• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

Just because you believe it, that does not make it true.

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

The press swings at every pitch, we don’t have to.

There are no moderate republicans – only extremists and cowards.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. ~Thomas Jefferson

SCOTUS: It’s not “bribery” unless it comes from the Bribery region of France. Otherwise, it’s merely “sparkling malfeasance”.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

She burned that motherfucker down, and I am so here for it. Thank you, Caroline Kennedy.

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Not all heroes wear capes.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Crazier and Crazier

Crazier and Crazier

by John Cole|  February 1, 201110:39 am| 132 Comments

This post is in: Assholes, Teabagger Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Apparently, a new reading of the Second Amendment in South Dakota requires you to own a firearm, even if you don’t want one:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary 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.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

I’m not sure how exactly that proves his point, but I’m not a wingnut, so wingnut logic doesn’t work on me.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Abortion=Slavery meme debunked
Next Post: Call It Like You See It »

Reader Interactions

132Comments

  1. 1.

    wobblybits

    February 1, 2011 at 10:41 am

    I give up, I just don’t understand people anymore.

  2. 2.

    Egypt Steve

    February 1, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Sounds like an unconstitutional individual mandate.

  3. 3.

    Dan

    February 1, 2011 at 10:42 am

    So. The government CAN’T force you to buy health insurance, but it CAN force you to buy a weapon. OK.

  4. 4.

    Fargus

    February 1, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Can someone explain to me how I can provide for the self defense of others?

  5. 5.

    New Yorker

    February 1, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Fine. I’ll buy a BB Gun on eBay for $5. Then can I have my healthcare reform?

  6. 6.

    iLarynx

    February 1, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Um, isn’t this where the “America is #1 when it comes to our firearms distribution system. We don’t need government interference mucking it all up” argument comes in?

    Firearm ownership is already mandatory for homeowners in Kennesaw, GA.

    USA! USA! USA!

  7. 7.

    Dennis SGMM

    February 1, 2011 at 10:45 am

    So if you’re blind do you just buy a shotgun?

  8. 8.

    Penon

    February 1, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Don’t you see? They’re making a point. Clever.

  9. 9.

    Dan

    February 1, 2011 at 10:46 am

    nunchuks?

  10. 10.

    gypsy howell

    February 1, 2011 at 10:47 am

    The jerkoffs at the NRA will pressure them to pass it. Will they require everyone to buy bullets too?

  11. 11.

    Steve

    February 1, 2011 at 10:47 am

    The constitutionality of a state health care mandate is unaffected by the question of whether or not it is constitutional to have a health care mandate at the federal level. You might recall that Romneycare has an individual mandate, and guess what, no one has tried to claim that it’s unconstitutional.

  12. 12.

    JPL

    February 1, 2011 at 10:47 am

    @iLarynx: Mitt said that only states can mandate. The Federal Government can’t. How come the Federal Government can mandate companies to provide Cobra for their employees or mandate hospitals to treat those who can’t afford treatment. EDIT..Scotus..already ruled that corps are people also, too

    BTW…Kennesaw Ga mandates gun ownership and I don’t think it depends on temperament.

  13. 13.

    Sentient Puddle

    February 1, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

    I too am also failing to see his point, but more because the federal government in the early years did in fact pass a similar law.

    But nobody tell him. Otherwise we’ll have to endure some of the “The founders intended for every citizen to be armed to the teeth!” nonsense.

  14. 14.

    dmsilev

    February 1, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Does his bill offer subsidies for people who can’t afford to buy their own handgun? Guarantee that nobody who wants to buy a handgun will be turned down due to preexisting conditions in their background?

    Analogy FAIL.

    dms

  15. 15.

    Captain Haddock

    February 1, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Well, when the Zombie Apocalypse comes, I know where I’ll be headed.

  16. 16.

    Observer

    February 1, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Actually, this is a surprising creative response from those Repubs.

