South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Individual Mandate To Require Gun Ownership

We have the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms and Defend Ourselves - 2nd Amendment

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is a right not a privilege, just like you have the right to live and breath.

Right to Bear Arms is an unalienable right; it cannot be given to someone by someone else, they already have it at birth, and thus, it cannot be taken away no matter how good the reason seems to be.

"Do not punish or deny the rights of the masses for the sins of the few"

This applies to any and all rights and privileges stated in the Constitution of the United States.

The Second Amendment is one of our most cherished. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps government subservient to its citizenry. Without the right to bear arms, we would have anarchy in the streets, the criminals would still have guns, and violent crime would escalate.

Thomas Paine:
"Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."
We plan on exercising these rights to the fullest extent of the Constitutional Law.

Our society today is brainwashed that when some people abuse their constitutional rights we must punish all of society and revoke that right and privilege.

When some one uses a weapon, any weapon, gun, knife, pick, ax, saw, car, etc. they get prosecuted, when convicted, they are sentenced not all the people of the country.

Abuse by some people has been going on since creation and will continue till the end of time. We must control and punish the abusers, not the whole society.

Case and point is the punishment society is taking today due to terrorism. Since governments are helpless to fight and control terrorism they punish the masses in the name of safety and cause extreme economic hardship and the loss of our constitutional liberties.

There are Nations that under their Laws citizens are permitted to posses firearms. Check out some of those countries. Crime rate has not increased. Abuses happen, the abusers are punished and not the rest of society.

It is a known historical fact that the Criminal will always find a way to get a weapon.

Restricting the average citizen from having a weapon to protect himself and his family, leaves the door open to the criminal to violate those citizens, due to the knowledge that the average citizen has no weapon and cannot protect himself and his family.

A weapon is a tool like any other tool and should be used properly.

A knife, pick, ax, saw, car, etc. is also a tool that must be used properly. It is not outlawed, is it?

A car in today's society is an absolute must. Do the citizens of this country know how many people are killed and injured by automobiles every year, it amounts to thousands, which is much less than with guns.

And to those who would say this was but a "temporary violation" for the greater good, Ben Franklin admonishes;

"THOSE WHO WOULD GIVE UP LIBERTIES TO OBTAIN FREEDOM DESERVE NEITHER.

Folks, we live in dangerous times, a government that does not trust its citizens to bear arms, is a government not to be trusted by its citizens.

As the threat to all of our liberties continue basically unabated, remember the words of the great political philosopher Edmund Burke; "The only way for evil men to prosper is for good men to do nothing."

The right to keep and bear arms should be of great importance to all Americans, if we are to remain a free country we MUST NOT let this right be taken from us
Remember, freedom isn't free. God Bless you, and God, please bless the United States of America.

By: YJ Draiman, Northridge, CA

PS
The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case at the end of its term in June, 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a close 5-4 decision, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable.
Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
Tuesday, June 29, 2010;
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Syllabus
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.
The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.
The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

I wonder why I can't rate this story +^?

This is humorous to me.

Let the Loughnering Begin!

I love that their idea wasn't to create a better health law, but to mock the current health law with a mandatory gun owning law?.... "I can drive a car just fine without your help, see watch me!" *steps into speedboat* -But that's a boat not a car!- "WHO CARES IT'S PRACTICALLY THE SAME THING!"

Wow didn't know republicans had a sense of humor...

Although another funny thing is they might actually be serious...

Wow, Lawmakers are bringing up legislation that they themselves do not believe in. What a mockery of our Legislative Branches.

It must be a constant paradox, trying to establish the concept of equality in a politically conservative brain. Mandatory gun owner ship would violate religious freedoms and the second amendment at the same time. This is the argument of people who are supposedly the defenders of a fundamentalist interpretation of the constitution?

Maybe then they'd all just shoot each other and speed up natural selection.

Citizens of the United States of Improved America

Everyone must receive their Emotional Regression Inoculation by age 2
Everyone must be a reproductive citizen
Everyone must be a productive citizen
Everyone must be an organ donor
Everyone must retire by 95 years of age
Everyone must exit life by 105 years of age

***********Resistance Is Futile***************************

why don't they just give out free guns? I'd move there right away

Sounds fair enough.

Ignoring the reasons behind this proposal the city of Kennesaw, Georgia has a similar law. Since 1982 they've maintained a city ordinance requiring every head of household to own a firearm and ammunition. Of course they don't enforce that ordinance but all the same its pretty out there.

