• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Health care and Guns.......

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

No they don't. Most of them don't even have any idea what that word means!

If you support Federalism, I guess you don't support 2A being applied to the States, since it violates federalist principles. :cuss:

eye95 wrote:
What I want (and I suspect most Tea Partiers want) is a return to federalism. If a State, such as MA or TN wants to have universal coverage, and the people generally support it, go for it. I just will choose not to live there.

When the federal government passes a mandate that we all must buy a "qualifying" health care plan or pay a fine or go to jail, then we have no place to go to restore our freedom.

We seem to have forgotten that this country was founded on the idea that States were individual nations, ceding only enough authority to the feds to allow people and goods to move easily between States and to provide a united front should we need to defend ourselves.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
No they don't. Most of them don't even have any idea what that word means!

If you support Federalism, I guess you don't support 2A being applied to the States, since it violates federalist principles. :cuss:

eye95 wrote:
What I want (and I suspect most Tea Partiers want) is a return to federalism. If a State, such as MA or TN wants to have universal coverage, and the people generally support it, go for it. I just will choose not to live there.

When the federal government passes a mandate that we all must buy a "qualifying" health care plan or pay a fine or go to jail, then we have no place to go to restore our freedom.

We seem to have forgotten that this country was founded on the idea that States were individual nations, ceding only enough authority to the feds to allow people and goods to move easily between States and to provide a united front should we need to defend ourselves.
Exactly, Pace. The 14th was never meant to incorporate the bill of rights to the states. It was ratified in an extremely dubious manner and was meant to allow access to the courts, property rights, and to get rid of Jim Crow laws. Especially for freedmen (ex-slaves).
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

I never have thought that incorporation of the Bill of Rights was correct. It is anti-federalist. There are two reasons why I don't care if they incorporate the 2A.

One, Alabama has its equivalent of the 2A. If they revoke that right, I will move to another state. Two, the 2A says the right shall not be infringed. The 1A says "Congress shall make no law..." Not infringing is stronger wording and doesn't mention who may not infringe. So, if any government in the U.S. infringes, they are in violation of the 2A. I am not saying the courts will see it that way. I am just saying that they should.

So, I don't see incorporation as necessary (or even correct). However, if the courts force incorporation, I won't fight it. Battles should be chosen carefully, and the incorporation hill is not worth dying on.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
imported post

As to health care, one good fix that neither side will endorse, is the removal of health care expenses as a business deduction and allow a personal deduction.

Most employers would no longer offer health care as part of compensation and insurance companies would be forced to entice customers, hopefully lowering rates.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

rodbender wrote:
jimd_21 wrote:
Just a though.....Would love to here some opinions...

With the passing of the health care bill, could that affect gun owners? They could state that guns in the home could be harmful to your health or your families health....the examples they would use would be irresponsible gun owners leaving their guns were their children can have access and have an accidental shooting....or taking the gun to school. Or when their is an accidental discharge when handling or cleaning the gun and someone is hurt. All these scenario's would lead to a emergency room visit, affecting the cost of health care. This idea was brought to my attention and i could see this being a real possibility.

Would love to hear other opinions.

While it is true that there is absolutely nothing in the bill that mentions gun ownership, what is to stop one of the many beaurocratic panels this thing creates from saying that gun owners are prohibited or must pay more (a lot more) for the coverage? If coverage is required and you own guns, then you can just pay the fine and still get no coverage.

. . .

There is nothing in the law or the reconciliationact that wouldempower a government panel or bureaucrat to require gun owners to be treated differently than anyone else.

A kind ofrelated question --I suppose --is whether there is anything in the new law that would prohibit a private insurer from adjusting their rates based on gun ownership.

When I signed up for life insurance, for example, the insurerforced me to answer questions about whether I ever hang-glide.

I have never heard of an insurer asking questions about gun ownership, but I guess its possible.

