Lawmakers in South Dakota have proposed a bill that would require all adults to own guns!

[sig2009 3]

Too bad the spineless lawmakers we have in this state don't have the balls to do this!

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48577.html

[Anselmo 87]

That is great. The Onion should have thought that up first.

[reed338 11]

I 100% agree everyone should own and carry a gun or get a fine.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

If it passes... time to move to SD.

[Caine 147]

I'm gonna go against the grain and say that REQUIRING anyone to own a gun is stupid. Just the way requiring people to get health insurance is stupid. Apparently the point of this bill is to make that point. It goes against the liberties that so many of us complain we're losing every day.

 

So, I find it a little odd that the comments so far have been in favor of the bill. I must be missing something

[Malsua 1,422]

Those guys said in the article that it is just to prove a point and it won't pass. The comments on the article seem to show how many people just read the headline.

[vjf915 456]

I'm gonna go against the grain and say that REQUIRING anyone to own a gun is stupid. Just the way requiring people to get health insurance is stupid. Apparently the point of this bill is to make that point. It goes against the liberties that so many of us complain we're losing every day.

 

So, I find it a little odd that the comments so far have been in favor of the bill. I must be missing something

I 100% agree with you. This bill is something that I wholeheartedly disagree with. Nobody should be FORCED to own a firearm.

[tommy3rd 132]

I 100% agree with you. This bill is something that I wholeheartedly disagree with. Nobody should be FORCED to own a firearm.

What if it's not a firearm? What if someone FORCES you to get health insurance (or some other thing for that matter)? Are you okay with that?

That was the point the bill was trying to make.

[BRaptor 68]

What if it's not a firearm? What if someone FORCES you to get health insurance (or some other thing for that matter)? Are you okay with that?

That was the point the bill was trying to make.

 

You mean, for example, if someone FORCES you to buy car insurance or face a fine?

 

Or if you're FORCED to pay for registration and license plate for your car or pay a fine?

 

Or if someone FORCES your business to be bonded and/or insured or face a fine?

 

I don't mean to sound like I support the healthcare bill, I don't, because I don't know what's in it. But to say that you object based on the principle of being forced to purchase something is a bit overbroad (unless you're willing to go so far as to oppose state-mandated car insurance, contractor bonding/insuring etc.).

 

I believe that this "buy health insurance or face a fine" law has two problems. 1) As I understand the bill, I think it violates the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, because you MUST file taxes and the government is inspecting your tax records to see that you paid for health insurance and based on those tax filings (that you submitted and MUST be truthful), you will be fined and 2) the interests of the government are too far removed and do no outweigh the individual's right to freedom to contract or not contract.

 

At least with car insurance, there is a "we don't want uninsured motorists out there injuring people and not able to pay for the injury they cause" concern. With the healthcare bill, there is a "we don't want healthcare bills unpaid, because that burdens our hospitals and healthcare system and might cause some hospitals to go out of business or cause taxpayers to have to foot the bill and the solution is that everyone must have health insurance." The public concern isn't direct enough for my liking and the solution isn't direct enough.

[vjf915 456]

What if it's not a firearm? What if someone FORCES you to get health insurance (or some other thing for that matter)? Are you okay with that?

That was the point the bill was trying to make.

I understand the point, and in hindsight I should have touched upon that. I don't think that FORCING somebody to do something regardless of the situation is right by any means. Health insurance does not effect anybody but the person who does not own it, so I have no problem if Joe Smith decides he does not want health insurance. Car insurance is a totally different monster. I have no problem if Joe Smith decides not to have car insurance.......but he damn well better not drive without it. What's missing in this is that insuring your car if it gets damaged is totally optional, however liability is mandatory. Liability covers any medical expenses, should you injure somebody in an accident that you cause. With driving being a privilege, I see nothing wrong in requiring any car on the road to have liability.

[tommy3rd 132]

I understand the point, and in hindsight I should have touched upon that. I don't think that FORCING somebody to do something regardless of the situation is right by any means. Health insurance does not effect anybody but the person who does not own it, so I have no problem if Joe Smith decides he does not want health insurance. Car insurance is a totally different monster. I have no problem if Joe Smith decides not to have car insurance.......but he damn well better not drive without it. What's missing in this is that insuring your car if it gets damaged is totally optional, however liability is mandatory. Liability covers any medical expenses, should you injure somebody in an accident that you cause. With driving being a privilege, I see nothing wrong in requiring any car on the road to have liability.

I see your point, but I can also say " you're sick, but you better NOT get me sick. If you had health insurance you can get yourself looked at before you become typhoid Mary and infect everyone in here." Now someone else's health is affecting me. Where do we draw the line?

[lunker 274]

How about just making non gun owners pay higher taxes? After all, they are abdicating responsibility for their own security and pushing it on to the police.

[vjf915 456]

I see your point, but I can also say " you're sick, but you better NOT get me sick. If you had health insurance you can get yourself looked at before you become typhoid Mary and infect everyone in here." Now someone else's health is affecting me. Where do we draw the line?

That is also a very good point. However in my opinion, you can reasonably avoid someone who is sick. They can stay home, you can make sure you wash your hands frequently and after you come in contact with someone who is sick. But you are completely right. It is almost impossible to reasonably draw the line anywhere, as this is all based on personal opinion.....not everybody will be satisfied. Don't get me wrong.....the more people with health insurance, the better. I have both health insurance and car insurance because frankly......I think it's stupid to not have either, regardless of the laws.

[ianargent 7]

Couple notes - there's at least two towns that force households to own firearms (with an exception for conscientious objectors). One is Kennesaw GA, I forget the other. Non-federal governments absolutely could do this under their police powers, the same way they can force someone to purchase car insurance (again, assuming an opt-out for conscientious objectors, such as quakers).

