Author Topic: Every South Dakotan required to buy a gun?  (Read 1857 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
Every South Dakotan required to buy a gun?
« on: February 07, 2011, 08:16:45 am »
If this fake bill passes, they would have to.

Quote from: Nomaan Merchant, Associated Press
S.D. gun mandate proposal joins other U.S. protest bills
PIERRE, S.D. — What's the best way to fight federal health care? Force every South Dakotan to have a gun.

That wasn't actually the idea behind a bill introduced last week by Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls. Wick proposed his bill, which would have required every state resident to buy a firearm for self-protection, to make a point about the federal health care overhaul.

Wick's argument: If the federal government can force people to buy health insurance, the state can force people to buy guns.

The idea took off. Several national media outlets called Wick. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh endorsed it. And it got plenty of attention inside the Capitol.

“I've had people ask me why I didn't ask them to sign onto the bill,” he said Friday, adding that he never intended for the bill to become law. “I was a little surprised by that, but I wasn't doing it with the idea that I was going to put everybody on the bill.”

Wick's bill joins several others introduced this year in protest.

One measure addressing health care would make it a felony for any government official to enforce the health care overhaul. Rep. Lora Hubbel, R-Sioux Falls, said she hoped her bill would send a message to Congress that the overhaul needs to be repealed.

“That's what I'm hoping will happen,” she said.

Hubbel's bill has not yet been heard in committee. Another measure that would have “nullified” the overhaul in South Dakota failed last month in a short House State Affairs Committee hearing. Members of that committee said they would be open to passing a resolution on health care without the binding force of legislation.

Rep. Manny Steele, R-Sioux Falls, introduced two bills dealing with illegal immigrants. One would prevent the children of illegal immigrants from receiving automatic U.S. citizenship. It's intended to encourage Congress to change the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born inside the United States.

“The ultimate goal is to change the 14th Amendment,” Steele said.

Sometimes, lawmakers will introduce bills with lighter goals in mind.

In 1999, one bill would have had prairie dogs renamed as “prairie rats.” A supporter said he was worried that federal officials would try to list prairie dogs as endangered. The bill failed in committee.

A decade earlier, lawmakers introduced a tongue-in-cheek bill that would have given 100 out-of-state residents the chance to each kill one goose on Pierre's Capitol Lake. The proposed cost for each hunter? $10,000. The bill would have let lawmakers build themselves a hunting lodge with the proceeds.

“I think you could call this a golden goose of legislation,” former Rep. Roger Porch said at the time. It didn't pass.

With the state now facing a deficit estimated at $127 million, taxpayers might question the cost of introducing bills that aren't designed to make actual changes to South Dakota law.

James Fry, the director of the state's Legislative Research Council, says there's no estimate on how much an average bill costs to introduce, research and debate. Some bills take just one page and require little new research. Others can take up dozens of pages and several hours of staff time.

Asked if his office ever dissuades lawmakers from introducing a “protest bill,” Fry replied, “Not that we'd admit.”

“We do what we're asked and told to do,” he said. “That's a very, very fine line, and we are very careful not to cross that. After all, they are the elected officials.”

Wick said any costs incurred by the gun mandate proposal, which he wouldn't have voted for on the House floor, don't compare to the eventual costs of the federal health care overhaul. The publicity from the gun mandate proposal will eventually help pass a resolution pushing for the health care law's repeal, he said.

“It's certainly not a waste of time to try and get something reversed that will cost the taxpayers of South Dakota as much as that (health care) bill will,” Wick said.

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5617
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus
Re: Every South Dakotan required to buy a gun?
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2011, 10:55:24 am »
If only these representatives would stop being so partisan.  It seems this whole health care thing is simply partisan because one party doesnt want the other party to "win".  How about what is best for the people?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 10:56:49 am by pmp6nl »

Offline Toaster

  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 510
  • Karma: -102
  • Gender: Male
Re: Every South Dakotan required to buy a gun?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2011, 11:32:36 am »
This is redundant anyway. As if all South Dakota residents don't already own guns.
Just try and step to UND Cycling if you wanna test your luck.

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5617
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus
Re: Every South Dakotan required to buy a gun?
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2011, 11:43:11 am »
This is redundant anyway. As if all South Dakota residents don't already own guns.



With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Name: Email:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 5 plus 5?:
What is 18 minus 7?:
What is UND's new athletic nickname?: