You are required by law to own a gun

I already have a few guns, but assuming I didn't, I'd buy what was required.

That being said, I would also fight for the repeal of this initiative.

I'm very much a gun rights supporter, but I'm against mandatory gun ownership. It's about as silly as mandatory voting.

 

This is a sovereign States' right secured by our Second Article of Amendment: The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

I'm legally disabled the Militia Act excludes me from obligation.

 

I'd either ignore the law, or just buy some piece of crap and leave it where no-one can get to it.

 

In other words, our Second Amendment doesn't apply to you, and you need recourse via your State Constitution.

Here is one example: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Ah. So you choose to rack up back taxes @ $2500/yr until you are forced by to pay.
Either way, you choose to pay the $2500/yr.
Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

Bummer, huh.
Which do you choose?

- - - Updated - - -

I cannot restate the OP in a more concise manner than the OP is already stated.
You have a choice: Buy a rifle, etc in accordance with the law, or pay $2500/yr tax.
Which do you choose?

- - - Updated - - -

Would you buy an 'assault weapon' and 'hi-cap magazines' and train with it, or would you pay the tax?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry to hear that.

 

Since I am already considering joining the reserves, I would likely submit and get the gun. That doesn't mean I think such a law would be just, and I'd have no issue with people openly violating such a law - even violently resisting state attempts to compel compliance.

Satisfied?

 

If you "ignore" the law, you'll pay a $2500/yr tax
If you buy the rifle and fail to train with it every other year, you'll pay a $2500/yr tax
So, which do you choose?

- - - Updated - - -

This is, of course, untrue.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you

 

Whatever, I'd go through the motions to satisfy the government and leave it at that.

 

I would buy a one way ticket to whichever country $2500 would get me to.

 

I would expect to get "drafted first" for any exigency requiring posse comitatus.

 

Yes. but in which manner?
Buy the rifle, etc or pay the tax?

- - - Updated - - -

True. You could leave. Probably better that way.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how you think this answers the question.
Would you buy an 'assault weapon' and 'hi-cap magazines' and train with it, or would you pay the tax?

 

I of course would follow the law....

as long as they hand out free guns to those that can't afford them.... republicans would never go for that, so it will never happen

.

 

Why do i need to care what Arms you use regarding posse comitatus, since subject to the police power of a State, the right to keep and bear Arms may not be infringed.

 

The law requires you to make a choice.
Which option do you choose?

- - - Updated - - -

I see you did not actually read the OP.
Why don;'t you try that.

 

I make a motion to have that law repealed as a waste of the People's tax monies due to a fallacy of false dichotomy.

 

I gave my opinion, take it or leave it....

 

And while doing that..... do you buy the rifle, etc, or pay the tax?

- - - Updated - - -

Your opinion is based on the fact that you did not read the OP.
Why do you choose to opine from ignorance?
And, do you choose to buy the rifle, etc, or pay the tax?

 

whatever weapons category i may qualify for with a well regulated militia.

 

I've never owned a gun nor will I ever own one. No need for a gun.

 

It would be interesting to see an analysis.

X = number of respondents.
T = $2500
R = annual cost of required goods and services

Those who say they will buy the rifle = R%
Those who DO NOT say they will buy the rifle but felt compelled to reply anyway, by default, pays the tax = T%

Then expand that out over 330 million people and see what the annual revenue vs cost would be. Perhaps there would be enough money left over for some fun tanks or drones for our training next year

 

Go ahead,... give a good reason to buy another gun!

 

Good point. Ah, I know, I'll just get fired from my job and end up homeless and then the government can buy me a gun which I will then use to hunt stray dogs and cats to feed my family. Oh, better yet, go with the program, and in a few years of training, start a revolution and overthrow the government with the very guns they made us buy. Yeah, irony is the boss.

 

Technically, the ACA follows under the necessary and proper clause as well as the interstate commerce clause of Article 1, Section 8 of said Constitution. Since health care is not a right per se, it does not deter Congress from passing laws that allow health care to be managed across state lines, allow additional taxes to be charged under the 16th amendment, or implementation of standards on how health insurance is to be defined.

With the 2a, this is a constitutional right, but laws can still be passed to regulate the commerce on the sale of fireams across state lines that do not interfere with infringing upon the individual of purchasing said firearms.

 

The argument that you are attempting to make is that mandates imposed on someone and non compliance is unconstitutional, even with the 2a. And since you were trying to be similar to the ACA in one of your posts, I am simply advising you that your scenario is nowhere near what the ACA represents or how it is applied by law.