Federal Mandates
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Federal Mandates

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2012, 05:42 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
michigan0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 763
Liked 18 Times on 12 Posts
Likes Given: 16

Default 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.

__________________
كافر-INFIDEL

"The Marines I have seen around the world have, the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps." Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945
michigan0626 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 07-28-2012, 06:29 PM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,585
Liked 5934 Times on 3356 Posts
Likes Given: 5484

Default

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

__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 07:20 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
michigan0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 763
Liked 18 Times on 12 Posts
Likes Given: 16

Default

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

__________________
كافر-INFIDEL

"The Marines I have seen around the world have, the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps." Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945
michigan0626 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 08:44 PM   #4
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

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.

__________________
bkt is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 10:31 PM   #5
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,585
Liked 5934 Times on 3356 Posts
Likes Given: 5484

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
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.
__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 10:36 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Rick1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Clifton,Colorado
Posts: 4,258
Liked 1905 Times on 1060 Posts
Likes Given: 1256

Default

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.

__________________

Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Rick1967 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 10:48 PM   #7
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
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.
__________________

Last edited by bkt; 07-28-2012 at 10:50 PM.
bkt is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 10:53 PM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,585
Liked 5934 Times on 3356 Posts
Likes Given: 5484

Default

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.

__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 11:09 PM   #9
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
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.
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.
__________________
bkt is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 04:05 AM   #10
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,585
Liked 5934 Times on 3356 Posts
Likes Given: 5484

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
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!
__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Federal HST NvRbanArms General Handgun Discussion 5 01-19-2012 04:41 PM
Unbelievable! CA Senate Mandates Gay History in Schools CA357 Politics, Religion and Controversy 49 04-18-2011 09:50 PM
Federal JHP for .40 S&W feedsasquatch Ammunition & Reloading 14 06-23-2009 04:47 AM
Federal HST---where to buy? Gatekeeper Semi-Auto Handguns 7 03-13-2009 01:49 AM
.338 Federal gunsandoptics.com General Rifle Discussion 0 04-10-2008 08:16 PM