Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

[MikeBjerum]

Anyone we know?

Someone's avatar 

[philw]

The same argument could be made against this that is being made against Obummercare, You can't require everyone to purchase something.  

Forcing people to buy a gun is just as bad as forcing people not to in a free society.

[Solus]

Forcing people to buy a gun is just as bad as forcing people not to in a free society.

While I agree forcing folks to buy a gun shouldn't be done, I have to point out that it is a bit better than prohibiting them from purchasing one.


1.  "For the common defense" might be one area where a government might make demands of citizens.

2.  While you are force to spend your money, you retain the value of your money in the gun you purchased as it remains your property, unlike forced payments to support welfare or Obamacare where you are being forced to give others the benefit of your money.

3.   While you are forced to buy the gun, you are not forced to use it for your defense or the defense of others, but you have the option to do so.  By being forbidden to purchase a gun, you are also denied the primary means of defending yourself and others.

[tombogan03884]

One thing that I overlooked. Several states on the East Coast never repealed their Colonial era "Militia laws" that required the ownership of a "firelock" and a set number of cartridges. It may be wrong for the Feds to mandate the purchase of something, but the precedent for the States to do so, specifically guns, predates the Constitution and was strengthened by the Kennasaw Ga. law requiring fire arms.

[DGF]

Well, I'm from SD and I thought everyone there already had a gun. The law should read : Everyone must buy another gun.

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

Well, I'm from SD and I thought everyone there already had a gun. The law should read : Everyone must buy another gun.

+100

Can we make that a federal thingy