Sign in / up

back to article Republican reps push for mandatory gun ownership

Republican politicians in South Dakota have filed a bill that would require every citizen in the land-locked virtually empty state to buy a gun as of next year. The bill, put forward by Sioux Fall representative Hal Wick, would require every citizen over 21 to buy a firearm "suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      The Other Side of the Coin

      "I'm sure that if there was conclusive data that showed that the more guns there were the higher the gun-related death rate, people would be giving up their guns in no time...."

      Not necessarily. The flip side of the coin is the "utility" of guns -- how often they achieve their stated purposes (defense, hunting) compared to illegal purposes. The same is true of automobiles.

      Automobiles kill from 33,000 to 45,000 people every year in the United States. Should they be banned? Obviously, the more automobiles are owned, the more people are killed.

      But the *utility* of automobiles is compelling.

      Gary Kleck, as well as government agencies, have studied the flip side of the coin -- and while numbers vary somewhat, it is clear that guns DEFEND from crime as often as a million times per year. These situations don't usually get reported since, after all, the crime was averted.

      0 0
  2. Jim Oase

    To find out if we have a gun...

    If you want to see what kind of gun we're using to day, look in our pickup. If you stranded and needed get someplace, the key is in the ignition.

    Its called self reliance, its called integrity. Try it you will like it.

    2 1
    1. hplasm
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Up

      How handy!

      No need to actually *buy* a gun, then?

      0 0
  3. John F***ing Stepp

    I do carry two 1911a1 45s but still. . .

    This is a very bad idea.

    Not everyone out there is a candy ass nice guy like me.

    And think about it, do you really (without knowing how nice and cuddly I am) want me to be required to carry 20 pounds of guns and ammo?

    Probably not.

    2 0
  4. Evil Auditor Silver badge

    Good idea!

    Make it mandatory for all 'merkins to buy a weapon which is not suitable to their temperament or physical capacity and sufficient to provide for their ordinary mass destruction. And health care won't cost a dime in the near future. Mind you, such may e.g. also solve NHS funding problems.

    1 0
  5. doperative

    doesn't go far enough

    I want one of these ..

    http://tinyurl.com/Russian-Tank-For-Sale

    http://tanksforsale.co.uk/Surplus%20Russian%20BMP1%20APCs%20%20for%20sale.html

    0 0
  6. Arctic fox

    Ok then let us, by this gentleman's "logic", repeal all laws........

    .........we do not feel like obeying. There may be good arguments against "Obamacare" (objectively speaking although I have difficulty regarding the NHS as some kind of offense against human liberty) but this grandstanding crap is not one of them.

    5 1
    1. Will Leamon
      Reply Icon

      Obama Care not NHS

      Oh but I wish it was. Our version is everyone must buy from 'the market' of face a fine. It's ok for the Government to tax me and then DIRECTLY provide a service (e.g. police, fire, what have you) but to simply require something off the market just because I was born here is a bit rich. Tax us all and provide health care? That's something I would at least consider.

      This setup though is just a sop to big Pharma and a tax on healthy people. Nothing more.

      4 0
      1. Dr. Mouse
        Reply Icon

        Very similar...

        I believe many states in the US do the same, but in the UK it is mandatory to have insurance if you drive a vehicle on the road. I see no problem in this. I sometimes wince (especially recently) at the prices I am forced to pay, but in the end I agree with the reasoning behind the rules, and would prefer this system to having to take people to court to claim back the damage they cause to my vehicle (or me) by their carelessness.

        I know there is a difference. Nobody is forced to own a car, so you have a "choice" (although not much of one when the only other option would be 5 trains and 2 buses to get to work, taking approx 4 hours each way). But having a mandatory health insurance will not only lead to benefits to society (less people dying of curable illnesses just because they can't afford treatment), but should also lead to lower insurance premiums.

        I'm just glad I live in a country where I don't have to worry about this. The NHS has it's faults, but it's better than the alternatives (IMHO)

        2 0
        1. Will Leamon
          Reply Icon

          title

          There is no cheaper premium then no premium at all. And at today's prices it is insane for a relatively healthy person aged 20 - 40 to pay high premiums for health insurance they will barely use.

          The ability to chose (no matter how limited by buses and trains) is important and worth protecting in my mind. As I said before if they want to tax me and then provide a direct service that's a whole other issue. In fact I've always maintained that if the Government requires car insurance they should be the ones to provide it. Make it a part of the sale of the car. That way we don't all have to carry 'uninsured motorist' riders on our car insurance.

