Heck with Ammo - I'm hoarding Sigs! Sorry Cigs

This is a discussion on Heck with Ammo - I'm hoarding Sigs! Sorry Cigs within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Good thing I quick smoking! Looming MN Cigarette Tax Hike Spurs Buying Frenzy CBS Minnesota...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Heck with Ammo - I'm hoarding Sigs! Sorry Cigs

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array onacoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,323

    Heck with Ammo - I'm hoarding Sigs! Sorry Cigs



    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    I wonder how many people realize that taxing cigarettes, a product from another state, at the state and local level is unconstitutional without the consent of the Congress of the United States.

    Article 1 Section 10 Clause 2

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    I also wonder if they realize that federal taxes are also unconstitutional upon goods produced by the states.

    Article 1 Section 9 Clauses 5 & 6

    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.


    I wish people would be more observant of what restrictions government has and enforce those restrictions to prevent the overtaxation we're currently experiencing.
    Dennis1209 likes this.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    The thing that has always confused me is that if a product has been shown that in 1 chance out of 10,000 someone maybe harmed, it will get recalled. But with cigs, pretty much everyone that uses them will be harmed but they are legal? I have yet to find a doctor that says you can use cigs "safely".
    Jeanlouise likes this.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array NONAME762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    About 235M out of The Palouse WA
    Posts
    7,200

    Thumbs down

    Well that Kenyan butthead Obummer raised the tax $1.50 per pack+the Gov of WA going out raised the tax a buck a pack back in 2009. Basically I pay through the nose. Reservation price for Marlboro Golds are $54 a carton here Oucharama

    Plus since the state of WA lost the monopoly on liquor sales booze has gone up 30-50% unless you have a Costco card
    Firing a suppressed is on my Bucket List.

    I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.

    America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.

  6. #5
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    The thing that has always confused me is that if a product has been shown that in 1 chance out of 10,000 someone maybe harmed, it will get recalled. But with cigs, pretty much everyone that uses them will be harmed but they are legal? I have yet to find a doctor that says you can use cigs "safely".
    Do you believe that a person owns their own body? Do you believe that a person can do whatever they want with their own body as long as it does not harm another person?

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array onacoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    Do you believe that a person owns their own body? Do you believe that a person can do whatever they want with their own body as long as it does not harm another person?
    At least until you go blind!
    Stoveman and NONAME762 like this.


    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    Do you believe that a person owns their own body? Do you believe that a person can do whatever they want with their own body as long as it does not harm another person?
    Why do I feel that's a loaded question?

    Quote Originally Posted by onacoma View Post
    At least until you go blind!
    LOL
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array Dennis1209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NW, TN
    Posts
    744
    You guys are just trying to get me started! This time I'm not falling for the trap
    onacoma likes this.
    I think, therefore I am...

    <the Menace>

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    Do you believe that a person owns their own body? Do you believe that a person can do whatever they want with their own body as long as it does not harm another person?
    The problem is that we all end up paying for those people. They end up with outrageous medical costs and disability due to the self abuse. Do I think people should do as they wish with their body? Absolutely. But I don't see why I should end up paying for it.
    Jeanlouise and atctimmy like this.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    Do you believe that a person owns their own body? Do you believe that a person can do whatever they want with their own body as long as it does not harm another person?
    I've always loved this argument, because it absolutely ignores the fact that tens of thousands of people end up in treatment without any ability to pay. Up goes MY hospital bills because they have to make their money back. Tens of thousand of people have insurance and get treatment that the insurance company HAS to pay for, which means, UP goes MY insurance bills because they have to make their money back.

    It's the same thing as wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. It's not just about the rider. It's also about the guy in the car that would have had to pay out a few thousand for the injuries, but now, he has to pay out 100,000 because the guy on the cycle made a choice not to wear a helmet, and hit head first on the pavement.

    Please explain to me why YOUR choice should take money out of MY pockets, money that I then do NOT have the choice to spend on what I want.
    Jeanlouise likes this.

