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.
Because if you're a winger, the state of South Dakota requiring you to buy a gun for defense is the same thing as the federal government requiring you to purchase health insurance. It's not...but these are wingers. They know it's unconstitutional, but they can't discern the difference between firearms and health insurance and are purposely not doing so.
Only one problem...like Steve M. here I'm betting a large number of Tea Party folks think passing this bill and the notion that it's unconstitutional and will be ruled as such is a travesty and a stupid idea. I'm betting a whole lot of folks on the right think the federal government should require all Americans who are legally allowed to own a firearm to have one.
It's bad enough this is coming on the heels of Tuscon. But this entire thing is going to backfire on the wingers.
Posts
7 comments:
I cannot imagine how arming every young adult in the country who is able to buy an alcoholic beverage would come to a bad end.
Because if you're a winger, the state of South Dakota requiring you to buy a gun for defense is the same thing as the federal government requiring you to purchase health insurance. It's not...but these are wingers.
How is it not the same? If the Obamacare mandate is determined to be Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, why couldn't South Dakota's gun mandate be considered so? After all, there will be less crime (criminals don't like committing crimes against people who shoot back), which helps communities, business in the communities, which helps commerce. It could be considered necessary and proper.
It's bad enough this is coming on the heels of Tuscon.
What does this have to do with Tucson? The only ones trying to take advantage of what happened in Tucson are those who have an anti-gun agenda, putting their politics ahead of the rights of Americans.
Well, let me explain how this is not the same, in sharp relief.
One mandate is the purchase of a firearm, which has a very low likelihood of helping anyone, and a small but statistically significant chance of ending in tragedy.
The other one is the requirement to possess a minimal amount of health insurance in the case that they are not covered through other methods, or be subject to a fine. The odds of this contract blowing someone else's or your own, head off their shoulders is virtually nil. Maybe if you stuck it in your mouth and lit it on fire or something, but at that point, you were just asking for it.
Now, of course this was the compromise to the GOP and the insurance companies; hardly ideal from our point of view, but there were other aspects to the plan that we did like, and in the end it's better than what we had before. If this were to be struck down in favor of, say, a national plan which people would guaranteed coverage under like they have in so many other countries, then I think I could live with that.
But, it is not surprising that a GOP state legislator wants to challenge the law in a convoluted and outrageous way rather than maybe introducing a law that directly tries to adjust it on a state wide level. Because as the GOP gets weirder and weirder, it prefers just yelling at people rather than figuring out what they want. Got us into Iraq, didn't it; why stop now?
Can we also extend this logic to DOMA and make divorce illegal?
abanterer:
One mandate is the purchase of a firearm, which has a very low likelihood of helping anyone, and a small but statistically significant chance of ending in tragedy.
The other one is the requirement to possess a minimal amount of health insurance in the case that they are not covered through other methods, or be subject to a fine.
Those are political arguments, not legal ones. An individual has a right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) and a right to health care (9th Amendment) guaranteed by the Constitution. To make sure we exercise our right to health care, Congress is forcing us to buy health insurance acceptable to the government in order to exercise that right. Why couldn't Congress (or a state legislature) force us to buy guns to exercise our right to bear arms?
Because as the GOP gets weirder and weirder, it prefers just yelling at people rather than figuring out what they want.
You can't come back with legal arguments; instead you ignore those legal arguments, offer political arguments that aren't based on the law, or call us names. All to avoid the proper discussion. We're not weird.
Just because it is legal, does not mean it isn't also a really bad idea.
This law could be passed, and yes it would have the force of law if it did. There isn't a lot stopping it unless it gets overthrown for whatever reason by a court. I'm not debating that point - if it passed in the state that I live, I'd have to buy a gun. I'm not debating that the state could require me to face sanction if I failed to adhere to the law.
I am debating whether:
a) this is a good idea to start with - as I mentioned, having more guns around just makes it more likely some dude will do something stupid with a gun, including the subset of America which seems very pissed off and crazy at the same time.
b) this is an actual problem that needed to be solved - the last I checked, there were plenty of guns in this nation and just having everyone own one solves what crisis exactly? It happens to be legal to lick money now; does this mean a law requiring it would be a good idea? Do you want to debate the merits of the legality of this law?
c) this is worth anyone's time. This guy made a silly proposal solely to make some stupid point about the health care bill, as opposed to actually discussing how his state will work with that law. He knows it won't pass, you know it won't pass, I know it won't pass. He's not doing it to pass a law; he's doing it to make a lame political gesture for a week. He's also not doing anything with the health bill, so technically he's just wasting all our collective time.
And the reason I find the GOP weird is because they seem to think the proper discussion is to debate the merits of a law that has no chance of passing or being upheld if it did - it's the political equivalent of asking 'Who'd win in a fight, Ash Williams or John McClane?'
They did this for a year and a half while we were trying to debate the health care bill, by bringing up mythical conspiracies such as the dreaded 'death panels' and calling for secession if we passed health care reform. Seriously, 'weird' doesn't really do that justice.
abanterer:
Just because it is legal, does not mean it isn't also a really bad idea.
I agree.
I am debating whether:
a) this is a good idea to start with...
b) this is an actual problem that needed to be solved...
c) this is worth anyone's time. This guy made a silly proposal solely to make some stupid point about the health care bill, as opposed to actually discussing how his state will work with that law.
Sure it's worth the time. It's no sillier, or weirder, than Democrats running the state of Hawaii passing a law outlawing the sale of squirt guns (and other toy guns) to minors. SD is making a political statement on a point of law. It is definitely worth the time; if the health care mandate is considered Constitutional, what's to stop the government from further depriving us of our property (money) without due process to buy something politicians demand we should have?
You made a point that said just because something is legal doesn't make it a good idea. My point is that just because something is a good idea doesn't make it legal.
Post a Comment