Posted on 02/01/2011 9:40:23 AM PST by Fawn
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at community.history.com ...
Now that is what was intended by a ‘well regulated militia’.
Why can’t we be more like Switzerland?
isn’t that a little like trying to force people to buy insurance?
Militia Act of 1792 required all able-bodied adult male citizens to own a military rifle, ammo and equipment. It was constitutional because of the specific delegation of power in Article 1 Section 8.
This is kinda like Obamacare in reverse. :)
Isn’t that just like the federal government requiring us to buy health insurance?
Give them some motivation. Fire all the police
The state cannot force people to purchase an item from another entity.
Much as I hate to say so. I think it would do us all good if everyone were armed.
Just as obamacare is unconstitutional, this proposal is too.
If it were the Feds doing it, yes - the individual states are a different matter. Wonder how they would ever enforce it. I suspect that if you want a gun, you have a gun (except for me, who still doesn’t know what to buy).
No liberal should have a problem with this. After all, if they believe the government can compel people to buy health insurance, then surely it can compel people to buy guns too.
It’s satire. Tongue-and-cheek. A wink and a nod.
I don’t believe they can do this. It would be like the Healthcare Bill, forcing the people to buy something they don’t want.
|
Why in heck not?
They tried to use the law to force people to buy health insurance —something that gets no mention at all in the constitution, a fact that escaped the attention of a “ Constitutional Law Professor”.
Why not require this?
By comparison this is HUGELY reasonable.
Why in heck not?
They tried to use the law to force people to buy health insurance —something that gets no mention at all in the constitution, a fact that escaped the attention of a “ Constitutional Law Professor”.
Why not require this?
By comparison this is HUGELY reasonable.
Why in heck not?
They tried to use the law to force people to buy health insurance —something that gets no mention at all in the constitution, a fact that escaped the attention of a “ Constitutional Law Professor”.
Why not require this?
By comparison this is HUGELY reasonable.
you just KNEW the headline didn’t mean San Diego...
Just so....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.