South Dakota may require arms purchase

sudden valley gunner said:

Ha! Maybe would depend on paper thickness and print size too. :lol:

Click to expand...

Don't forget the "metallic content" of the ink too.

As cute as this is, I hope you all one day remember that "two wrongs do not make a right".

marshaul said:

As cute as this is, I hope you all one day remember that "two wrongs do not make a right".

Click to expand...

This is true but three left turns do.

It would never work, the text is too short and understandable. We know from watching 111th circus that a bill worthy of passage must be thousands of unreadable and non-understandable pages long for unconstitutional laws to pass.

I like SD's thoughts on this, and think they should shift from joke to passage to really drive the example home.

marshaul said:

As cute as this is, I hope you all one day remember that "two wrongs do not make a right".

Click to expand...

I agree. If I am thinking the same thing as you, the government shouldn't mandate anything to a free society.

I mean what's next mandating we publish opinions in the local paper to exercise our free speech.

sudden valley gunner said:

I agree. If I am thinking the same thing as you, the government shouldn't mandate anything to a free society.

I mean what's next mandating we publish opinions in the local paper to exercise our free speech.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

What about people who legitimately cannot afford to spend the money to practice enough to feel comfortable being armed? Even if you subsidize the firearm itself...

What about people with obscure and/or unique physical disabilities for whom buying a useful firearm would be a major medical investment?

What about...?

What about...?

A free society needn't ask these questions; the individuals affected already have their own answers.




Might we consider a tax incentive for firearm ownership? One credit per home per handgun and one per shotgun. Nothing wrong with stealing less money from folks in order to facilitate first-time firearm ownership for households which do not own one or either.

"...a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense..."

This does not specify that the firearm be in proper working order. A cheap hunk of metal that USED TO BE a working firearm can be used as a blunt object and, as such, is about as "ordinary" as self-defense gets. There is also no requirement to purchase ammo.

In fact, police Buy-Back programs will cost the taxpayers very little and can provide hundreds of financially strapped citizens with "firearms" that meet the specifics of the language.

I see no problem with this bill on the face of it.

sudden valley gunner said:

I agree. If I am thinking the same thing as you, the government shouldn't mandate anything to a free society.

I mean what's next mandating we publish opinions in the local paper to exercise our free speech.

Click to expand...

Aw c'mon now, IIRC both you guys have pointed out in other threads that the Constitution actually makes no provision for a standing army and/or the Founder's aversion to the same; seems to me this proposal is exactly the kind of unorganized citizen's militia they had in mind, 'specially since it's proposed at the state level.
There's already a federal law defining who is the unorganized militia, requiring they provide their own arms is a small step...

Not really saying I'm for or against it mind ya, seeing as how the bill has all the chances of survival as a runny snowball in hell...

Well, lemme see. As far as I can remember, the US Constitution says that the States run the militia. (US Constitution, Art I, sec 8 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) Federal law states that every adult male 17-45 is a member of the militia. (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt).

Therefore, since the State runs the unorganized militia, it could be viewed (at least in my mind) as an extension of law and therefore legal. Since it is a STATE law, I can see no reason it would run afoul of the Constitution in any way.

If people don't like the law, they can, as was discussed in the Federalist papers, move.

oneeyeross said:

If people don't like the law, they can, as was discussed in the Federalist papers, move.

Click to expand...

So, you force things on people who are citizens as well as you, and if they don't like it they should just move?

I think some folks need to step outside yourselves for a minute. This law would affect none of us since we all own guns. So it's real easy for us to say, "sure", because it isn't just another law we need to comply with. We're already in compliance.

But there are people who have rationally decided not to own a firearm for various reasons. What about folks who may not trust their temper or mental stability? Need they adjudicate themselves mentally unstable so as to avoid compliance with this law? Is it really sensible to create this situation?

Justifications aside -- how would any of you feel if the government forced you to buy something you never owned and saw no need for?

And what is the point of forcing people who don't want guns to buy them? What does that accomplish?

marshaul said:

So, you force things on people who are citizens as well as you, and if they don't like it they should just move?

I think some folks need to step outside yourselves for a minute. This law would affect none of us since we all own guns. So it's real easy for us to say, "sure", because it isn't just another law we need to comply with. We're already in compliance.