But ifone insurer started doing this,you could always go to a different insurerwho doesn't ask these questions under the liberalized rules.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

Actually, the law prohibits insurers from adjusting their insurance rates for ANYTHING (i asked someone who knows it). This is a bad thing, because if you are healthy you will be paying higher rates because now they have to insure smokers, druggies, phatties.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

That is until the CDC or the NIH determine that a gun in the home is detrimental to your health.

A right unexercised is a right soon lost.

Also, most states incorporated the Bill of Rigths in their state consititutions ... some did strip down the 2A, but some left it completely alone. If we go back to a more constitutional federal government, then the people will have a louder voice in ammending any particular state's constitution to support open carry.

I already got my census and filled out all two questions that I was going to answer ... and sent it back. We'll see if they show up at my door and yank my chain over it.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
imported post

The whole debate is wrong. The anti-federalist were against the entire UNION, and the Constitution!!! If you are anti-federalist, you were for the Articles of Confederation.

No one ever wanted the US government to have the power it has now. Federalist, or Anti-Federalists.

ABN, Correct, Alexander Hamilton was against having a Bill of Rights at ALL.

ABNinfantryman wrote:
eye95 wrote:
I never have thought that incorporation of the Bill of Rights was correct. It is anti-federalist.
You've got your terms backwards. Federalists were for a strong federal government, anti-federalists were for minimal federal government.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Pace wrote:
The whole debate is wrong. The anti-federalist were against the entire UNION, and the Constitution!!! If you are anti-federalist, you were for the Articles of Confederation.

No one ever wanted the US government to have the power it has now. Federalist, or Anti-Federalists.

ABN, Correct, Alexander Hamilton was against having a Bill of Rights at ALL.

ABNinfantryman wrote:
eye95 wrote:
I never have thought that incorporation of the Bill of Rights was correct. It is anti-federalist.
You've got your terms backwards. Federalists were for a strong federal government, anti-federalists were for minimal federal government.
I am not talking about those who opposed The Constitution. I am talking about those who oppose the idea of limited power for the federal government, the idea that the power is vested in the States and the People.

One can be anti-federalist in two ways: One, pro-confederation, where the feds have near zero authority (the People rightly chose against this form of government in the late 18th century) and, two, pro-top-down-authoritarian federal government. The context clearly indicates I was referring to and lamenting the latter.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:
....

Under what specific authority does the Federal Government believe it possesses the power to mandate the purchasing of non-government products?


I have to laugh at the fact that some people who are clapping in support of this bill are incapable of processing the unconstitutional nature of the bill, yet vehemently swear to uphold the Constitution.

Amazing.

This has been done since George Washington's time.

If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/03/25/militia
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

2a4all wrote:
This has been done since George Washington's time.

If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/03/25/militia
Incorrect, and another obvious incident of a mouthpiece (The writer of the article you posted, not you) not doing his homework first!

Reading the "Militia Act of 1792" one cannot help but read the portion exempting service where state law overrules federal.

In other words, if your state (Remember,...Isolationist States!)says you don't have to meet the requirements of the Militia Act, or exempts you from the act, you aren't required to participate.


It usually helps to read the acts you put forth as evidence in support of a slambang theory, before posting an editorial column on the topic.

Just saying. :uhoh:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Nice opinion piece there (masquerading as news). Just a suggestion: If you are going to use "news" stories to support a point that you are making, please select a source that at least gives the appearance of impartiality.

Now, on to the substance: The act required no one to buy anything. Under the president's constitutional authority to call up the militias, he had to regulate them--which, by necessity, includes planning for their provision. As was common in that day, militia members brought the weapons they would use with them. In order to ensure that all members would bring a weapon (and its attendant supplies) with them, it was imperative that all members have one available.

The law simply required that they provide themselves with one. They could buy it. They could borrow it. They could swap for it. They weren't required to buy one, just have one with them when the militia assembled.

This was no big deal. It was extremely uncommon for a free white man not to have a musket in that day and age. It was a tool of survival.