          From a Social Security point of view I would also like to know how 'less people dying of curable illnesses just because they can't afford treatment' is that much of a benefit. Especially when some of those 'diseases' are things like smoking (which I indulge in) and other avoidable ailments.

          P.S. All 50 states require basic insurance on cars. Most also have a car tax every year as well.

          0 0
          1. Michael 34
            Reply Icon

            NOT

            "P.S. All 50 states require basic insurance on cars. Most also have a car tax every year as well."

            Incorrect. All states require some form of financial responsibility as a prerequisite to operating a motor vehicle on government roads.

            TWO important distinctions here: you are operating on government roads -- if you don't, then you do not need financial responsibility -- if you do, you need financial responsibility which in some western states can be met with a bond of financial responsibility rather than "insurance".

            0 0
        2. Danny 6
          Reply Icon
          Thumb Down

          Not similar at all

          The idea behind requiring car owners to carry insurance is to cover damages you may do to someone else (liability). I doubt there's a government requirement to purchase comprehensive insurance although your lender might.

          Since you are operating a private vehicle on a public road this makes sense and at least in the US is constitutionally allowed. You aren't obligated by law to purchase a private automobile. Here in the US vehicles that aren't operated on public highways (farm trucks for example) are not required to be covered by liability insurance. Commercial and public vehicles must be insured by the OWNERS not the operators. Again, the point of requiring liability insurance is to ensure an owner's ability to meet financial responsibilities in the event his or her vehicle is at fault in a collision.

          In this case, the US government is requiring every citizen to purchase health insurance. Health insurance is designed to cover the policy holder in the event of injury or illness, not to guarantee everyone has access to health care. And, in fact, the bill as passed doesn't improve access one bit.

          1 0
      2. Arctic fox
        Reply Icon

        I should have phrased it a little differently as in.....

        ....I find it difficult to regard the NHS here in the UK, for example, as some kind of offence against human liberty.

        I was not saying the "Obamacare" is like the NHS although I was implicitly referring to the reaction of a particular section of the right-wing in the US who have made it quite clear that they regard ANY form of universal health regardless of how it is funded as communism/nazism all rolled into one.

        0 0
  7. Sven
    Thumb Up

    Roof mounted

    gatteling gun for me please.

    1 0
  8. craig chester
    Coat

    Proper Measurements please...

    Population of 800,000 that's just over 2 Bristol's worth. 77166 Sq Miles that's approximately 9.61 Wales's...

    Coat... Lost mine...

    0 0
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    Poor bullseyed ...

    appears to have attracted a lot of ridicule, but he does sort of make a point ...

    it's a fine line between the state passing laws which affect a person in the name of society, and the state passing laws which affect a person """"for their own good"""".

    3 4
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      It is for the good of society

      The mandate isn't for the good of the people who are forced to buy it, it's because without it you couldn't force the insurance companies to have maximum fees and not to reject applicants. If it's not mandatory, but there is a maximum fee and no-rejection provision, then people will wait until they feel sick before applying. Having a maximum fee is the benefit; mandatory coverage is the cost.

      3 1
  10. Alex Walsh
    Thumb Down

    Hmmm

    It makes sense I suppose since every time someone massacres a bunch of innocents in the USA, the gun lobby jump around saying the disaster could have been averted if more people had been carrying guns in the vicinity so they could have shot the bloke part way into his rampage.

    Of course this ignores the chaos that half a dozen people pulling guns and firing wildly would have on what would already be a chaotic situation but there you go...

    1 0
    1. Geoffrey W
      Reply Icon

      RE: Hmmm

      I agree. And even worse if everyone has a gun.

      There were people with guns at the Arizona shooting, and there was a report (probably from that commie channel MSNBC) of there being one man with a gun who almost shot another man with a gun because he thought he was the original shooter. Someone held him back in time.

      This does strike me as a major flaw though. If everyone in a crowd has a gun and pulls it out then how does one figure out who is the bad guy if you didn't actually see who began it? You see someone shooting someone else so you shoot that guy. Someone else sees you shoot him and figures you must be the bad guy and shoots you. And on and on, before the police come along and shoot everyone, just to be safe.

      0 0
      1. Michael 34
        Reply Icon

        Good analogy for the 1800's

        "You see someone shooting someone else so you shoot that guy. Someone else sees you shoot him and figures you must be the bad guy and shoots you."

        I think you overstate the desire of everyone to actually carry a gun all the time. Having one at home to defend against rapists, burglars or other nefarious intruders is fairly common, actually having a gun all the time is NOT common.

        0 0
  11. Alicia

    How about...

    Well, how about somebody has a look at if there's a correlation between overcrowding and a desire to kill your neighbour? They say that in murder cases the most likely suspect is the spouse and that could be as a result of proximity.

    If it turns out that crowded places are more likely to have murders and places with guns are more likely to have gun related crime than the govt. can issue a law that declares every individual *must* live a set amount of distance from any other individual.

    1 0
    1. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Reasonable assumption

      "Well, how about somebody has a look at if there's a correlation between overcrowding and a desire to kill your neighbour?"

      Probably. The only clear example I know is Iceland, where violent crime exists pretty much solely in the one and only area of high housing density, a high-rise apartment project east of Reyjkavik.

      But even there it isn't strictly *density* but Malthusian scarcity of resource. WHY do people live in high-density circumstances? There you will find your answer to peace in Washington DC and peace in Africa.

      More people exist than resources exist to feed them. That is the whole answer in a nutshell. The murder capital of America happens also to be the welfare capital of America (so far as I know) -- Southeast Washington DC.

      DC gets a bad rap; it is the southeastern quadrant that is really bad. This is where many years ago several tens of thousands of black war veterans came and camped, denied benefits that had been promised to them and they promised to stay until they got the benefits promised. Well, they're still there, and probably still waiting for those benefits.

      Employment is almost non-existent in the entire quadrant. It is surrounded by the "beltway" which forms a convenient barrier. Google "crime in Prince Georges County" which is immediately adjacent and partly inside the same quadrant.

      The people aren't "bad" there, most of them anyway, but they have no place to go. A single mother on welfare is in a lucrative economic position; she'd have to land a $3,000 per month job just to match the welfare benefits and that was 15 years ago.

      So the economic input is welfare money -- and that means "parasites" exist. Gangs. Most of the violence is gang versus gang, doing what Thomas Malthus predicts for all nations some day.

      0 0
  12. Annihilator
    Unhappy

    Deliberate irony?

    Can't tell if it's being deliberately ironic and he was looking to introduce a bill that was the exact opposite? "Your bill will improve people's health, well mine will drastically reduce people's health - booya!"

    I can't imagine bar fights, drunken nights etc when everyone was locked and loaded..

    1 0
    1. Jaap stoel
      Reply Icon

      I can

      They'd be a lot shorter, louder and always require an ambulance or a hearse.

      0 0
    2. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Think 1800's

      "I can't imagine bar fights, drunken nights etc when everyone was locked and loaded.."

      People tended to be more polite, actually.

      Do you have any idea what is meant by "locked and loaded"? How can you POSSIBLY load your gun, if you have just locked it?

      I know, but I see this phrase often from people that couldn't tell a gun from a cigarette lighter.

      It comes from the M1 Garand rifle. You load the magazine from the TOP of the receiver, down past the bolt. So, you lock the bolt back, push the magazine down, and when the magazine hits bottom it unlocks the bolt automatically and will take your thumbnail off if you are not quick enough with your hand. It dang near took a piece of my thumb.

      0 0
  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is a big difference here

    The US Constitution in the 10th Amendment limits the powers of the federal government to only those powers listed in the Constitution, all other powers are reserved for the states and the people. No where does it say that the federal government has the power to force people to buy anything. Since that power is reserved for the states, this law might be federally constitutional. It may go against the state's constitution, but I don't think it goes against the federal constitution.

    1 2
  14. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    It's only time...

    The US economy is going down the pan -- too much spending on foreign murder (sorry, national interest). With debt levels where they are devaluation is the only way -- and the Chinese are not going to allow that (as they own all the debt).

    So 30-40 years from now there's going to be a lot more impoverishment; and a growing clamour for more Socialist policies. So these idiots who only give a damn for themselves, and have no time for their 'social responsibility,' are going to be shouting more and more.

    I wake up every morning rejoicing that I'm not an American.

    A grenade, because it is the American way.

    2 1
    1. Ty Cobb
      Reply Icon
      WTF?

      Thank you.

      I for one will now wake up every morning rejoicing you are also not an American.

      You might not have noticied, although both of our countries have our issues it seems Brits are more inclined to bash Americans than the reverse. Do what you think is right for you and your country, and rest assured we will be doing the same.

