You are required by law to own a gun

I'm just using the logic of the left. The 2nd Amendment is actually in the Constitution. We have a right to bear arms.

There is no right to healthcare, yet thanks to Obamacare, you are forced to enroll, to buy it, or get fined if you don't.
And if you can't afford it, you are supposed to get free healthcare. This is why the Obamacare law is unconstitutional.

So why are you not required to have a gun? And why if you can't afford to buy a gun, why doesn't the government
buy one for you?

 

If you already have such a gun magazines, and ammo, then yes.

There are no exceptions; the ACA has nothing to do with this.

 

And... your answer to the question...?

- - - Updated - - -

And... your answer to the question is...?

 

Gun lovers have to be drafted first.

 

Your avoidance of the issue is noted.

 

I'd do it but I wouldn't just do it. I'd look for a quid pro quo, like everything associated with my purchase, including training, my own range time, and liability insurance, comes straight off my income tax liability.

 

My original answer was neither. But, being that I consider the draft a legitimate and moral policy to defend the country I love, If given the two options I would choose buying the gun and training. At this point, it would only mean more training which I would enjoy.

 

You are required by the law to purchase the rifle, magazines and ammo; the bi-yearly SAFS training requirement has a nominal fee attached.
The rest is optional and therefore up to you to supply on your own; you do not receive a deduction or credit for any of these costs.

 

you need more than propaganda and rhetoric: some on the left believe in the natural right to not be as well regulated as gun lovers.

 

All of which is irrelevant to the question you continue to avoid.

 

Then I'd probably have to take the penalty. "Non-negotiable" gets my back up.

 

You don't get to negotiate with the law.
Thank you for actually responding, and your willingness to help the less fortunate buy an 'assault weapon'.

 

no it isn't; it is merely your lack of understanding that is the problem--The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

All of which is irrelevant to the question you continue to avoid.

 

no, it isn't. it answers the question posed in the negative.

 

There is no negative.
The choices are:
A Buy the rifle, etc and train with it.
B: Pay the tax.
Well?

 

where do you get the authority for that?

 

Did you read the OP?
If not, go do that.

 

I would use whatever legal means in my power to reverse the law and to remove those that made the law, from office.

 

Two different arguments that can't be compared. You're using the logic that if you want to preserve your life in case of any criminal act against you, then you should own a gun. If you wanted to have a legitimate way of preserving your life wouldn't you want healthcare instead of a gun? I mean in the case of a car accident that left you missing a leg what would you rather want? Healthcare to pay for your medical bills or a gun? There is a right to self preservation and healthcare affords us said right, so in fact healthcare is constitutional.

 

The "right" to a gun, as well as any other goods/service you care to name, necessitates that you pay for it.
So, as long as your argument for a "right" to health care is made in that context, it is hard to disagree - you have every right to as much of whatever health care you can buy.

Now the: did you address the question asked in the OP?

- - - Updated - - -

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

 

Neither, I would organize a "boycott" (if that is the proper word) with like minded individuals and refuse to pay the tax or buy a gun.

 

Being required by law to own a gun would not be something I'd be in favor of. (ownership should be optional)
It's reminiscent of being forced to buy health ins.
The fines, however are burdensome.

 

nope; you need to re-state it in a more concise manner.

 

I'd like to see that conversation upon voting for the Constitution with a couple of the founders.

"Hey, wait, are you sure this will ensure our healthcare is a right and our needs are covered by the government?"

"Well, of course it does. What else do the word 'general welfare' mean, ol' chap? It can't be interpreted any other way!"