Nice try, though. But, let me reiterate the salient point. The act required no one to buy anything.
 

petrophase

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
300
Location
Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
imported post

I generally agree with Pace here - there is nothing in my understanding of the HCL that seems like it would have direct relevance to RKBA. There are better arguments against the HCL. Furthermore, it is my prediction that this administration will not be inclined to directly affect increased gun control, not because they don't want to but because there are other important battles that are actually winnable.

However, I will bite. If I were looking for a back door it would be lead exposure.

Also, I don't mind paying some taxes. No, I do not agree with all of the ways that my tax money is spent. I make my displeasure known at the ballot boxes.

It would do me no good to have my SS and the rest of my tax money back if I didn't have a country to spend it in.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

You're right, it's an opinion piece, just like all these posts. But I cited it because it points out the notion that no one (at the time) seemed bothered by the (un)constitutionality of requiring citizens to furnish (obtain, purchase, etc) their own equipment for militia service (even if such equipment were commonplace). Maybe the notion that "everyone has one, so who'd object" factored into their thinking.

Congress also considered helping out those who were too poor to provide their own equipment.

If everyone had health insurance, this issue wouldn't even be discussed.

While most folks probably had the requisite firearms, they might not have had the specified ammo, and perhaps didn't think about setting some aside for this specific purpose, so the notion of a federal mandate to require citizens to prepare for specific circumstances was established (kind of like Tom Ridge's "duct tape & plastic").

This health care plan doesn't necessarily require people to pay out of their own pockets, just that they be covered e.g. employer/union pays full premium. Bartering is pretty much out, though.

As a practical matter, it's really hard to borrow ammunition. After you use it, you can't return it, and if you did return it without replacing it with your own, maybe you'd be inviolation ofthe Militia Act. (If you do replace the borrowed ammo after using it, it's really not borrowing, it's a purchase.)

As for "Isolationist states", Virginia seems to have taken the lead on this. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Will Virginia defend one of its citizens in Federal Court if said citizen is charged with a "failure to comply"? What will Virginia do if the citizenis found guilty? If both spouses work, willthey eachbe required to enroll in their respective employers' plans? (Women weren't an issue in 1792.)
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

2a4all wrote:
You're right, it's an opinion piece, just like all these posts. But I cited it because it points out the notion that no one (at the time) seemed bothered by the (un)constitutionality of requiring citizens to furnish (obtain, purchase, etc) their own equipment for militia service (even if such equipment were commonplace). Maybe the notion that "everyone has one, so who'd object" factored into their thinking...
It is not just opinion, it is wrong.

I am not a Constitutional Law professor, but it does not take much critical thinking or time out of my life to look at his horrible piece he tries to use, take a good hard meaningful look at the Militia Act of 1792, and realize he is flat out wrong.

It is piss-poor, special interest journalism at its finest, to be blunt. At a minimum it is certainly poorly researched.


I will continue to believe, based on my observations within the Constitution, and via statements of the Framers, that Government mandated healthcare, specifically slid in under the guise of commerce regulation, was not the intention of the founding fathers of this country, and as such is law prohibiting Federal Government from such broad impositions.

If this program takes hold under commerce taxation, you are god damn right that there will be trespasses into other areas using this bill as basis for acceptability. I dare you to say otherwise, and in a few years, should the bill be found by the Supreme Court to be "Constitutional", our freedoms will likely rapidly dissipate at an accelerated rate.

I cannot even begin to believe that even 1/4 of you are for this kind of incredulous activity!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

2a4all wrote:
You're right, it's an opinion piece, just like all these posts.
None of these posts purport to be news. They are, of course, opinion. However, those who chose to refute the opinion-piece-masquerading-as-news piece that you linked actually cited the law and not an opinion piece.

Not reading laws seems to be rampant these days.

Bottom line, the militia act required no one to buy anything. Fact, not opinion.
 
Top