      And no, a grenade is not the American way. A difference of opinion is.

      1 0
    2. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Not a grenade

      "A grenade, because it is the American way."

      Not really. The American Way is probably a Clint Eastwood .44 Magnum, or a John Wayne six-shooter, or a Sharps rifle.

      You identify your enemy and engage your enemy and only your enemy. If you have no enemies, you can go shoot dinner with the same weapon.

      I suppose you could grenade a lake and scoop up dead fish.

      "So 30-40 years from now there's going to be a lot more impoverishment; and a growing clamour for more Socialist policies."

      Yes indeed, and at some point it is like a losing hand in Monopoly -- doom. Not enough people working for those that are not. At that point it will snowball very rapidly to total collapse.

      At which point the survivors will be the ones with guns.

      0 0
  15. SirTainleyBarking
    Grenade

    Can we have that law over here please?

    The neighbours cat keeps crapping on my lawn.

    Oh and can I put a reservation on a 0.5 caliber Desert Eagle as well?

    In Chrome naturally

    0 0
    1. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Why a reservation?

      "Oh and can I put a reservation on a 0.5 caliber Desert Eagle as well?"

      Why do you need a reservation?

      0 0
  16. s. pam Silver badge
    Alert

    Team America, Fuck Yeah!

    We got G*D, Guns, Guts and John Wayne.

    Oh, the King's dead

    We got Guns!!

    Kill Baby KIll, oh that's not what a gun does, that's what a humanoid do!

    0 2
    1. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Exactly right.

      "Kill Baby KIll, oh that's not what a gun does, that's what a humanoid do!"

      I've had a military career, and never once has a gun killed all by itself. I have held them in my hands; and still never once has any that I have held killed a person. I did kill a bird once; I am an excellent marksman, and I sort of regret killing the bird because I did not need to.

      0 0
  17. PershingDriver
    Coat

    Gun ownership already mandatory...

    ...unless of course you trust your government.

    Mines the one with the M1 Garand over the shoulder.

    4 0
  18. W. Keith Wingate
    FAIL

    Moral equivalence? I don't see it.

    So passing a law which requires you to chip in to keep people healthy is constitutionally equivalent to being required to own WMD's?

    Each of the three US States in which I've lived already required me to buy car insurance to legally drive, many different types of insurance to get a government insured mortgage, etc.

    I love how the first things the US marines do when occupying a third world country is round up all the weapons, but doing the same in Tuscon, AZ somehow violates the NRA's corrupted interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    The reason you can't correlate crime statistics is because the jurisdictions are too small. In Chicago gun ownership was tightly controlled but any gang banger within 45 min. of the Indiana border (e.g. anywhere in Chicago) should have no problem stocking up on cop-killer weapons and ammo.

    A better comparison would be say, Washington DC w/ Toronto, ON. Look it up!

    0 0
    1. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Legally use government hospitals

      "Each of the three US States in which I've lived already required me to buy car insurance to legally drive,"

      So, choose not to drive and see if you still are required to have "insurance".

      I expect the government will require you to pay for government hospital care.

      But that is not on the table.

      0 0
  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nobody steals our chicks...and lives.

    Duke Nukem lives in South Dakota.

    0 0
  20. Ubuntu Is a Better Slide Rule
    Megaphone

    Also Mandate Ownership of Kilowatt-class HF Radios

    ..in case you need to defend your right to communicate. And jam the air force radios in case they abuse their RC135s and Guardrails to geolocate "homegrown communication terrorists spreading terrorist messages".

    0 0
  21. Stuart Duel
    FAIL

    Riiiiight....

    Because the U.S. health care system is so great for people WITHOUT any health insurance.

    1 0
    1. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Yes

      "Because the U.S. health care system is so great for people WITHOUT any health insurance."

      It is that, exactly.

      0 0
  22. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    I see some classic fallacies here.

    For starters, I see several arguments here along the lines of "The government takes (tax/fees/money/whatever) under circumstances A, and then does B, and therefore must have the power to take under circumstances C, and then do D", or even worse "and therefore has the power to compel action E"

    This applies particularly to the 1798 Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, but there are several other examples strewn about.

    It's sloppy thinking, not to mention that it's not how it works.

    Furthermore, the Republican politicians who made the analogy to the Obamacare individual mandate provision were also sloppy thinkers, for a different reason.

