Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Federal Mandates (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/federal-mandates-69161/)

michigan0626 07-28-2012 05:42 PM

Federal Mandates
 
Because of the recent SCOTUS ruling, the federal government now has the authority to make its citizens buy a product whether wanted or not. How about legislating that every individual or household is require to purchase a rifle, preferable M16. This would be for the collective good of the nation. Allow them to buy M16's (semi-auto) at the federal government rate. If they dont buy the rifle for the $400 (I believe I saw that the military paid $373 a piece on a military inventory database) they get hit with a mandate/tax for $500, every year. The only exemptions would be for married families. Only required 1 for the household, not one per person. And make them unsellable.

That Japanese quote would actually be accurate with a rifle behind every blade of grass. Become the next Switzerland. There is a city in Georgia that actually requires this, but it is not enforced however. Cant remember its name.

An easier process would be to do like th Israelis and make everyone serve two years in the military or government service. If they choose government service make them undergo rifle marksmanship. At the end of their two year tour give them their issued rifle.

As much as I think this would actually make this country a little better, because of the libertarian side of me I would never support these measures. On the flip side, I do think the draft should remain viable. If we are ever attacked and possible invaded (Russia/China) every mother/father, man or women better pick up arms to defend the Republic and her citizens.

Just a thought I had to stick it to democrats using their own medicine.

locutus 07-28-2012 06:29 PM

That would actually be legally possible under the doctrine of "stare decisis" if we had judges that realized they are humans, and not gods.

michigan0626 07-28-2012 07:20 PM

Never heard of that before. I heard of precedent, but not that.

bkt 07-28-2012 08:44 PM

Stare decisis means "stand by the decision". It means the same thing as "precedent". While it doesn't happen often, the SCOTUS is able to overturn a previous decision made by an earlier SCOTUS. The last thing we want are more rulings based on this entirely illegal ruling on Obamacare.

To answer your question, I think your idea is as bad as Obamacare.

locutus 07-28-2012 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkt (Post 885351)
Stare decisis means "stand by the decision". It means the same thing as "precedent". While it doesn't happen often, the SCOTUS is able to overturn a previous decision made by an earlier SCOTUS. The last thing we want are more rulings based on this entirely illegal ruling on Obamacare.

To answer your question, I think your idea is as bad as Obamacare.

I must respectfully disagree. Many nations throughout history, most notably Switzerland today, have required citizens to be prepared in one way or another, to defend their country. That's somewhat of a legal enforcement of patriotism. (which shouldn't need to be enforced, but, unfortunately, usually does)


"Obamacare," on OTOH, is legal(???) enforcement of hardline Marxist/Leninist political/social philosophy.

Rick1967 07-28-2012 10:36 PM

I understand your thinking. But I am sorry to say I have to disagree. I know too many people that should not have a bb gun, let alone an AR! I have been out of the military for a long time. But I remember being told that my matty matel (M16) cost the government $1800.

bkt 07-28-2012 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by locutus (Post 885434)
I must respectfully disagree. Many nations throughout history, most notably Switzerland today, have required citizens to be prepared in one way or another, to defend their country. That's somewhat of a legal enforcement of patriotism. (which shouldn't need to be enforced, but, unfortunately, usually does)


"Obamacare," on OTOH, is legal(???) enforcement of hardline Marxist/Leninist political/social philosophy.

What is the difference between one group of people who think it's fine for the government to take authority it does not have to achieve what they want, and another group that thinks the same thing to achieve something different?

The government does not have the authority to compel citizens to buy anything. Period. Anyone who would use the might of the government to compel fellow citizens to do anything is probably evil.

Sure, we all know what the SCOTUS recently ruled. The SCOTUS also ruled black people were property a while back. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

locutus 07-28-2012 10:53 PM

I certainly agree with your premises. My point was simply that requiring a person to possess the means to defend his country should be legal if requiring him to purchare Marxist....errr, I mean Obamacare is legal.:p

bkt 07-28-2012 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by locutus (Post 885452)
I certainly agree with your premises. My point was simply that requiring a person to possess the means to defend his country should be legal if requiring him to purchare Marxist....errr, I mean Obamacare is legal.:p

Yeah, I understood what you meant. :) But you can understand that either mandate is goofy, right? They're on opposite ends of the political spectrum and equally wrong from the point of view of individual liberty.

locutus 07-29-2012 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkt (Post 885477)
Yeah, I understood what you meant. :) But you can understand that either mandate is goofy, right? They're on opposite ends of the political spectrum and equally wrong from the point of view of individual liberty.

I certainly agree with that!:p


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:12 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.