Is South Dakota Trying to Mandate Gun Ownership?

[darrels joy]

Is South Dakota Trying to Mandate Gun Ownership?

posted at 10:05 am on February 1, 2011 by Jazz Shaw


This is yet another of those headlines which is custom designed as catnip to get all of the natives up in arms. (Pun intended.)

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

Introduced by Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) this isn’t really a story about 2nd amendment rights. It’s about health care. Wick states up front that he knows the bill will be killed before it ever has a chance to become law and he’s only proposing this to make a point. If the government can force Americans to buy any other product, such as a health insurance policy, what is to stop them from forcing you to buy a gun?

While I see what he’s doing here, and it’s a valid argument to make, I’m still not thrilled with the path he has chosen to make his point. We’ve seen other proposals in the past – in Georgia and Texas just to name two – which were far less tongue in cheek and they seem to uniformly hurt the effort to maintain our 2nd amendment rights. It plays to the popular, media driven theme of “gun nuts” versus responsible gun owners.

Further, it clouds the basic argument. The constitution takes great pains to assure the rights of Americans as to what they may do, not what they must do. We all have freedom of speech, but that includes the right to remain silent. (A lesson sadly lost on many modern politicians.)

Wick’s efforts may wind up backfiring on him. Instead of spurring a much needed discussion about the constitutionality of a mandate in Obamacare it could derail the discussion back to gun control – I’m sorry, Democrats… “restrictions” – at a time when 2nd amendment rights are already in the crosshairs – sorry again – following the events in Tuscon.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...gun-ownership/

[1CAVCCO15MED]

Speaking as a former hospital worker, when those deadbeats pledge never to use health care unless they have the means to pay I will quit calling them lying hypocrites for claiming they have a right to not have health insurance.. It is just another example of the old "something for nothing" so prevalent these days. As for guns, they can give me a gun when they put it in my cold, dead hands.