mandating a purchase, just like Obamacare. why all the outrage now????

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://www.houstonianonline.com/vie...tens-individual-rights-1.2800220#.UL4PAWe_Pi5

Guns and the right to own guns has been a heated topic for debate recently in the state of Vermont. State Rep. Fred Maslack has proposed a new bill that would require “non-gun owning” citizens of Vermont to register and pay a $500 fee to the state, for not owning a gun.

Vermont’s own constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State,” meaning that citizens in Vermont have the right to decide based on their personal beliefs and preferences if they want to own a gun or not, and they should not be fined for owning or not owning a gun.

Requiring non-gun owners to pay a $500 fee and registering as a non-gun owner would increase the number of guns purchased, and it would highly weigh on people’s decisions on whether or not to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

why is this a problem?
 
Thing1 said:
You don't seriously think this is an apt comparison, do you?
Click to expand...
Stupid comarison. When the public is buying your guns for you, then you might have a point. Since the public owns nearly 80% of all health care facilities and free loaders drive up the cost of the rest of us. You don't have a point.
 
Thing1 said:
Emotion isn't a part of it at all.

I assume you understand the basics of Obamacare. Why is there a mandate for it?
Click to expand...
there appears to be a mandate for it in order to cover healthcare for those that cannot afford it. The same thing here, there is a mandate for it because some people refuse to be prepared to defend themselves and their country.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Stupid comarison. When the public is buying your guns for you, then you might have a point. Since the public owns nearly 80% of all health care facilities and free loaders drive up the cost of the rest of us. You don't have a point.
Click to expand...
cite the 80% please. and are you now calling all of those poor people that can't afford healthcare...freeloaders now?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there appears to be a mandate for it in order to cover healthcare for those that cannot afford it. The same thing here, there is a mandate for it because some people refuse to be prepared to defend themselves and their country.
Click to expand...

LOL

Well, as long as you realize that it's a bogus comparison, which you seem to by the above.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Stupid comarison. When the public is buying your guns for you, then you might have a point. Since the public owns nearly 80% of all health care facilities and free loaders drive up the cost of the rest of us. You don't have a point.
Click to expand...

As an intellectual exercise one could argue that the public owns nearly 100% of the security (at least 90%) and that freeloaders cost us money both through victim-hood (hospitals, etc) and use of the "security" (police). Thus we require them to participate in the "pool" or pay...

The public therefore has an interest, those who do not wish to participate in the "pool" can then pay for their reliance on others for 100% of their security.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Stupid comarison. When the public is buying your guns for you, then you might have a point. Since the public owns nearly 80% of all health care facilities and free loaders drive up the cost of the rest of us. You don't have a point.
Click to expand...

Why do these so called "freeloaders" drive up the cost? And who are these so called "free loaders". That seems awfully derogatory calling your fellow citizens "free loaders" and very unliberal and uncompassionate of you
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.houstonianonline.com/vie...tens-individual-rights-1.2800220#.UL4PAWe_Pi5



why is this a problem?
Click to expand...

Now that the absurdity, which was the Republican White House race, is over the folks in Vermont need something to chat about as winter closes in. From pizza guys to two-timing toilet brush advocates to the head honcho's pipe dream of a win it's difficult to come up with something equally wacky to discuss around the home hearth. Think of the proposal as nothing more than making conversation.
 
Thing1 said:
You don't seriously think this is an apt comparison, do you?
Click to expand...

Well as guns are expensive and poor people are the most likely to be victimized by violent crime, a mandate would drive down prices (which are already artificially inflated in CA) making defense and security more available to those that need it most. Unless you hate poor people.
 
apple0154 said:
Now that the absurdity, which was the Republican White House race, is over the folks in Vermont need something to chat about as winter closes in. From pizza guys to two-timing toilet brush advocates to the head honcho's pipe dream of a win it's difficult to come up with something equally wacky to discuss around the home hearth. Think of the proposal as nothing more than making conversation.
Click to expand...
your hacktastic opinion aside, do you wonder why this came from a vermont representative and not someone else?
 
I Love America said:
Why do these so called "freeloaders" drive up the cost? And who are these so called "free loaders". That seems awfully derogatory calling your fellow citizens "free loaders" and very unliberal and uncompassionate of you
Click to expand...

Bump

Amazing how libtardiots insult their constituents calling them freeloaders
 
wanderingbear said:
I think that the idea to force someone to buy insurance is wrong.But the rest of Obamacare I like.
Click to expand...
The reason the idiotic OP is flawed, is because only people who use a gun, should buy one.

There is nobody alive that doesn't use our healthcare system. Given Reagan's demand that hospitals treat patients for free, we've created a scenario where too many rely on the ER as a primary care facility.

If people were able to acquire a free gun, and use it at will, then a call for mandatory purchase would be valid.
 
Sparta said:
Well as guns are expensive and poor people are the most likely to be victimized by violent crime, a mandate would drive down prices (which are already artificially inflated in CA) making defense and security more available to those that need it most. Unless you hate poor people.
Click to expand...

Is a gun something everyone needs at some point in their life?

Can the cost of a gun if you don't have a subsidy send you into bankruptcy, and force you to sell your home?
 
Althea said:
The reason the idiotic OP is flawed, is because only people who use a gun, should buy one.

There is nobody alive that doesn't use our healthcare system.
Click to expand...
I don't use the healthcare system, well I didn't when I didn't have insurance. I paid everything out of pocket. so your claim is failure.

Althea said:
If people were able to acquire a free gun, and use it at will, then a call for mandatory purchase would be valid.
Click to expand...
another fail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top