Federal Mandates

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by michigan0626, Jul 28, 2012.

  1. michigan0626

    michigan0626 New Member

    763
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    223
    63
    That would actually be legally possible under the doctrine of "stare decisis" if we had judges that realized they are humans, and not gods.
     

  3. michigan0626

    michigan0626 New Member

    763
    0
    0
    Never heard of that before. I heard of precedent, but not that.
     
  4. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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.
     
  5. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    223
    63
    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.
     
  6. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,985
    37
    48
    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.
     
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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: Jul 28, 2012
  8. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    223
    63
    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
     
  9. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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.
     
  10. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    223
    63
    I certainly agree with that!:p
     
  11. thdrduck

    thdrduck New Member

    489
    0
    0
    Can't make you buy something???? When was the last time you looked at your check stub?? What do you think FICA and Medicaid is??? You have a choice in that? Sorry, you are already doing it. And I could get shot for this, but I think it is absurd that the most powerful, richest nation on earth can't insure it's citizens have access to healthcare but we can pay China aid even tho we are borrowing from them hand over fist. Come on folks... something has got to be done when mom or dad need to work a 40 hour week at a crappy job just because they can get med ins. which takes almost all of the paycheck.
     
  12. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    I don't think that that "something" needs to be more entitlements.

    How about LESS government,LESS taxes,and MORE individual prosperity that would allow people to afford to buy what they want and need without a government mandate?

    And as for China- when our government is so busily selling us out to heathen communists can there be any doubt its been taken over by treasonous traitors?