Bill Would Require All S.D. Residents to Buy a Gun

[H D]

 

[LaRue Medlin]

:supercool::supercool::supercool::supercool::supercool:

 

[Richard L]

I don't agree that citizens can be required to buy a gun...and I certainly would not want criminals to assume this is their opportunity to get a gun because the state ordered it.



I am more concerned with states or the Feds attempting to limit or restrict my right to own a gun if I so desire.



...Rich

 

[TrainTrac]

You're missing the real point of this bill. :banghead: Read the entire article.

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.

 

[Richard L]

TrainTrac

I read the article and the similarity to Obama's manditory HealthCare. I don't think Rep. Hal Wick gets any points for his assinine bill. I would think that lawmakers should spend their time making legitimate, usefull bills that will benifit constituants rather than sponsoring bills that he knows will be killed. If I lived in Rep Wick's district in Sioux Falls, he surely would not get my vote, and should probably have a recall vote to see if he should even remain in office.



...Rich

 

[Mike Dziubina]

 

[Robert Caffyn]

The point is, that if the Federal government can mandate something to all the people, where will it end? It could come to the day, when all will be required to posses firearms, during a time of civic unrest or something where we have to defend ourselves. They could mandate all big three car manufacturers unite into one company and call it United Motors. The socialist attitude that seems to be rearing its ugly head is evident by the goings on in Congress. We'll see, Bob

 

[Steve McKellop]

I would think that lawmakers should spend their time making legitimate, usefull bills that will benifit constituants

:yawn:



Well you'll spend a good part of the day finding a politician that has that agenda. Themselves and their biggest bankrollers are who most of them work for.:yawn:

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

Everyone is up in arms about government run this or that- until they need Medicare or get a letter from the IRS...

 

[H D]

Why would anyone be happy to get a letter from the IRS?

 

[Richard L]

Bob C.

We are not talking about the Federal Governement here, we are dealing with a state law limited only to SD and when I checked last, there was no Civil war in South Dakota, so there is no need for every citizen to be armed. It's a totally bogus bill that is only wasting time that could be spent on legitimate legislation that is of some benefit to someone. And yes the Federal and State governments have the authority to make certain things manditory for all citizens. Like manditory car insurance. Manditory drivers licenses, Manditory sales taxes, Manditory State income taxes, etc.



It is no different than the Republican Congress sponsoring a bill to overturn Obama's Health Care. It has to go through Senate and ultimately be signed by the President...which we all know won't happen. He will simply veto it and the Republicans know it. It's all part of the political games that both Democrats and Republicans play why they all talk about non-partisan politics. Ya, Right!



Lasik1

I don't think it as much of a need for Medicare, as it is being shoved down our throats. I am retired military and I am very happy with my Tricare Prime health insurance. However I will be 65 in May, and being forced to accept Medicare. I can keep a version of Tricare called Tricare for Life, but I have to pay $115 monthly premiums for Medicare part-B in order to get the Tricare For Life benefits.



I think most people who have Health Insurance would prefer to keep their existing plan even though they have been paying into Medicare all their working lives. However, when they turn 65 they will be dropped from their existing insurance and forced to use Medicare.



...Rich

 

[Roger Batts]

I understand the need for mandatory auto insurance. A car may seem like a necessity, but it is, in reality, a luxury. If you want the privilege to drive, you have to be licensed and insured. They are making it mandatory to have health insurance just to be alive in the US. That is what makes this law unconstitutional!

 

[H D]

Roger gets it!

 

[TrainTrac]

Like manditory car insurance. Manditory drivers licenses, Manditory sales taxes, Manditory State income taxes, etc.

Car insurance really can't be considered the same as taxes. First, car insurance is a good/service offered by a private entity, i.e. business. Taxes are a collected by gov't to provide for the function of that particular gov't entity. And insurance is only mandatory if you're going to drive a vehicle on a public road, just like it only needs a license plate if driven on public roads. Same goes for a driver's license. So the gov't basically tells people "If you want to drive your vehicle on our gov't owned/public roads, then said vehicle must be registered/insured, and you (the driver) must be licensed to drive the vehicle. If the vehicle remains on private property, then neither insurance or plates are mandatory. Same goes for a driver's license.



So the requirement for car insurance really isn't really the same as a mandatory health insurance requirement. If it is, then as Roger said above, the people are being required to buy health insurance (again, a good/service offered by a private entity, i.e. business) "just to be alive in the US". Really?



On the other hand, RichardL, I do agree with you completely on what you said above about Medicare, Tricare, and TFL. I retired from USN 4.5 years ago, and have had nothing but great experiences with Tricare for both me and my family. I'm 44 now, and am not looking forward to the decisions regarding Medicare and TFL in 21 years, especially since I have a special-needs son who'll be my Tricare dependent for the rest of his life. Hopefully, they'll come up with something better before then, but I doubt it.:angry:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Here it is, folks:



Driving = Priveledge



Living = Right



Government can and does put restrictions on our rights. For example, people can be sentenced to die and that has not been considered unconstitutional. People need to eat to live, and to live and to survive they need to work and earn money. That earning of money is taxed, and therefore there are restrictions placed on it. That one is a little more contrived, but I think it still holds true.