But there are people who have rationally decided not to own a firearm for various reasons. What about folks who may not trust their temper or mental stability? Need they adjudicate themselves mentally unstable so as to avoid compliance with this law? Is it really sensible to create this situation?

Justifications aside -- how would any of you feel if the government forced you to buy something you never owned and saw no need for?

And what is the point of forcing people who don't want guns to buy them? What does that accomplish?

Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed how todays society is increasingly dependent on "Government"? What people did for themselves and accomplished as a community in past years are now expected of the Government.

Need protection, call the cops.
Need a job, ask the government.
Can't find a job, demand unemployment comp.
Need a house, have the government subsidize one for you.

Country needs recruits for the military, not me, it'll interfere with my life.

This country has a long history of armed citizens rising to the need but for some reason more and more are willing to "let the other guy do it".

This law, if passed, will have the same effect as the one in Kennesaw, GA. It will make headlines and then fade into the background. Anyone ever check to see if there were "violators" that didn't obtain firearms there?

There is a contradiction in your statement, people doing for themselves but then the state requiring them to do something. Tyranny is tyranny whether it tyranny agreeable to you or not. You really want to force people who detest firearms, would never use them, be more of a danger to themselves and others because of their ignorance to possess them? But yes I agree we should not have to pay for their illusion of safety,because they refuse to take their own safety as a personal responsibility. Maybe the law should read you are not allowed to call the police if you don't own a fire arm.....:lol:

I am all for people arming themselves, doing for themselves but I am against mandating you must do anything. A volunteer army is the only proper army. Like has been brought out it would be better to give tax incentives.

Let's not forget that even SD isn't taking this law seriously, it is drafted to show the ridiculousness of the Federal healthcare bill.

While I agree that "forcing" someone to do something is not a good choice, I was merely pointing out that the law could, in fact, be held to be Constitutional.

And moving from State to State is exactly what the originators of the Constitution thought citizens should do if they were unhappy with the governing of the State where they lived and that government was unresponsive. While it seems harsh from the our current position, it was understood by those in the 18th Century to be a reasonable response to a bad government.

On the subject of Obamacare, here is an example of what Madison thought should happen, from the Federalist Papers #46: "On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."

oneeyeross said:

On the subject of Obamacare, here is an example of what Madison thought should happen, from the Federalist Papers #46: "On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."

Click to expand...

Them Founders sure didn't like periods did they? Was there a national shortage or something? Printers charge extra for 'em maybe? Yeesh

sudden valley gunner said:

You really want to force people who detest firearms, would never use them, be more of a danger to themselves and others because of their ignorance to possess them?

Click to expand...

YES DAMMIT! Lets see how THEY like it for a while!

sudden valley gunner said:

I am all for people arming themselves, doing for themselves but I am against mandating you must do anything. A volunteer army is the only proper army. Like has been brought out it would be better to give tax incentives.

Click to expand...

C'mon do you really wanna go ADDING anything to the current tax code that is measured not in pages but in POUNDS?

Metalhead47 said:

C'mon do you really wanna go ADDING anything to the current tax code that is measured not in pages but in POUNDS?

Click to expand...

Adding to the criminal code is better, then?

marshaul said:

Adding to the criminal code is better, then?

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Let's not forget that even SD isn't taking this law seriously, it is drafted to show the ridiculousness of the Federal healthcare bill.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that stuff always bugs me. Look at how many people are defending this law on its own merits, not merely as an amusing way of making a point.

marshaul said:

Yeah, but that stuff always bugs me. Look at how many people are defending this law on its own merits, not merely as an amusing way of making a point.

Click to expand...

It's what bugs me about the fake right as much as the fake left those choices really are about who do you want controlling your ideals and nothing really to do with liberty.

Metalhead47 said:

Them Founders sure didn't like periods did they? Was there a national shortage or something? Printers charge extra for 'em maybe? Yeesh

Click to expand...

They probably used them but the document restoration people probably mistook them for fly crap and removed them.

If you read a lot of the writing from that period of time, the syntax is consistent with other period pieces. Review Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Storey et al for other examples of pieces written during that time that tend to use longer sentences in their writing to ensure that the subject matter was completely covered and the though process would flow from one aspect of their discourse to the next fluidly. (Yes, that sentence was intentional, but I do tend to write that way myself, oft times, probably as the the result of reading so much of it).