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

Here is the story...

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.

This should be fun because a vast majority of persons that post don't read the content and respond to the title.

My take. This is stupid. It is stupid and idiotic because these lawmakers are not presenting this for the people; they are trying to make a point about the ridiculousness of the new Federal law that mandates citizens carry health insurance.

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.

Then why even do it? You are wasting time and showing more and more people why even State legislatures need to be part-time to stop ideas like this from even coming to fruition.

It is good in the sense that common knowledge of the blatant hypocrisy of so many laws has finally made it's way into the Statehouse.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

They should be taken to court
for wasting tax payers money

Try passing a bill that actually HELPS the citizens

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

They should be taken to court
for wasting tax payers money

Try passing a bill that actually HELPS the citizens

At least this bill has a point to make. In my state (which is billions in debt) they just introduced a bill that would make coffee the offical state drink and another bill that would make Tenino sandstone as the official state rock.

Much like the health care provision that requires people to buy things, this is unconstitutional.

Can we imagine a government that tells us what we have to buy? Taxes for societal costs are one thing. This is quite another.

"This just in! Government lawmakers pass a bill that requires everyone to buy a timex watch so they will be on time!" or "You are now required to purchase one pair of nike shoes. They are good for your feet!"

I see the point of this post, is that it is definitely illegal for the government to force the people to buy anything.

But, I believe, that if everyone carried a handgun, the crime rate would plummet.

No different than a bill requiring all citizens to buy health insurance.

Unconstitutional trash that will be trumpeted by the "right".

While I personally believe that everyone should own a firearm, I in no way support anything that mandates firearm ownership.

On a similar note, I also believe that those who don't own firearms should do so knowing there is no mandate for anyone to protect them or their family. If you choose to be disarmed you have made that choice and need to understand that nobody is required to protect you.

Originally posted by schuyler
...they just introduced a bill that would make coffee the offical state drink and another bill that would make Tenino sandstone as the official state rock.

Again, all the reason why legislatures should be extremely part time. The less time you are removed from the people you claim to represent, the time you have to actually administer government for the people.

California for example has a full-time legislature and they pumped out some 700+ laws last year that went into effect. Most serve no purpose other than regulating and controlling the lives of citizens, provide creative ways of obtaining more money for failing policies and name recognition.