South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law

Published February 01, 2011

| FoxNews.com


A group of South Dakota lawmakers has introduced a bill that would require almost everyone in their state to buy a gun once they turn 21.

Turns out it's not a serious attempt. Rather, the lawmakers are trying to make a point about the new health care law -- that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether it requires everyone to buy health insurance or, in South Dakota's case, a firearm.

Rep. Hal Wick, one of five co-sponsors, told The Argus Leader newspaper that he expects the bill to fail.

"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/01/sd-lawmakers-propose-mandating-gun-ownership-make-point-health-law/#ixzz1CjgdBgsZ

I love my home state sometimes!

Imagine how Pelosi & the Brady Bunch would scream if everyone was legally required to buy a M-16 and Beretta 9mm along with the rest of the gear of a modern infantryman.

It's not patently false SC. What the law required was that the person himself show up with the items, not that he purchase them himself. The community could purchase them for him, he could receive them as gifts, the state could issue him the weapons out of a state armory. There were many ways that the member of the militia could obtain the arms he was required to be in possession of when called forth by the federal government for service. And it is important to note the distinction between a specifically granted power and one tortured from the text using the subterfuge of reinterpretation. It is unprecedented for the Congress to usurp authority they were never given and any attempt to equate it with an action undertaken under specifically granted authority is rightly immediately dismissed as comparing apples and oranges when one constrains themselves to logical, reasoned and rational debate. Abandoning logic, reason and rational thinking in the pursuit of ideology is nothing less than intentional deception. Which is precisely what this op-ed piece is engaged in, intentional deception, out and out falsehoods, bald faced lies.

And yes, Congress could levy another privilege tax upon all employment, as they have for Social Security and Medicare, to institute a government single payer health care system or raise the income tax to fund the scheme and have it pass constitutional muster, but don't be looking for that anytime soon.

There is also an argument to be made that the merchant seaman is actually part of the navy of the nation when they are sailing on ships that fly the flag of this nation, especially back in the day when they carried letters of marque that were issued by the nation, were of the age where they were by statute members of state militias and were subjected to British impressment, but we shouldn't let relevant facts get in the way of a good progressive spin that attempts to find justification for that which can't otherwise be justified.

FWIW, Congress would have a much easier time defending the constitutionality of a law that required you to have a gun in you home, to provide for the common defense, than they ever will defending one that requires you to have a health insurance policy purchased as a regular citizen from a private vendor.

And yes, we have a government operated hospital and health care system for our veterans, which I suppose is a form of socialized medicine, that is provided as the thanks of a nation for their defense of the nation. But that too falls under the ceded authority to provide for the common defense of the union rather than the tortured meaning garnered from the reinterpretation of the general welfare clause. You will note that the Constitution doesn't grant Congress the unlimited authority they have usurped for themselves directly. And, as a matter of some relevance, there would have been no need for any of the rest of the text in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution if that had been the actual intent instead of being intended as represented by Madison in his treatise of that very subject in the Federalist Papers. But we will ignore that logical point as well because it doesn't align with the goal of the progressive ideology and instead conclude that all of what followed that preamble was included for the sole purpose of making sure the document contained unnecessary verbiage that had absolutely no relevance with regards to intent and purpose of what preceded it. Yeah, I can see where they would want to make sure that they used up the entire parchment and added some fluff to accomplish the task instead of using the space to ensure that the federal government was properly restricted in power and scope. That makes perfect sense.