    The federal Constitution grants the fedGov only enumerated powers for express purposes. Ironically, you could plausibly find federal power to require gun ownership in the power to organize the Militia, which has nothing to do with the claimed basis of authority for the Obamacare individual mandate, which is based on the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause whose roots are found in a 1941 case.

    State Constitutions and legislation are a different matter entirely, as each state has a different set of restraints placed on it.

    1 0
    1. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Once was exactly the case

      "Ironically, you could plausibly find federal power to require gun ownership in the power to organize the Militia,"

      This was actually law and might still be. Militia of the United States is all males 18-45 and at one time, and maybe still, were required to present themselves on demand already possessing military style rifles.

      0 0
  23. BarkingMad

    More like the Swiss

    Now that I am back in the States after two and a half years in Switzerland I am glad to see we are becoming more and more like the Swiss. For the first time in years I am proud to be an American.

    0 0
    1. tony trolle
      Reply Icon

      yep Swiss gun law

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

      0 0
    2. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      That happens a lot after international travel

      "For the first time in years I am proud to be an American."

      I always was, but after some international travel I appreciated more why it was so.

      0 0
  24. Stuart Duel
    Megaphone

    Those Yanks are an odd lot

    In Australia we have a public, universal, end-to-end health care system. It works very well. It's a large part of Government budgets but easily affordable for the country and cheap when compared to the economic damage of not having such a system in place. It's not economically healthy to allow your population to live in otherwise treatable sickness or with debilitating injury.

    Our Medicare levy funds the scheme that gives Australian residents access to health care. A levy surcharge may apply to high income earners who don't have private patient hospital cover but even that is modest, kicking in after AU $73K (NB. currently = $73K US).

    On a combined income of AU $110K with my partner, we pay a total of AU $780 for access to first class, advanced health care including every hospital specialty from birth to death. We also have universal access to subsidised pharmaceuticals with health care card holders (unemployed, most tertiary students, low income families, pensioners) paying just a nominal amount for any covered drug, which is virtually anything and everything available.

    I'm on a combination of drugs that keeps me alive, healthy and economically productive. I couldn't possibly afford it if I had to pay the "retail" price; my health would fail and I could look forward to a long, debilitating death which would leave me reliant on government welfare.

    There is no such thing as "we can't afford this drug to keep you alive or free of suffering" in Australia. This includes drugs for very rare conditions which normally cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

    Visits to doctors and many specialist services are also subsidised requiring in most part a modest fee of about $30. We don't pay for optometrists visits either. The only thing not really covered for most people in dental. But once again, health care card holders get subsidised access.

    I live in a country that believes it's the role of government to ensure we have a healthy productive population which is most cost effectively delivered by government. This is a society that firmly believes some things in society, such as health care and education, should be free of the profit motive, providing universal access to low or no cost and high quality system.

    Access to health care is a benchmark of a civilised society.

    0 0
    1. MJI Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Sounds quite good

      I am another person who is going to say I am glad we have the NHS.

      0 0
    2. mraak
      Reply Icon

      PM

      I heard that Ausie PM went for treatment to USA

      0 0
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      No Odd Just Generally Ignorant and Stupid

      One of the difficulties I face living here in the US is finding people to have decent conversations with. If they are not talking about Angelina Jolie or some Hollywood star or the latest reality show they are really an ignorant non thinking lot.

      Its hard to explain to anyone who is not from here. This is a population of people who do not and cannot think and are generally averse to anything that demands that they do some thinking.

      My wife listens to a lot of political debates and she just keep repeating that the politicians cannot be that stupid when they toe the general republican lines. I tell her the republican politicians are generally not stupid but they think that their base is a set of morons. And in that sense they are right . . .

      So understand this ... it is not about reason... reason is for people with some intelligence . . . It is just about what is right . . . all about ideology ... if you reason and have some intelligence you are an educated elitist and something is wrong with education and intelligence . . .

      What I said would offend me deeply a few years back if I hear anyone describe people this way but I am worn down. I am beginning to feel hopeless about our country and its people. Something really has to give . . .

      0 0
    4. Michael 34
      Reply Icon

      Try to export that to a much larger, more diverse nation

      "In Australia we have a public, universal, end-to-end health care system. It works very well."

      It works in Iceland, too; or at least it did until the government ran out of money.

      It does not work in the former Soviet Union, the inventor of socialised medicine. it will fail anywhere you have a small number of producers and a large number of consumers.

      1 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.