Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/bill-would-require-all-s-d-citizens-buy-gun-37748/)

Bigcountry02 02-01-2011 05:25 PM

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
 
FYI! Interesting; but, the bill might never leave committee!

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.

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

NGIB 02-01-2011 05:50 PM

Sounds like the nifty town of Kennesaw, GA...

Overkill0084 02-01-2011 06:31 PM

I like the sentiment...but, aren't we trying to get the govt to not be able to force us to buy Health coverage. Making Firearms manditory, same concept, different product.
1. I don't want the govt telling me I HAVE to buy something.
2. Let's face it, there are some people that just shouldn't own firearms, even if they are legal.
3. Is it really enforceable?
4. What problem is it the solution for?

dog2000tj 02-01-2011 06:41 PM

Might have to consider moving to South Dakota ;)

FLcoolguy 02-01-2011 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overkill0084 (Post 434596)
I like the sentiment...but, aren't we trying to get the govt to not be able to force us to buy Health coverage. Making Firearms manditory, same concept, different product.
1. I don't want the govt telling me I HAVE to buy something.
2. Let's face it, there are some people that just shouldn't own firearms, even if they are legal.
3. Is it really enforceable?
4. What problem is it the solution for?

I agree the government has no business telling me that I have to buy a gun just the same as it has no business telling me I have to buy healthcare insurance.

NitroxAZ 02-01-2011 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLcoolguy (Post 434612)
I agree the government has no business telling me that I have to buy a gun just the same as it has no business telling me I have to buy healthcare insurance.

The difference between this and the healthcare bill is that it is not within the federal government's power to mandate healthcare but it is within the state's power to mandate what it wants.

FLcoolguy 02-01-2011 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitroxAZ (Post 434625)
The difference between this and the healthcare bill is that it is not within the federal government's power to mandate healthcare but it is within the state's power to mandate what it wants.

In the USA government isn't some stone structure it's the people and that's true from the federal all the way down to the county/township level. The State is subservant to it's populace not the other way around. The people aren't serfs they are the government to make it opposite of that reduces people to the subjugated.

Yunus 02-01-2011 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitroxAZ (Post 434625)
The difference between this and the healthcare bill is that it is not within the federal government's power to mandate healthcare but it is within the state's power to mandate what it wants.

The argument is about incorporation. If you take that stance it would also support the belief that states can regulate 2A as they see fit including a total ban.

NitroxAZ 02-01-2011 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLcoolguy (Post 434661)
In the USA government isn't some stone structure it's the people and that's true from the federal all the way down to the county/township level. The State is subservant to it's populace not the other way around. The people aren't serfs they are the government to make it opposite of that reduces people to the subjugated.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to do things that the states are able to do. That is why the healthcare bill is unconstitutional as a federal mandate but can be imposed on citizens, if they tolerate it, at the state level, like the one in Massachusetts.

FLcoolguy 02-01-2011 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitroxAZ (Post 434671)
I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to do things that the states are able to do. That is why the healthcare bill is unconstitutional as a federal mandate but can be imposed on citizens, if they tolerate it, at the state level, like the one in Massachusetts.

Okay, sorry just misunderstood you slightly... :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.