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 ...
After reading comments on this post and those on the original article, I'm beginning to suspect that you and I are the only ones that get the point and intent of the introduced legislation.
Do most people post comments based only on a headline or opening statement without reading the article? Sad really how many miss great points made by the use of satire and humor.
On the other hand, hard to fault them sometimes as the whole politcal process lately reads like something from the Onion!
Slavery.
How about compulsory euthanasia at 62? Save some big bucks. We'll it call it Social Security for the rest of us.
Mandatory national service in a militia is clearly constitutional, slavery or not. Of course slavery was constitutional at the founding. Nor has article 1 section 8 of the constitution been repealed. Learn some history.
enrollment.
That means those who signed up.
IF the law says I am entitled to a lawyer, and if I can’t afford one, they will give me one;
THEN if the constitution says I am entitled to a gun and can’t afford one, they should give me a gun.
That is the point these lawmakers are trying to make. They have plainly said as much.
Uhm, now you get the joke. That’s exactly why they did this.
But the difference is, states can impose mandates on their citizens - look at Romneycare.
| The law said "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." |
| Shall. Not may. |
If this is mandatory...is it tax deductable....?
I’m surprised at the number of FReepers who can’t seem to determine the difference between a State Government’s powers and those granted to the Federal Government.
That people who are known conservatives cannot make that distinction does not bode well for our Republic.
And the exceptions were few in number. If you would bother to learn some history, that is.
I guess that depends on how you define “enrollment” and how they defined “citizen” at the time. Couldn’t only white male property owners vote? I guess those people would be the ones who could volunteer.
Hey, how about just people who vote then? lol.
/sarc
No voluntary about it. Read. The. Law. “shall” not may.
The program was ran through the SDak Nat’l Guard - under the ‘well regulated militia’ portion of the code. I’m uncertain as to whether one had to be a Nat’l Guard member to buy the rifle or not.
But, at that point in time the going price was ~$500 and a person could allegedly get one sold “issued” to him for $125.
Stipulations were (word of mouth here - I could easily be wrong) that he gun was not for re-sale, and was supposed to remain ‘in-state’; as part of the well-regulated militia mission statement.
I do know that a lot of these rifles were used for hunting and varmet control.
I'm thinking that's the point they're trying to make.
Federal Individual Mandate = Unconstitutional.
State Individual Mandate = Covered by the 10th Amendment.
You need to go back and reread your Constitution. This is a State decision, not a Federal one.
You think it is bad here. I think I saw the original link on Drudge and you should have seen all of the comments of the readers of the Argus Leader. “They can’t do this, those right-wingers. I don’t want a gun.” It is probably a safe bet that they don’t know that their Dear Leader’s crowning piece of socialist legislation is going down the toilet.
Unfortunately, by trying to make that point, they’re undermining the Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment’s delegation of powers to the States.
It is a wonderful state in a lot of ways, no income tax, good gun laws and few regulations on the State level. That said, the winter here will “DRAW YOU UP” —LOL
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.