South Dakota crazies demand those over 21 buy a gun
Read Time:1 Minute, 29 Second
Taegan Goddard’s on wingnut watch:
“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 Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports.
The bill would give people six months to acquire a firearm — “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference” — after turning 21.
Rep. Hal Wick (R) “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.”
These people are so confused.
As I wrote last week, what they’re proposing was in fact the law of the land in the early days of the republic.
In 1792, none other than George Washington signed the Uniform Militia Act, a law requiring every white male citizen to purchase a whole basket of items – “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein” – from private companies.
Many of the Founders served in the 2nd Congress, yet no Constitutional issues were raised at the time.
Conservatives have dismissed the relevance of that law to the current health-care debate because it was passed under the auspices of the Constitution’s militia clauses, not, like the ACA, under the Commerce Clause.
So along comes these yahoos to show, yet again, that they haven’t the slightest grasp of either American history or what the Constitution does and does not permit the government to do. Because either mandating that citizens buy a gun is irrelevant to today’s debate as it doesn’t fall under the Commerce Clause, or, if the opposite is true, it discredits their whole argument against the insurance reforms.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Oh goody, more nutters with guns.
Just wait until they make it mandatory for every vehicle to be fitted with 7.62 miniguns.
Gives a new meaning to offensive driving.
I believe it as Ron Paul wanted everyone to carry a gun on a plane after a series of hijackings. Nutty oh hell yes! Logical? Oh hell no! But he tried like hell to present it as logical..just like the flakes in AZ are trying to present everyone concealing a gun now as logical and it would of stopped the carnage that took all those lives and wounded Rep Giffords.
There was an individual there w/a concealed weapon and he almost shot the wrong guy as he came upon the scene and saw one of the hero’s who had taken the weapon from the crazy, thankfully someone stopped him…I rest my case.
History Lesson: The intent of the COmmerce Clause as to keep states from charging other states outlandish fees/taxes/etc. for purchases items from a state to which they did not reside within.Some states were charge more than others while other states were denied or charge 3-4x’s what other states were charged to purchase items from one state to the next. The government stepped in to regulate the exhcnaging of good from one state to the next, NOT and I repeat NOT to mandate ALL AMERICANS purchase a product, whether they want it or not, or face a penalty in the form of a tax.
With car insurance, you only have to purchase a vehicle to be required to purchase insurance. With this farce of a bill, you merely have to be a US citizen and breathing to purchase or face a penalty.
While the bill is ridiculous, and the author and co-authors agree that it is, the point is well made: to force a citizen to purchase a product or face a penatly simply because they are breathing is ridiculous and a clear violation of the Constitution.
If, however you are wanting to argue the Constituionality of the governments powers: Unless it is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution to give the federal goverment this power then the power falls to the states.
The whole point of AMERICA was LIMITED government. The WHOLE point of breaking away from the European system of government was to ensure that American’s were a free people not being dictated by a select few.
To force a person to purchase a prodcut simply because they are breathing, or face a penalty does not constitute a “free people society”.
Again, the gun law is ridiculous, BUT THAT IS THEIR POINT.
Thanks for the “history lesson.” I do understand your points but think the legislators could better use their time. Everyone knows the conservatives want smaller government. I do not. I want the government regulating the safety and well being of the people. The states have long demonstrated that they cannot. While the government is not perfect it is more efficient than 50 little fiefdoms all with their own peculiar agendas. Thanks for stopping by and I hope you visit us again.