Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[M14 Shooter]

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

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



Good for the goose, good for the gander.

You are applauding a law telling people what they HAVE to buy? Aw Lawdie! The Irony in this!

I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.

 

[Sallow]

I'm shaking my head over people arguing over person, persons, or people.

It's a very important concept..and not at all trivial. Soon enough, the sooner the better, someone will accurately advocate this before the Supreme Court.

 

[bodecea]

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



Good for the goose, good for the gander.

You are applauding a law telling people what they HAVE to buy? Aw Lawdie! The Irony in this!

I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.

I'm laughing at you applauding this Bill.

 

[Jackson]

Mubarack says he is stepping Down at the next election per Fox News.

 

[Sallow]

Lemme help you with that..

Yes. Allow me.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You may now admit your error, and then address the question:
If you are correct, why then did they protect the right of the individual citizen, exerciseable regardless of his relationship to the militia?

The error is yours my friend.

In no way does the 2nd Amendment advocate for the private ownership of guns. None.

It doesn't even explicitly say "Guns".

And this whole notion of the keeping of arms to "defend against the government" is also incorrect.

The Constitution takes a dim view on rebellion, revolt and secession.

 

[editec]

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

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



Good for the goose, good for the gander.

I would but I'm saving up to buy that health care insurance that I'll have to buy in 2014.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The error is yours my friend.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.

In no way does the 2nd Amendment advocate for the private ownership of guns. None.

You're right -- it -protects- the right of the individual citizen, regardless of his relationship to or with any militia, to own and use guns, for any legal purpose.

It doesn't even explicitly say "Guns".

It says "arms".
There's absolutely no sound argument that this term does not include every class of firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are applauding a law telling people what they HAVE to buy? Aw Lawdie! The Irony in this!

I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.

I'm laughing at you applauding this Bill.

I'm sorry-
Does the govenrment have the power to do this, or not?
Make up your mind and let me know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is completely untrue, and the entire history of law in this country rejects this idea. The "necessary but proper" clause gives the federal government broad power to pass laws as long as they do not violate a protected right, and serve a legitimate government interest.

Incorrect.

The Elastic Clause gives the federal government broad power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The relevant text. bolded.

Just like the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not limit the rights of the people nor the states, the "necessary and proper" clause gives broad powers to the federal government beyond those that are enumerated in the constitution.

Incorrect. See above.

The constitutional test when this concept comes into play is whether a legitimate government interest is served.

Incorrect. See above.

 

[Sallow]

The error is yours my friend.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.

In no way does the 2nd Amendment advocate for the private ownership of guns. None.

You're right -- it -protects- the right of the individual citizen, regardless of his relationship to or with any militia, to own and use guns, for any legal purpose.

It doesn't even explicitly say "Guns".

It says "arms".
There's absolutely no sound argument that this term does not include every class of firearm.

First off..I showed you where you were wrong. The second amendment makes no provision for "persons", the fourth does.

Second off, initially defense was to be handled by Militias and a permanent navy. The Constitution expresses that in several clauses. However, after disbanding the Continetal Army, the government found that solution to be un-workable, hence, a standing permanent army was created. Which, is not Constitutional.

Third, the government makes many forms of arms, illegal. I showed in another thread where Nunchucks are banned. So are switchblades, blackjacks, brass knuckles and a host of other "arms". There are no lobbyists for those weapons..and a big one for guns. That's what drives this irrational and completely Unconstitutional drive to keep guns in the hands of citizens..to the determent of the country.

 

[manifold]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but this bill is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[westwall]

What kind of extremist, gun happy bill is that?

Taking time travel back to the wild wild West?

Amazingly enough the Wild West was safer than New York (and all other eastern cities of the time for that matter) of the same time. Bodie California long spoken of as the toughest place to live in the west for a period of five years (hence the term Bad Man From Bodie) was also safer if you were a regular citizen. Violent crime among criminals and the murders that result were indeed higher than New York. But if you were a regular citizen the murder rate was 35 times LESS than New York.
Burglary was over 50% less, all personal crime was around 65% less and rape was unheard of. There were two instances where innocent people were killed over a period of 10 years and in both cases vigilance committees banded together, apprehended the culprit and hanged them within days. Then disbanded.

 

[westwall]

The error is yours my friend.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.


You're right -- it -protects- the right of the individual citizen, regardless of his relationship to or with any militia, to own and use guns, for any legal purpose.

It doesn't even explicitly say "Guns".

It says "arms".
There's absolutely no sound argument that this term does not include every class of firearm.

First off..I showed you where you were wrong. The second amendment makes no provision for "persons", the fourth does.

Second off, initially defense was to be handled by Militias and a permanent navy. The Constitution expresses that in several clauses. However, after disbanding the Continetal Army, the government found that solution to be un-workable, hence, a standing permanent army was created. Which, is not Constitutional.

Third, the government makes many forms of arms, illegal. I showed in another thread where Nunchucks are banned. So are switchblades, blackjacks, brass knuckles and a host of other "arms". There are no lobbyists for those weapons..and a big one for guns. That's what drives this irrational and completely Unconstitutional drive to keep guns in the hands of citizens..to the determent of the country.

US Vs. Miller 1934 "Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE"

 

[M14 Shooter]

The error is yours my friend.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone.


You're right -- it -protects- the right of the individual citizen, regardless of his relationship to or with any militia, to own and use guns, for any legal purpose.

It doesn't even explicitly say "Guns".

It says "arms".
There's absolutely no sound argument that this term does not include every class of firearm.

First off..I showed you where you were wrong. The second amendment makes no provision for "persons", the fourth does.

Irrelevant. Both rights belong to "The People".
According to you, "The people" denotes a collective right that cannot be exercized by an individual outside that collective.

If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as the right of the people is collective, not individual.

Second off, initially defense was to be handled by Militias and a permanent navy. The Constitution expresses that in several clauses. However, after disbanding the Continetal Army, the government found that solution to be un-workable, hence, a standing permanent army was created. Which, is not Constitutional.

Utterly irrelevant to anything I said.

Third, the government makes many forms of arms, illegal. I showed in another thread where Nunchucks are banned. So are switchblades, blackjacks, brass knuckles and a host of other "arms". There are no lobbyists for those weapons..and a big one for guns. That's what drives this irrational and completely Unconstitutional drive to keep guns in the hands of citizens..to the determent of the country.

Utterly irrelevant to anything I said.

Thus, as you have yet to address what I what I -did- say, what I -did- say stands:

-The 2nd protects the right of the individual citizen, regardless of his relationship to or with any militia, to own and use guns, for any legal purpose.
-There's absolutely no sound argument that the term "arms" as used in the 2nd does not include every class of firearm.

 

[westwall]

All in all though I am not in favour of ANY law where the government REQUIRES you to buy anything...it's none of their damned business.

 

[manifold]

In no way does the 2nd Amendment advocate for the private ownership of guns. None.

You're welcome to your opinion, even if the USSC and intelligent people everywhere disagree with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

US Vs. Miller 1934 "Sawed Off Shotguns as a class can be outlawed BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FORSEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE"

Incorrect.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

All this means is that no one illustrated to the court that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

Anyone who has seen even the slightest bit of combat, personally or through the media from WW1 to today, knows that the shotgun, with a barrel less than18", is well-represented in military use.

 

[DaGoose]

It says "arms".
There's absolutely no sound argument that this term does not include every class of firearm.

As well as tanks, flamethrowers, laser guided missiles, war planes, battleships, fully automatic rifles and cannons.

If we're gonna say that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the individual to possess "arms" then by golly let me buy some serious weaponry!!

 

[edthecynic]

Did anyone even bother to read the article? You all are as dopey as those leaving comments at the link.

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, 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.

“Do I or the other cosponsors 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.

They don't want to require anyone to buy anything and they know it will never pass. They are making a point about the unconstitutionality of the hc mandate. If this gun mandate is ridiculous and out of reach then so is the hc mandate.

Is it any more ridiculous than the mandate requiring vaccinations for school or travel????
If a vaccination can be mandated, why not HC????

 

[rightwinger]

Rightwingers can force you to buy a gun

But you can't force them to buy Health Insurance? What happens when you get shot?