More government control buy a gun or pay a fine

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep that's what we need.....
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.”
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.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
Is South Dakota Trying to Mandate Gun Ownership? The Greenroom

 

[Anachronism]

I believe that currently several towns in Utah and/or Nevada already require every Male over the age of 21 to be a gun owner.

Personally, as a gun owner I think this is a VERY BAD idea. There are way too many people out there who SHOULD NOT own firearms. Mostly because they do not have the mentality/temperment and/or Ability to actually use them for the purpose which this law intends them to.... Personal Protection & Self-Defense. I have talked more than a couple of friends OUT OF buying guns over the years for just that reason.

On the other hand, I do carry a personal protection firearm quite often, among a number of self-defense tools in my repertoire.

 

[The Rabbi]

As a state South Dakota certainly ahs the power to compel such a thing, just as Mass has the power to compel citizens to buy health insurance.
But the power and the wisdom are separate things. I think the measure is defensible generally as in the public interest. But I am not sure we need more gov't coercion in our lives.
Why don't they just offer a tax rebate if you do buy one?

 

[G.T.]

It's not defensible unless they simultaneously disband all State protection.

 

[Anachronism]

As a state South Dakota certainly ahs the power to compel such a thing, just as Mass has the power to compel citizens to buy health insurance.
But the power and the wisdom are separate things. I think the measure is defensible generally as in the public interest. But I am not sure we need more gov't coercion in our lives.
Why don't they just offer a tax rebate if you do buy one?

I would suggest the better idea would be to promote it in some way, but to require certain self-defense classes, training, and practice before offering the tax rebate.

As a self-defense gun owner AND a competitive pistol shooter, I have seen the lack of marksmanship, tactical knowledge, and grace under pressure that a large number of people show when handling a firearm. I am a great supporter of our LEO's, but I have to say that as many of them as common citizens fail in these same areas. Mostly for the same reason.... Lack of Proper Training and more importantly.... Lack of Trigger Time. A gun owner who is unwilling or incapable of using that firearm for self-defense is more of a threat to themselves than to a potential criminal.

 

[Anachronism]

It's not defensible unless they simultaneously disband all State protection.

How about this as a SUPPLEMENT to the State Law Enforcement agencies? South Dakota is a large and sprawling rural area. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd have to guess that there are vast stretches of the state where it might take a minimum of an hour to get an officer to a potential home invasion location.

If done properly, this mandate would create a situation where there was a greater likelihood that the homeowner would be a competent gun owner and thereby capable of defending themselves immediately and then simply waiting for the LEO's and others to come and scrape the remnants of the home invader off the sidewalk.

 

[G.T.]

It's not defensible unless they simultaneously disband all State protection.

How about this as a SUPPLEMENT to the State Law Enforcement agencies? South Dakota is a large and sprawling rural area. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd have to guess that there are vast stretches of the state where it might take a minimum of an hour to get an officer to a potential home invasion location.

If done properly, this mandate would create a situation where there was a greater likelihood that the homeowner would be a competent gun owner and thereby capable of defending themselves immediately and then simply waiting for the LEO's and others to come and scrape the remnants of the home invader off the sidewalk.

Because there's no defense to force anyone into anything like this short of it being a last resort.

 

[Anachronism]

Because there's no defense to force anyone into anything like this short of it being a last resort.

Okay. Then let's just make sure that nobody who would be "forced" to do this and chose not to could EVER bring any sort of legal action against the Law Enforcement Agencies of the State of South Dakota for injuries, loss of property, etc... because the LEO couldn't get there quick enough and the individual CHOSE not to defend their health, life, or property using deadly force.

So, for example..... Someone breaks into Mr. & Mrs. Smith's house one night and they have CHOSEN not to defend themselves with a firearm. Mr. Smith calls the police, but the closest sherrif's deputy is a 45 minute ride away. By the time the deputy gets there 75 minutes later, the thief has made off with $4500 worth of the Smith's possessions. The Smith's would have NO legal recourse for the failure of the deputy to respond "in a timely manner". Likewise if the deputy showed up and found the entire Smith family deceased, their next of kin would not have any recourse for the same issue.

 

[hboats]

You guys do realize that this bill is an attempt to make a point about health care, don't you?

From the link in the OP.

Introduced by Rep. Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) this isn’t really a story about 2nd amendment rights. It’s about health care. Wick states up front that he knows the bill will be killed before it ever has a chance to become law and he’s only proposing this to make a point.

Here is another link about this bill.

South Dakota Pols Introduce Bill Requiring All Citizens to Own a Gun | The Blaze

They know this bill will never pass.

