I'll take my liberty and pursuit of happiness, thank you very much. Not all of us want to be told how to live our lives.

Not really.

Again, no. Natural rights are essentially those things that you can do in a "state of nature" i.e. they do not depend on government or society. Clearly people are naturally capable of speaking and possessing property.

That conclusion does not follow from your arguments, and in fact it is not correct.

In fact, that is not what I said. Compensation has nothing to do with it! The issue is involuntary servitude. If you have a right to a service, then by definition you must be able to compel someone to provide you with that service. That is not a freedom, that is coercive. The fact that many people may be willing to provide that service (for compensation) does not matter.

Consider some scenarios:

A remote village has no hospital, and the local country doctor passes away. The city council is unable to attract a medical professional. Where, then, is the right to health care for the residents of the town? (Requiring long distance travel is a significant burden on the right.)

What if there were a perfect cure for cancers, but the cure cost $1 billion? If health care is a right, then everyone with cancer could sue the government for treatment.

In the same way that saying "voting is a right" is advocating slavery for poll workers, or saying "access to counsel in criminal cases is a right" (hello, Amendment VI) is advocating slavery for lawyers.

Finally, someone with a decent argument! Though hardly compelling, I think; poll workers are generally not federal employees. As for public defenders, as you point out they are constitutionally required, which makes them a special case not particularly relevant to this discussion. And if the government does not wish to provide representation, the DA always has the choice to not prosecute the case.

And you don't even need to look to the Commerce Clause on that one, as Congress has a much more specific express authority to use in that case, the Art. I, Sec. 8 power to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia."

Article I Section 8 is not relevant here, I'm not talking about a requirement that all militia members buy a gun every year. I believe the unorganized militia is currently defined as all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45. That is not "everyone."

Perhaps I should have asked, do you think it would be reasonable for the government to force you to buy a new car every year?

The militia act of 1792 did not mandate a purchase, out merely required that members be suitably equipped. This is an enumerated power of the federal government.

No. Do not say "human right" when you mean "entitlement." I'm perfectly willing to accept access to health care as a right (essentially part of the right to contract), but the care itself is a product -- a good and/or service -- and that cannot possibly be a right.

Really, think about this. What would it mean if one had a right to some service? Someone has to provide that service. You are claiming a right of entitlement to someone else's labor. That is not only unjust, it is morally wrong, and it is specifically prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

Rights are freedoms. Something cannot be a right if it requires denying freedom to someone else.

You need to check your facts more carefully.

Healthcare is not a guaranteed right. Hospitals can and do refuse to treat people, every day. They are required to perform certain emergency services, but that requirement is relatively limited.

As for (B) and (C): You're arguing for an essentially unlimited expansion in federal regulatory powers. I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument. Defense is a legitimate government interest. While I do not expect such a law to be passed, you are advocating that the government should be able to make and enforce such laws.

You missed the point. The issue is that you are advocating that the government have the power to enact such laws. If the health care bill is constitutional, then a law requiring you to buy a gun every year would also be constitutional. Whether or not you need it is irrelevant.

Health care cannot be a right, and I honestly cannot conceive of the twisted thinking that gives rise to such an idea. If health care is a guaranteed right, then you are essentially advocating slavery for health care providers.

And, for all those democrats who think this is a bad decision, let's turn this around: do you think it would be reasonable for the government to force you to buy a gun every year? It's the exact same thing.

The War on Drugs is a result of Wickard v Fillburn and more recently Gonzales v Raich. Both decisions were horrible. They allow the government to regulate almost any conduct which affects any interstate market -- including conduct that is purely local. But government regulation (setting rules for a market) is not the same as a mandate which forces people to engage in commerce. The health care bill is distinguished because it requires people to buy something.

Laws must be passed by both the House and Senate, then they go to the President's desk for his signature (or veto).

Many of the laws that have been passed are illegal. The federal government is chartered by the U.S. Constitution, which is a document specifically listing the things that the federal government is allowed to do. Nothing prevents Congress from passing laws which violate the Constitution. This happens all the time, and the only possible remedy is to challenge the law in court. Unfortunately, the courts are statist and they tend to strike down only the most egregious violations (and sometimes not even then).

This was a very good decision, and I commend the judge. The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused by the federal government.

Too late for that.

Oh, and by the way, The US is not a democracy -- it's a constitutional republic. The federal government is supposed to be limited to those powers directly granted in the Constitution. Not that anyone in power actually pays attention to that little detail...

In general, 9mm is only slightly less powerful than .45ACP, but it is actually better at penetrating barriers. Also, note that modern handgun ammunition is designed to limit penetration.