  12. #11
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeanlouise View Post
    Why do I feel that's a loaded question?
    It's not a loaded question. I asked the question to gain insight into how people think in context of the how, why, what, and wherefores of the way our society and government is structured. Our system of government and society was originally designed around property rights and one of those rights is the right to own your own person as part of the right to life. This is how slavery was legal, since a person could legally sign away their right to own your person and many did in the south. The abolition of slavery did not remove the fundamental right to own your own person, but did change the fact that you could not assign your right of self ownership to another person. If one has self-ownership then they can do whatever they want so long as they did not harm another person. This is called the Harm Principle as espoused by John Stuart Mille.

    By extension, self-ownership means that a person is over the government not subservient to it. The government exists only at the will of the people, who have all the rights and powers, and itself does not have self-ownership. If a person believes that someone does not own their own body that generally means that the government can intrude into areas that it has no business being in to begin with like marriage. It also infers that they do not respect the right of others to live life as they see fit in the pursuit of their happiness. Many of these ideas are codified in both the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, but in all of the state constitutions. If there is no respect for the rights of others then the 'majority' enforces it will upon the minority at the expense of the minority's rights. This would be fine if we were a democracy, but we're not. We are a republic which is majority rule with rights protections; hence, the Bill of Rights at the federal and state level. The Bill of Rights tells the government hands off on all rights unless said right is delegated to the government.

    After all this, I can safely say that the question itself is not loaded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    I've always loved this argument, because it absolutely ignores the fact that tens of thousands of people end up in treatment without any ability to pay. Up goes MY hospital bills because they have to make their money back. Tens of thousand of people have insurance and get treatment that the insurance company HAS to pay for, which means, UP goes MY insurance bills because they have to make their money back.

    It's the same thing as wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. It's not just about the rider. It's also about the guy in the car that would have had to pay out a few thousand for the injuries, but now, he has to pay out 100,000 because the guy on the cycle made a choice not to wear a helmet, and hit head first on the pavement.

    Please explain to me why YOUR choice should take money out of MY pockets, money that I then do NOT have the choice to spend on what I want.
    A valid argument if you believe only in the third party pay system currently in health care. Believe it or not, but health insurance is a relatively new phenomena as it did not exist widespread until the 1950s. The reason why the year is important is because at that time tax rates on income went up to 90% and the only way companies could hire people with just compensation for what they did was to offer health insurance as compensation. Health insurance was not taxed as part of income and was specifically excluded. It's like that today. Up until the 1980s there existed a two party pay system for health care and the costs were kept down since the party paying for the care was the person actually using it. Health care bills are considerably cheaper when it's just between the client and the provider as evidence by many doctors refusing to take health insurance. There will always exist the two party payment system for health care. As for the people that refuse to pay, there has always been people that refuse to pay for services regardless of the industry. I knew people that would scam restaurants for free meals by having bugs etc... in the food they ate.

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array onacoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    The problem is that we all end up paying for those people. They end up with outrageous medical costs and disability due to the self abuse. Do I think people should do as they wish with their body? Absolutely. But I don't see why I should end up paying for it.
    But King "O" promised me free health insurance, which means you workers need to pay fo' my insurance and healthcare costs!

    So pay up so I can smok' my Cigs, call my friends on my O'Mama phone, and sit here going blind!
    msgt/ret and NONAME762 like this.


    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    This is called the Harm Principle as espoused by John Stuart Mille.
    The problem is that smoking does harm others. It harms kids that are exposed to their parents smoking. It harms all of us with increased medical costs and taxes to pay for these people that have abused themselves.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by onacoma View Post
    But King "O" promised me free health insurance, which means you workers need to pay fo' my insurance and healthcare costs!
    Humm, last I heard even with Obamacare that you have to pay for your insurance.

  16. #15
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    The problem is that smoking does harm others. It harms kids that are exposed to their parents smoking. It harms all of us with increased medical costs and taxes to pay for these people that have abused themselves.
    Second hand smoke has been proven as a fraud. The studies performed used faulty methodology to produce the numbers they wanted to see and removed all of the facts that showed that second hand smoke did not cause any health problems in others.

    http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

    It does not harm you with increased medical costs. These people have either paid through taxes to pay for their future medical care either through excises, medicare, and social security taxes if they do not have health insurance. If they do have health insurance they pay for it with their premiums like anyone else. Finally, there is no actual physical harm to you through health insurance.

    You've answered my question in way that leads me to believe that you do not believe a person has self-ownership, but are owned by the collective via the government. No wonder our country is so ****** up.
    msgt/ret likes this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •