Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss S Dakota Requires Gun Ownership at the General Forum; How many Democrats are going to think this is a serious proposal - you know, like they accepted Obama, Pelosi ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2011, 09:30 AM
Kings_Knight's Avatar
Professional Bomb-Tosser
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
Posts: 822
Thanks: 54
Thanked 310 Times in 211 Posts
Default S Dakota Requires Gun Ownership

How many Democrats are going to think this is a serious proposal - you know, like they accepted Obama, Pelosi and Reid's premise that government can mandate purchase of health insurance because it was 'authorized' (as one Dem claimed) by their fictitious 'Good and Plenty' clause of the Commerce Act ... ? Obviously they've never read 'A Modest Proposal' (1729), in which Jonathan Swift suggested that the Irish eat their own children ... I regret that the bill's author is ignorant of the fact that this IS the law in Kennesaw, GA ... this, unlike the sick joke that is 'ObamaCare', WOULD pass if he were serious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com

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

3:04 PM, Jan. 31, 2011 |

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.
__________________
You have been counted, Thought Criminal Nr. 43680527
Being Politically Correct means always having to say you're sorry.
- Charles Osgood
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2011, 09:47 AM
sunwestdog's Avatar
Ridin' the short bus
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Mizzou
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,715
Thanks: 638
Thanked 1,352 Times in 914 Posts
Default Re: S Dakota Requires Gun Ownership

He wasting the states time and money to make a point he could have made on a blog. Thing is, it won't affect anything. He's comparing apples and oranges and wasting the tax payers money. Obama was originally against the mandate, but I imagine changed to get enough people on board to get it passed. Now that it's passed, it can be taken out. That's just an opinion, so don't ask me to document anything. I just think it's good political gamesmanship in order to get things done.
__________________
As I grow older, I grow wiser. The wiser I become, the more I understand how little I know. sunwestdog
Life isn't fair. But people should be. sunwestdog
I reject your reality and substitute my own. Adam Savage
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2011, 10:09 AM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: S Dakota Requires Gun Ownership

First off, there's a difference between state and federal. If it's at state level, you have the choice to live there or live in another state. If it's federal, your only choice is the leave the country if you don't like it. Which is why such bull**** should be left to the individual states to decide, and not the ****ing federal govt.

Secondly, there's precedence for this.

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets

Not saying whether I agree or disagree with it. Just that there is a distinct difference, and precedence.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2011, 10:35 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,019
Thanks: 7,847
Thanked 8,570 Times in 5,324 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: S Dakota Requires Gun Ownership

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunwestdog View Post
He wasting the states time and money to make a point he could have made on a blog. Thing is, it won't affect anything. He's comparing apples and oranges and wasting the tax payers money. Obama was originally against the mandate, but I imagine changed to get enough people on board to get it passed. Now that it's passed, it can be taken out. That's just an opinion, so don't ask me to document anything. I just think it's good political gamesmanship in order to get things done.
It's only apples and oranges because you favor Obamacare and don't look at the private ownership of firearms as a good thing. The house of cards falls apart without the individual mandate. Obamacare incentivizes employers to drop employee coverage dumping more people into the Federal exchanges. Many of the employees dropped from employer plans will choose to be uninsured without a mandate. They will go to emergency rooms and use Medicaid instead ballooning costs to the Federal government.

The individual mandate is the lynchpin of Obamacare.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2011, 03:47 PM
Kings_Knight's Avatar
Professional Bomb-Tosser
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
Posts: 822
Thanks: 54
Thanked 310 Times in 211 Posts
Default Re: S Dakota Requires Gun Ownership

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunwestdog View Post
He wasting the states time and money to make a point he could have made on a blog. Thing is, it won't affect anything. He's comparing apples and oranges and wasting the tax payers money. Obama was originally against the mandate, but I imagine changed to get enough people on board to get it passed. Now that it's passed, it can be taken out. That's just an opinion, so don't ask me to document anything. I just think it's good political gamesmanship in order to get things done.
The key provision is MANDATORY PURCHASE of INSURANCE. That is NOT severable. They wrote it that way in order to prevent a judge from striking it down as a separate component. By doing so, they made it the KEYSTONE to undoing the ENTIRE package. I applaud the shortsightedness that overlooks the 'unintended consequences' of actions taken. It is NOT, as you'd like people to believe, an 'apples and oranges' argument. It's a wonderful example of hubris leading to the inevitable fall. Maybe this crowd should have read Milton's 'Paradise Lost' before they began - not that it would have made any difference in their actions, but it would have lent such a wonderfully bittersweet taste in their mouths after their coming defeat ...

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
- Thomas Jefferson
__________________
You have been counted, Thought Criminal Nr. 43680527
Being Politically Correct means always having to say you're sorry.
- Charles Osgood
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2011, 10:59 PM
Oftencold's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,936
Thanks: 11,660
Thanked 9,713 Times in 6,201 Posts
Default Re: S Dakota Requires Gun Ownership

Actually, I think that the wording of the Second amendment well could support this proposal.
__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣

“Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making!”
Or if you're a traditionalist,
“Anál nathrach, orth’ bháis’s bethad, do chél dénmha!”
And children, say it like you mean it!

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dakota, gun, ownership, requires

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0