South Dakota Bill would mandate owning a gun by Don Goins
(libertarian)
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
In a tongue in cheek move, state representative Hal Wick (R-Sioux Falls) has introduced a bill which would mandate citizens of South Dakota to purchase a firearm. While Wick doesn't expect the bill to pass, he is trying to make a point that if the federal government can mandate citizens to purchase health care insurance, why not a gun?
"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," Wick said.
That may not be the case. States have long enjoyed the privilege of requiring its citizens to purchase a private product. Every state in the Union requires folks who own an automobile to have private insurance. Massachusetts and Hawaii both have mandated health care coverage and those laws are still in effect. So why not a gun? Unless it conflicts with the Constitution, a state can mandate anything.
There are some stipulations to Wick's bill. A person must be over 21 years old and cannot be disqualified for some other reason (a convicted felon, for example). Why? If the federal mandate is to require that all citizens have access to affordable health care, then why not a gun? Since children and felons require health care they should also be required to carry a gun.
Of course, Mr. Wick is probably very politically savvy. It may not look to good on his future resume when video of a child dying of cancer because his father lost his job and can't get coverage is being arrested because he doesn't have his state mandated firearm next to his death-bed.
This is a sham and a disgrace. Millions of Americans of suffering because they lack affordable health care and that number is growing each year.
Shame on you, Mr. Wick for trying to make a joke while children are suffering.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 0
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Don Goins only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Don Goins is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
There is a BIG difference between mandated auto insurance and mandated health insurance.
Although I do not agree with mandated auto insurance and such mandate is a restriction on our freedoms, there is at least a basis for the mandate in the sense that you can still CHOSE whether you want to but a car or not. Therefore IF you voluntarily buy the car, you must also buy the auto insurance. So there is a condition to the mandate that you can CHOSE.
In the case of mandated health insurance the mandate is IF YOU EXIST, then it is mandated that you must buy health insurance. Unless you comit suicide which means you would relinquish ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS, you are forced to buy health insurance. So there is no choice other than suicide when it comes to buying health insurance.
Therefore mandated health insurance purchasing is worst for our individual freedoms than mandated auto insurance.