 

The Federal government has no police powers (outside of federal property anyway - DC, forts, armories, and other "needful buildings"). But, under the militia powers, they could probably do so. Were the feds to do so I would expect they would provide for those who canot afford to arm themselves; or at least offer "at-cost" sales of an M-4/M-16, M-9, and ammo for same, not to mention the rest of the kit for a line infantryman...

 

Anyway, the proposal as such isn't going anywhere (though amusing).

[Dan 177]

You mean, for example, if someone FORCES you to buy car insurance or face a fine?

 

Or if you're FORCED to pay for registration and license plate for your car or pay a fine?

 

Or if someone FORCES your business to be bonded and/or insured or face a fine?

 

I don't mean to sound like I support the healthcare bill, I don't, because I don't know what's in it. But to say that you object based on the principle of being forced to purchase something is a bit overbroad (unless you're willing to go so far as to oppose state-mandated car insurance, contractor bonding/insuring etc.).

 

I believe that this "buy health insurance or face a fine" law has two problems. 1) As I understand the bill, I think it violates the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, because you MUST file taxes and the government is inspecting your tax records to see that you paid for health insurance and based on those tax filings (that you submitted and MUST be truthful), you will be fined and 2) the interests of the government are too far removed and do no outweigh the individual's right to freedom to contract or not contract.

 

At least with car insurance, there is a "we don't want uninsured motorists out there injuring people and not able to pay for the injury they cause" concern. With the healthcare bill, there is a "we don't want healthcare bills unpaid, because that burdens our hospitals and healthcare system and might cause some hospitals to go out of business or cause taxpayers to have to foot the bill and the solution is that everyone must have health insurance." The public concern isn't direct enough for my liking and the solution isn't direct enough.

 

There is a big difference. You can choose not to own or drive a car, and choose not to have a business.

 

With the healthcare bill, you are forced to buy it just because you are alive.

[djg0770 481]

Driving is a privilege, not a right, it says so in the NJ driver's manual.

[KpdPipes 388]

You mean, for example, if someone FORCES you to buy car insurance or face a fine?

 

Or if you're FORCED to pay for registration and license plate for your car or pay a fine?

 

Or if someone FORCES your business to be bonded and/or insured or face a fine?

 

I don't mean to sound like I support the healthcare bill, I don't, because I don't know what's in it. But to say that you object based on the principle of being forced to purchase something is a bit overbroad (unless you're willing to go so far as to oppose state-mandated car insurance, contractor bonding/insuring etc.).

 

I believe that this "buy health insurance or face a fine" law has two problems. 1) As I understand the bill, I think it violates the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, because you MUST file taxes and the government is inspecting your tax records to see that you paid for health insurance and based on those tax filings (that you submitted and MUST be truthful), you will be fined and 2) the interests of the government are too far removed and do no outweigh the individual's right to freedom to contract or not contract.

 

At least with car insurance, there is a "we don't want uninsured motorists out there injuring people and not able to pay for the injury they cause" concern. With the healthcare bill, there is a "we don't want healthcare bills unpaid, because that burdens our hospitals and healthcare system and might cause some hospitals to go out of business or cause taxpayers to have to foot the bill and the solution is that everyone must have health insurance." The public concern isn't direct enough for my liking and the solution isn't direct enough.

 

Invalid comoparison for one and one reason only...NOBODY "Forces" you to buy a CAR. You CHOOSE to buyr a Car, KNOWING that those particular requirements go along with it.

[bbk 188]

Yea, again agreeing with the prior individuals, driving is a privilege and not a right.

 

Beyond the fact that this is a ceremonious move by the statesman, am I alone in thinking that it would be a bad thing (at the theoretical level)? The government requires you own a firearm, meaning they would have to have it on their books that you do indeed possess one... which kind of goes against a lot of our thinking about forced registration of our firearms, no? Or should I just leave it at the fact that this is a move of counter-culture against the current healthcare bill

[Anselmo 87]

Yea, again agreeing with the prior individuals, driving is a privilege and not a right.

 

Beyond the fact that this is a ceremonious move by the statesman, am I alone in thinking that it would be a bad thing (at the theoretical level)? The government requires you own a firearm, meaning they would have to have it on their books that you do indeed possess one... which kind of goes against a lot of our thinking about forced registration of our firearms, no? Or should I just leave it at the fact that this is a move of counter-culture against the current healthcare bill

 

Just leave it as a counter culture thing. Don't read too deep into it but reflect on the basic ideological differences between SD and NJ. Where one state actively encourages gun ownership beyond what is allowed by the US Constitution another state actively represses the ability for gun ownership in disregard of the US Constitution.

[BRN169 6]

Invalid comoparison for one and one reason only...NOBODY "Forces" you to buy a CAR. You CHOOSE to buyr a Car, KNOWING that those particular requirements go along with it.

 

Not only that but a 15 year old kid can buy a car for cash and drive it all day long without insurance, registration or even a state issued license as long as they are on private property and not on public or quasi-public roads and property... A friend of mine as a kid lived on a rather large ranch, his mom never had a driver’s license but the father bought her a Jeep Grand Cherokee to drive around the ranch. Truck was never registered or insured and he and his brothers used to drive the truck all over the ranch before they got their licenses.

[KpdPipes 388]

Not only that but a 15 year old kid can buy a car for cash and drive it all day long without insurance, registration or even a state issued license as long as they are on private property and not on public or quasi-public roads and property... A friend of mine as a kid lived on a rather large ranch, his mom never had a driver’s license but the father bought her a Jeep Grand Cherokee to drive around the ranch. Truck was never registered or insured and he and his brothers used to drive the truck all over the ranch before they got their licenses.

Except for DUI, and Revoked, most of Title 39 (MV Code) is NOT Applicable on Private property.