Wednesday, February 2, 2011

SOUTH DAKOTA: Republican Lawmaker Proposes Mandatory Gun Ownership

Read this short piece from then read what I think after.

South Dakota Tea Party-backed GOP state Rep. Hal Wick has proposed a bill that would require every adult in the state to by a gun "sufficient to provide for their personal self-defense."
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.” The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Wick's bill, of course, is meant to mock "Obamacare" as being as equally unconstitutional as mandating gun ownership. Over at Salon, however, Alex Pareene points out that there's nothing unconstitutional about a state requiring one to purchase a gun.
No one expects the bill to become a law, but these guys are just trying to make a point, and that point is that they don't even understand conservative talking points about the individual mandate. The argument against the individual mandate is that the federal government doesn't have the power to compel people to purchase private insurance. It is not about what states can and can't do. That's kind of the fundamental issue, actually. The role and powers of the federal government.

 I understand what Rep. Hal Wick is trying to do and why but I think he has a point.
I have never owned or carried a firearm. I know plenty of people who own guns and have shot a large variety of them. Thanks to my brother John, I have been schooled in safety
and maintain  sidearms.
I think every child from K-12 should have several classes each year on safety so  when they turn 21, they are required to carry some sort of sidearm.
Why should the bad guys be the ones with the guns? If every person was packing, no one would pull a gun. 
I believe there would be a decrease in crime when everyone knows that everyone else has firearms.
I hate to refer to a gun as a weapon because it is only a weapon when it is in the hands of the bad guy. It would even the playing field between us and the bad guy.
There will be some casualties at first. People who did not pay attention, drug users, drunks, and ass holes to name a few.
I figure if we can't get rid of them, then everybody should have one. For most of our history as a nation we all had a gun. A rifle was a tool for hunting, competition, protection from unwanted creatures, and bumps in the night.
The bad guys take the chance you may be armed but the odds are you are not so they have the advantage.  Take away the advantage and the odds change dramatically. Now they have to take the chance you don't know how to use it but education will fix that.
I know this sounds like a strange thing for me to say because I am all about compromise and warm fuzzy bunnys but I believe that knowing every person is armed and ready would force people to work out their differences and try harder to keep the peace rather than resort to violence.

No comments:

Post a Comment