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

[Cebu_4_2]

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

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.

[chad]

backdoor gun control. require everyone to have a gun, prove you have one so you're not "violating the law." then they have a list of who/what everyone owns.

my liberal brother in la champions this idea. you pass it, give it a year, then rescind it, and viola.

[sirgonzo420]

I appreciate the point they are trying to make, but no one should be compelled to purchase anything.

[Tumbleweed]

Being a rural and agricultural state I think most South Dakotans are already pretty well armed but I like the idea that everyone would have to have a gun :)

If the goverment was going to force you to do something buying a gun would be a good thing. The AK 47's are resonably priced and maybe everyone could buy one of those ;D

[sirgonzo420]

I appreciate the point they are trying to make, but no one should be compelled to purchase anything.



There is a basis in law for requiring weapons and weapon training


Archerie
Loose 6.s.8.d. for each moneth
Loose 6.s.8.d. for every shot

If any man being the Queenes subject, and not having reasonable cause or impediment and being within the age of sixtie yeres (except Spiritual men, Justices of the one Bench or other, Justices of Assise, and Barons of the Eschequer) have not a long Bowe and Arrowes readie in his house, or have not used shooting therein: or have not for anie man child in his house (between vii. Yeres and xvii. Of age) a Bow and two shafts, and for everie such being above seventeene yeres , a Bow and iiii. Shafts, or have not brought them up in shooting: If any man under the age of xxiiii.yeres, have shot at standing prickes: or (being above that age) have shot at any marke under eleven score yardes with any prickshaft, or flight.



Yes, but that refers to subjects.

[sirgonzo420]

Yes, but that refers to subjects.

Then the same must be presumed of any law SD might pass. It becomes incumbent on the SUBJECT only. Same is true of OBAMACARE.


Yep.

:)

[nunaem]

I'm not in favor of this. But if the State made marksmanship training mandatory for all males over 18 it would be far more effective 'homeland security' than the armed forces combined. I'd rather pay for my own training than a soldier's.

[nunaem]

I'm not in favor of this. But if the State made marksmanship training mandatory for all males over 18 it would be far more effective 'homeland security' than the armed forces combined. I'd rather pay for my own training than a soldier's.


Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily in favor of making gun ownership mandatory but I am in favor of making military training mandatory. Of course the current state would never do this, its interests are opposed to the people's and it fears the people more than any foreign enemy.

But the fact of the matter is: only warriors are free. As long as any people outsources its own defense to the state it will remain in servitude. But people are just too apathetic, shortsighted, lazy and stupid to see the need or value in preparing for war so it must be made mandatory. Sparta is a good model. Only a benevolent state would ever make empowering its own people militarily its top priority though, so our own state can't do it.

[osoab]

Gun Vouchers for poor people or is S.D. going to be giving out Hi-Points?

[Libertytree]

I don't get it, why introduce faux legislation when all they need to do is re-institute the militia?

[DMac]

I don't get it, why introduce faux legislation when all they need to do is re-institute the militia?


I think their point to to illustrate the absurdity of Obamacare and "mandatory" health insurance.

[k-os]

I don't get it, why introduce faux legislation when all they need to do is re-institute the militia?


I think their point to to illustrate the absurdity of Obamacare and "mandatory" health insurance.


That's what I think it's about too. While I think it would be awesome if everybody owned a gun, I am not in favor of requiring anyone to purchase anything.

[Libertytree]

I don't get it, why introduce faux legislation when all they need to do is re-institute the militia?


I think their point to to illustrate the absurdity of Obamacare and "mandatory" health insurance.


I understand the gist of their attempt to present a paradox in a paradox but IMO it is sorely lacking.

[Silver Shield]

I appreciate the point they are trying to make, but no one should be compelled to purchase anything.


Tyranny of Good Intentions...

There are two kinds of people in this world, people who want to be left alone and people who just won't leave you alone.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

You cannot force individuals to purchase anything they don't want to. It has to be voluntary.