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

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Bigcountry02, Feb 1, 2011.

  1. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,247
    46
    48
    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2011
  2. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    Sounds like the nifty town of Kennesaw, GA...
     

  3. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    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?
     
  4. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    Might have to consider moving to South Dakota ;)
     
  5. FLcoolguy

    FLcoolguy New Member

    29
    0
    0
    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.
     
  6. NitroxAZ

    NitroxAZ New Member

    4,895
    0
    0
    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.
     
  7. FLcoolguy

    FLcoolguy New Member

    29
    0
    0
    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.
     
  8. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    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.
     
  9. NitroxAZ

    NitroxAZ New Member

    4,895
    0
    0
    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.
     
  10. FLcoolguy

    FLcoolguy New Member

    29
    0
    0
    Okay, sorry just misunderstood you slightly... :)
     
  11. collegekid20

    collegekid20 New Member

    207
    0
    0
    Yes, the government is made up of the people and should work for the people. The Federal gov't is limited on what it can and can't regulate by the constitution, however, the states can create their own laws that regulate on top of the federal gov't laws as long as they don't infringe on the bare minimum standards the fed. gov't sets. Historically, the US Supreme court decides the minimum standards through court cases. Yes it is within the state government's power to make people buy a gun after they turn 21 just the same as they make you buy car insurance to drive. However, I don't agree with it.
     
  12. NitroxAZ

    NitroxAZ New Member

    4,895
    0
    0
    I didn't explain myself fully. Thanks for the help.
     
  13. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    They are not mandating that everyone have vehicle insurance, just those who choose to buy vehicles.


    Sorry I should have asked that more in the form of a question, I was wondering if you believe the states had the right to restrict arms more than the federal government. I wasn't trying to be a smart *** or condescending.
     
  14. NitroxAZ

    NitroxAZ New Member

    4,895
    0
    0
    No worries, I didn't take it that way at all.
     
  15. bgeddes

    bgeddes New Member

    441
    0
    0
    Sounds like the two people in South Dakota that don't own a gun might have to go buy one.
     
  16. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    I'm 100% against this. Tyranny in any form is still tyranny.
     
  17. freefall

    freefall New Member

    2,325
    3
    0
    The government can make me buy a gun after they pry the one (or two) I already own from my cold dead hands. What if they say you have to buy a Glock?:eek:
     
  18. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    Perhaps if the government offered to GIVE you one...but that's neither here nor there.

    I agree with the general sentiment. Its not right to make the people buy anything. If they really wanted every single person who can own a gun owning a gun then they should consider making it more favorable. 50% tax deductible for example. Pay for basic firearms training as a tax deduction as well.

    I could go on and on but what the government doesn't understand is that you will get more bee's with honey than vinegar.
     
  19. freefall

    freefall New Member

    2,325
    3
    0
    I think the government believes (with some reason) that you get more bees with parathion than either honey or vinegar.
     
  20. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
    It is within the authority of the states to form and regulate a militia. If SD decides to require every able bodied man 21 years or older who is free of a criminal record to hold arms for the defense of himself and the state of SD, they are constitutionally authorized to do so under the 10th amendment and the 2nd. There may be other language, I don't have a constitution in front of me.
    Unlike the fed who requires every man 18 years of age to register with selective service or the new obummercare legislation. those powers are not granted to the fed gubmint even under the emergency powers or the war powers clauses. Suck it D.C.:D