Driving is a priveledge, not a constitutional right. We don't have to drive. Regulations and restrictions related to driving therefore are not directly protected by the constitution.



We have the right to live. The mere act of living, and all that it entails and requires (breathing, eating, drinking) are seemingly protected freedoms, but there have been govt restrictions placed on them.



Is mandatory health coverage unconsititutional...I simply don't know. I can't immediately grab at any one ammendment or right that would make it so, but it doesn't sit right with me, nonetheless.



I do think that the analogy of driving and all the regulations against it are flawed, because as I said, driving is a priveledge...living is a protected right. But then, so is voting, and we have had several ammendments that have further defined that right (most all giving that right to more people over time).



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Oh, and one other thing...



Attempting to pass a bill which one thinks to be unconstitional as a form of protest against another bill that is believed to be unconstitional, to me, seems like a huge waste of time and taxpayer's money. It's like robbing banks to make the point that robbing banks hurts people.



I will vote out the SD congressman who proposed this law. Saw him on the news today, speaking. Seems like a real winner...not!



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR

So, is health insurance a "Right" or a "Priveledge". Based on the history of health care in the US, it would appear to be a "Privaledge" and not subject to a manditory requirement. Some states doe not require car insurance if you have enough money to put into a fund to pay for all claims against you.



I thing there are a lot of Rights and Priveledges that fall into this grey area, and the majority fall into the realm of money, finances, and economics. If health care is a right, then it would require that we have a socialized medicine system....but few people want that. If life is a right, what about food, which is necessary for life? What about Shelter also a requirement for life in most climates.



Since our forefathers said that all men have the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That can be stretched to include a lot things that would make me happy, and eliminate a lot of things that don't make me happy..like paying taxes to pay the salaries of idiot congressmen like the guy from SD.



It just seems to me that over the years, we have moved a lot or priveledges over to the Rights column when at best they are a convenience and neither a right or a priveledge.



...Rich

 

[TrainTrac]

is health insurance a "Right" or a "Priveledge". Based on the history of health care in the US, it would appear to be a "Privaledge" and not subject to a manditory requirement. Some states doe not require car insurance if you have enough money to put into a fund to pay for all claims against you.



I thing there are a lot of Rights and Priveledges that fall into this grey area, and the majority fall into the realm of money, finances, and economics. If health care is a right, then it would require that we have a socialized medicine system...

Doesn't seem very grey when you look at it quite simply: As long health care is offered privately and not by government, then it can be considered a product/good/service that is the private property of the individual/entity offering it for sale. So if health care is a right, then that's saying that we have a "right" to another individual's private property. So we have a "right" to a doctor's time? Don't think so. If so, then by golly I have a "right" to automotive care too!:cheeky:



Jefferson got it right in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence(paraphrasing):

all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Health care isn't required to live. Yes, it can make life better, and even extend life. But it's not a necessity to simply live.



On the other hand, private property rights are one of the very cornerstones upon which our Republic was founded. If we lose private property rights, then it's all over. Sadly, it's already happening little by little, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).:throwup:

 

[Bill V]

What's funny about the whole situation is that the whole reason for setting this system up this way was to be a compromise with the conservatives to move away from the tax-funded "single-payer" system. If they had simply stuck to their original plan, and made it a tax, it would have been fully constitutional. But by being willing to compromise, the Dems allowed it to become constitutionally questionable.



TJR, good points. Another one that can be thrown into that same discussion is Education. Right or Priviledge?

...idiot congressmen like the guy from SD.

Technically, your grammar is incorrect, as "idiot" and "guy from SD" is redundant. (Sorry, had to get a bit of border state humor in there...)

 

[Bill V]

Doesn't seem very grey when you look at it quite simply: As long health care is offered privately and not by government, then it can be considered a product/good/service that is the private property of the individual/entity offering it for sale. So if health care is a right, then that's saying that we have a "right" to another individual's private property. So we have a "right" to a doctor's time?

TrainTrac, that argument doesn't hold water. Someone can have a right, as a citizen of a country, to receive certain services. The fact that the services are provided by an individual or entity is irrelevant--by making that service a "right", the country has agreed to provide that service to its citizens, or to arrange for others (private individuals/entities) to be compensated for providing them. If health care is a right (and I'm not saying that it is--I'm just saying that "IF" it is, for the sake of this discussion), then the country establishing that right has agreed to provide that service, and/or to compensate private individuals/entities to provide that service.



So yes, in that situation, we do have a right to a doctor's time--and the doctor has a right to be compensated by the entity (the country) which establishes that health care is a right.