Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

:lmao

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...y=mod|mostview

Quote:

---

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.


Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”


The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”


Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.


“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

:lmao

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...y=mod|mostview

---

I agree this was a stupid thing to do. Hilarious also..:lmao

The differences between owning a gun personal defense, and health care:

Odds and cost shifting.

Odds of any one person being in a situation where they require a gun for self-defense: Very small.

Odds of any one person being in a situation where they require health care during their lives: Virtually certain.


Amount of yearly cost shifted to me by people that fail to buy a gun, then require one for self-defense:
Virtually zero.

Amount of yearly cost shifted to the rest of us by people that don't/can't buy health insurance, then require health care:
Billions.

Health care in this country is a portion of the economy that amounts to well over a trillion dollars, and a significant portion of GDP.

If addressing that doesn't fall under the interstate commerce clause, I don't know what does.

I think the right honorable gentleman from SD needs an economics refresher on the subject of "public goods".

The American gun fetishists using fear-mongering to ram through a "govt-mandated stimulus" of the Guns & Ammo industry, has nothing to with 2nd Amendment or personal/home defense.

a lot of material here.

Do you have to buy bullets, too?

I own a rubber band gun. Does that count?

What if the only firearm "suitable to my temperament" is a rocket launcher? Is that cool?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The differences between owning a gun personal defense, and health care:

Odds and cost shifting.

Odds of any one person being in a situation where they require a gun for self-defense: Very small.

Odds of any one person being in a situation where they require health care during their lives: Virtually certain.


Amount of yearly cost shifted to me by people that fail to buy a gun, then require one for self-defense:
Virtually zero.

Amount of yearly cost shifted to the rest of us by people that don't/can't buy health insurance, then require health care:
Billions.

Health care in this country is a portion of the economy that amounts to well over a trillion dollars, and a significant portion of GDP.

If addressing that doesn't fall under the interstate commerce clause, I don't know what does.

I think the right honorable gentleman from SD needs an economics refresher on the subject of "public goods".

---

Too nuanced for darrins to grasp. He's just playing stupid... or at least I think he's playing..:(

They're just trolling.

Just so I'm clear, what kind of government mandates are okay?

Awesome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge Vinson

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Just so I'm clear, what kind of government mandates are okay?

---

The ones resulting from the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

lol tea mandate

One of the more brazenly fraudulent pieces of "legislation" I have ever heard of. South Dakota, youve been Rick-Rolled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Just so I'm clear, what kind of government mandates are okay?

---

Apparently, chipping in to bail Wall Street is kosher...

Socializing private losses...that is the law (TARP) in the USA. :depressed

The whole issue with the mandate isn't whether or not it has good intentions (I believe it does) but if government has the authority to mandate it. I may want to do a good thing and breka into your home to clena it and prepare you dinner, but it still isn't legal for me to do so no matter the benefit or good intention.
The same goes with the healthcare mandate. It has good intentions and I completely understand to have the costs down in this model, everyone has to buy into it, but that doesn't mean the government has the authority under the constitution to do so.

my 2 cents.

Eh, mandates are a Republican idea. Not the worst one they ever had, but I wonder what their health plan is now that they pretend they never came up with the idea.

I see either universal or public option at some point to make health care more affordable. Costs have to be manaaged though as well, which wasn't done last time around. Problem is, it seems that in our current political environment, no one wants to give the other party the sense of a "win" to campaign with and each will hold the country hostage until one side caves in.

Force people to buy guns. Force people to buy health insurance. Go Amerikuh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamtas#2

I see either universal or public option at some point to make health care more affordable. Costs have to be manaaged though as well, which wasn't done last time around. Problem is, it seems that in our current political environment, no one wants to give the other party the sense of a "win" to campaign with and each will hold the country hostage until one side caves in.

---

The only way to make health care more affordable is to devalue the benefit of quality health care.

If you make it less valuable, health care providers will quit spending so much money to innovate, train, and provide a quality product that attracts the best and brightest people who also want to make a lot of money saving your life.

It's that simple. If you want cheap health care, settle for cheap doctors, medicine, and technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The only way to make health care more affordable is to devalue the benefit of quality health care.

---

Which blog are you parroting here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The ones resulting from the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

---

So because I have the right to own a gun, it's okay to force me to own a gun?

Again, just looking for clarity here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

So because I have the right to own a gun, it's okay to force me to own a gun?

Again, just looking for clarity here.

---

I think it was an ill-conceived attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of the individual mandate in Obamacare. Unfortunately, States have more power to compel citizens to act than does the federal government and, it's also ironic that South Dakota chose to make it guns since that's one area it could be argued the federal government does have specific authority to compel citizens to be armed -- pursuant to the Militia Act of 1792.

A mess all the way around. It'll be funny if it's passed though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The American gun fetishists using fear-mongering to ram through a "govt-mandated stimulus" of the Guns & Ammo industry, has nothing to with 2nd Amendment or personal/home defense.

---

Simply looks like to me that the state is telling the federal government that if they can make the public purchase a product they don't want, so can they.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I think it was an ill-conceived attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of the individual mandate in Obamacare. Unfortunately, States have more power to compel citizens to act than does the federal government and, it's also ironic that South Dakota chose to make it guns since that's one area it could be argued the federal government does have specific authority to compel citizens to be armed -- pursuant to the Militia Act of 1792.

A mess all the way around. It'll be funny if it's passed though.

---

No kidding. What would the Obama and liberals do...

Obama doesn't live in South Dakota, so he wouldn't do anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

One of the more brazenly fraudulent pieces of "legislation" I have ever heard of. South Dakota, youve been Rick-Rolled.

---

You should have seen the piece of shit Federal budget proposal that Rand Paul put out.

Really scanty on specifics, and in one spot proposed cutting more money from the State Department budget than was IN the State Department budget.

Have to refind the analysis of his proposal. It was not very flattering.

"the absurdity of the individual mandate in Obamacare"

If I don't have a gun, it costs nobody nothing.

If I don't pay for health insurance and am not wealthy, then I am a parasite on taxpayer-funded health services that are MANDATED to refuse health care to anyone. (if you have health insurance, they can refuse you. and you don't have health insurance when your is capped out or cancelled).