

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Doing nothing? Is healthcare a money maker or not?
    Please stay with me.

    At no time have I said Healthcare is not a commodity. Nor have I claimed the service cannot be regulated. It is a commodity, and is already heavily regulated.

    My ONLY claim is that the Federal Govt. does not have the authority to force an individual to buy a private product he otherwsie does not wish to buy. That is not "regulating heathcare, a commodity", that is forcign an individual against his will to engage in commerce he otherwise would not engage in. The very definition of State Tyrany, and despite the doubts, a power without any limitation if it is ruled as constitutional. I hope folks remember that next time this power is used/abused.

    Choosing not to buy is "doing nothing". And under the new Law, it is effectively illegal in the case of healthcare. Buy, or pay a fine, fail to pay the fine, go to jail. The only defense of the mandate is the one Winston used, that the Commerce Clause allows the Govt. to force the indivudual to engage in commerce (forces them to buy what the govt. deems required) when he does not wish to.

    I could site a thousand points about how the Commerce Clause has been changed (living document-style) to give the Federal Govt. more and more power unintended by the founders, but at this point, it's a lost cause here. Even the truly smart guys liek Winston buy this argument, so great.

    Enjoy the new heathcare system, and your loss of freedom. Clearly, the loss means very little to most of you.

  20. #20
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    50,788
    Government mandates alot of things.

    If you can tell me how I will be less free if my neighbor has healthcare, I'm all ears.

    Your argument is similar to people who claim..."If we let gays marry, what's to stop people from marrying animals?"
    Last edited by FF2; 02-01-2011 at 09:12 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us