This is funny. I like the point they're making. The federal government shouldn't be allowed to force anyone to purchase something. Guns, health insurance, rabies shots, etc.

But here's the thing about the Health Care Reform Act I don't get.
Why can't they just write an Amendment to the thing blocking that part of the law.
Do they know they can do that, or are they just idiots?

I mean, do I really have to make an appointment to go to Capital Hill, just to point out that they are law makers, and that they can amend laws already in existence, or nullify certain portions, even make changes as time goes on.
Maybe if I wear my clown suit, I can get them to pay attention.
I'll use charts so the Republicans will understand what I'm saying.
They excel at charts. LOL

False equivalency and totally different issue.

More Republican PR bullshit. They have no substance, they can't deliver anything, so they spend their time whining to get media attention in the hopes that it will get Obama out of office in two years.

I can see mandating insurance be it car or health when it effects us all for those uninsured, but this is most definitely is against the constitution!

A law that forces me to own a gun? Don't I have freedom anymore? The government has no right to tell me what I can do with my life.
[/satiredepictinghypocrisy]

It would require people to OWN a firearm, not carrry it around wherever they go. Most people would probably keep it at home, and that could significantly deter crime. At least in comparison to if the same amount of money used to buy all those extra guns, was spent on more police.
I'm against the law because I don't believe anyone, esspecially governments, have the right to make me do or buy anything, but it's still not entirely a bad idea.

what if they have dilemma.....and you just open door

If they think that Eric Holder will not challenge legislation like this they must be retarded. The second amendment makes NO refrence to manatory ownership of guns. That would violate every moral and ethical standard a civilized country stands for. This is sponsered by the NRA not directly but through its members who are in the legislature. Even the conservative Supreme Court would not agree with this

if that law passes I might just move.

I am literally laughing so hard I'm crying. Oh my God, I hope this passes! Population control and better stories on the evening news all in one!

This whole debate is ridiculous. Conservatives, by necessity, are not intellectually honest people, so I have nothing to say to them, but for normal people interested in the debate, the key point is this: no one is being forced to buy anything. Those who forgo insurance will simply be charged a higher tax rate. Effectively what's going on is that taxes were raised but those who get insurance get a tax break. It's conceptually identical but actually more fair than the systems that charge you for Medicare and Social Security whether you want them or not.

That would be illegal since not everyone at one time buys a gun.

Health care on the other hand is something that you need when your born and to get vaccines for school and eventually you need it when your old.

that's brilliant.
i want EVERYONE to have a gun, even they don't have the composure to use it safely when under duress or are asshole-mentality jerks with a charles bronson trigger fingers. it's a GREAT idea.

THIS SHOULD TOTALLY BECOME LAW. if we ALL have guns, we'd be 100% safe because no one would dare try anything... just in case, ya know, the person they're shooting because they looked at them sideways at a traffic light, or maybe didn't apologize for bumping into them, maybe that person is a sharp shooter, and that's just not worth the risk right, even if your gun is semi-automatic and you have a 30 round clip. people would totally show sensibility when carrying such powerful firearms.

too bad it's just symbolic, great symbolism though! even though people don't HAVE to buy insurance because the fine is about the cost of a deductable, so when someone DOES get sick, they can just get the insurance they need since their pre-existing condition won't be an issue-- even though vouchers and tax credits will make this like medicare for millions of americans-- even then, the government telling me i should have something to help me pay for costly medical services so i don't go bankrupt paying for an emergency room bill is TOTALLY socialism and I won't stand by while the government tries to make it possible for millions of americans are healthy!

guns for all, health insurance for only the rich!

Many will argue that health insurance mandate isn't the same as a car insurance mandate because one need not own a car. The thing to remember here is that people who are poor get free health insurance, so nobody is going to be on the streets because of this mandate (in fact, based on bankruptcy records many more would be in thier house if they had insurance before they got sick).

I say make a public option that anyone can join on the day it starts or until they turn 21. If you don't want to join, then you won't get any services until you pay upfront at the doctor/hospital with cash. This would accomplish the same thing, but make people feel they have an option. Plus, the dumb ones will be less likely to pass on thier stupid genes.

Another false equivalency from the right.

Thats not intrusive, why no!

witty. Universal coverage and universally armed would work for me.

What a bunch of hooey!

I'm forced to insure my CAR, but not my CHILDREN. I don't see people up in arms (yes...put intended) about that.