Rick

 

[Zoom-boing]

You guys do realize that there is already a thread on this, right?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/153379-bill-would-require-all-sd-citizens-to-buy-a-gun.html

 

[G.T.]

Because there's no defense to force anyone into anything like this short of it being a last resort.

Okay. Then let's just make sure that nobody who would be "forced" to do this and chose not to could EVER bring any sort of legal action against the Law Enforcement Agencies of the State of South Dakota for injuries, loss of property, etc... because the LEO couldn't get there quick enough and the individual CHOSE not to defend their health, life, or property using deadly force.

So, for example..... Someone breaks into Mr. & Mrs. Smith's house one night and they have CHOSEN not to defend themselves with a firearm. Mr. Smith calls the police, but the closest sherrif's deputy is a 45 minute ride away. By the time the deputy gets there 75 minutes later, the thief has made off with $4500 worth of the Smith's possessions. The Smith's would have NO legal recourse for the failure of the deputy to respond "in a timely manner". Likewise if the deputy showed up and found the entire Smith family deceased, their next of kin would not have any recourse for the same issue.

I think that the State, who collects TAXES (thus employs) LEO's, should have a standard for how quickly they should be able to arrive at a scene or else they're irrelevant to EXIST in the first place.

 

[Anachronism]

I think that the State, who collects TAXES (thus employs) LEO's, should have a standard for how quickly they should be able to arrive at a scene or else they're irrelevant to EXIST in the first place.

It is NOT the job of the Police or other LEO's to STOP crime. It is their job to investigate crimes and to catch the criminals who commit the crimes. LEO's cannot be everywhere, all the time. That just isn't a reasonable expectation. Especially in largely rural areas where the population is spread out and the number of LEO's is relatively small. To that end, it should be the individual who is the first line of defense in protecting themselves, their families and their property.

I live in a town of about 16,000 residents in Central Massachusetts. We have 24 full-time LEO's (including our police chief and our dispatcher). There are never more than 6 officers on duty at any time. That's 1 officer on duty for every roughly 2700 citizens at any particular time. In a situation like that, I'm not leaving my safety and the safety of my property at the whim of the Police.

 

[G.T.]

I think that the State, who collects TAXES (thus employs) LEO's, should have a standard for how quickly they should be able to arrive at a scene or else they're irrelevant to EXIST in the first place.

It is NOT the job of the Police or other LEO's to STOP crime. It is their job to investigate crimes and to catch the criminals who commit the crimes. LEO's cannot be everywhere, all the time. That just isn't a reasonable expectation. Especially in largely rural areas where the population is spread out and the number of LEO's is relatively small. To that end, it should be the individual who is the first line of defense in protecting themselves, their families and their property.

I live in a town of about 16,000 residents in Central Massachusetts. We have 24 full-time LEO's (including our police chief and our dispatcher). There are never more than 6 officers on duty at any time. That's 1 officer on duty for every roughly 2700 citizens at any particular time. In a situation like that, I'm not leaving my safety and the safety of my property at the whim of the Police.

You spent all this writing based on what you inferred from my post and nothing on what it actually said.

 

[G.T.]

To Serve and Protect.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It's not defensible unless they simultaneously disband all State protection.

How about this as a SUPPLEMENT to the State Law Enforcement agencies? South Dakota is a large and sprawling rural area. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd have to guess that there are vast stretches of the state where it might take a minimum of an hour to get an officer to a potential home invasion location.

If done properly, this mandate would create a situation where there was a greater likelihood that the homeowner would be a competent gun owner and thereby capable of defending themselves immediately and then simply waiting for the LEO's and others to come and scrape the remnants of the home invader off the sidewalk.

Because there's no defense to force anyone into anything like this short of it being a last resort.

The defense is to illustrate to problem with the obamacare.
That is the whole point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To Serve and Protect.

no the supreme court ruled that law enforcement is not legally obligated to protect anyone.

 

[Anachronism]

The defense is to illustrate to problem with the obamacare.
That is the whole point.

In which case the author(s) of the legislation ought to be recalled by the electorate for wasting their time and money on ridiculous grandstanding and political masturbation.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

History is full of political theater. No biggy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The defense is to illustrate to problem with the obamacare.
That is the whole point.

In which case the author(s) of the legislation ought to be recalled by the electorate for wasting their time and money on ridiculous grandstanding and political masturbation.

Kind of like obamacare?

 

[hboats]

The defense is to illustrate to problem with the obamacare.
That is the whole point.

In which case the author(s) of the legislation ought to be recalled by the electorate for wasting their time and money on ridiculous grandstanding and political masturbation.

If every politician was "recalled by the electorate for wasting their time and money on ridiculous grandstanding and political masturbation" we'd have no one left in government.

Might not be such a bad solution.

Rick