    If the gov’t can force you to buy private insurance, the natural question is what other private transactions can the gov’t force you to to. They can say either it’s all unconstitutional or it’s all ok.

    This could catch on.

  17. 17.

    horatius

    February 1, 2011 at 10:51 am

    @gypsy howell: Yes, with high capacity magazines.

  18. 18.

    Dennis SGMM

    February 1, 2011 at 10:54 am

    @dmsilev:

    Does his bill offer subsidies for people who can’t afford to buy their own handgun?

    They’re adding a rider to the bill mandating that the SoDak National Guard give away all of its old 105mm howitzers, bazookas and recoilless rifles to qualifying citizens at no cost.

  19. 19.

    Tom65

    February 1, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

    Nice. The only point he’s proving is that he can be a collosal asshat and waste everyones time.

  20. 20.

    SRW1

    February 1, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Spoof, to make the reverse argument that Dan at #3 made:

    So. The government CAN’T force you to buy a weapon, but it CAN force you to buy health insurance.

  21. 21.

    guster

    February 1, 2011 at 10:56 am

    If Jane Hamsher hadn’t scuttled the private option, the wingnuts would be passing laws mandating publicly-funded armories where you check out weapons like books from a library.

  22. 22.

    maya

    February 1, 2011 at 10:58 am

    There may be an even more cunning plan behind this. If I were North Dakota I would prepare for invasion.

  23. 23.

    Breezeblock

    February 1, 2011 at 10:58 am

    If you fall below a certain inclome level, would you get a voucher to purchase a weapon?

    I want to get my hands on a flamethrower.

  24. 24.

    rm

    February 1, 2011 at 10:59 am

    No, no, this makes a brilliant point and is a completely spot-on analogy to the health care mandate, because . . .
    — At some point in their lives, everyone buys a firearm
    — Anyone who really needs a firearm and can’t pay for it is given one anyway
    — The cost of millions of firearms given away for free is built in to the price of ammunition, and
    — Shooting regularly is necessary for our health (stop thinking that, I didn’t mean it that way)

  25. 25.

    rm

    February 1, 2011 at 11:00 am

    That was supposed to be a bullet list — I was fooled by the “code” button into thinking I could use HTML.

    You see, I can’t even afford bullets because my gun insurance carrier refused to cover them.

  26. 26.

    Mr Stagger Lee

    February 1, 2011 at 11:00 am

    @Sentient Puddle: Or they will invoke Switzerland and say they are forming a militia.
    Just like our founding fathers, you know the whites of their eyes and all that.

  27. 27.

    dadanarchist

    February 1, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Nanny State!

  28. 28.

    artem1s

    February 1, 2011 at 11:00 am

    gotta say, mandating purchase of health insurance has always struck me as contrary to the interests of consumers, and therefore democratic principles. I get the concept of spreading the cost throughout the system (which is why insurance companies want it). But health care isn’t something you can avoid like having an auto accident. we are all going to need it at some point, so forced buy-in has always seemed somewhat like endorsing a giant ponzi scheme that really only benefits the insurance companies CEOs. Some day there will be more people taking out than paying in and the bubble will burst.

    That said, I only support the concept of mandatory buy-in because ultimately I see it leading to a single payer, government run system. It will happen when the insurance companies finally figure out that they can’t make money if they are required to actually pay out as well as collect premiums on basic and end of life care.

  29. 29.

    Aaron S. Veenstra

    February 1, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Gauntlet thrown — your move, Arizona!

  30. 30.

    Penon

    February 1, 2011 at 11:01 am

    My personal opinion is that every Dem in South Dakota should get behind this bill and pass it. And then come 2012, make sure the Republicans who drafted it get ALL the credit.

  31. 31.

    El Cid

    February 1, 2011 at 11:03 am

    @JPL: Kennesaw’s code “only” requires that the ‘head of household’ own a firearm, certainly not every adult citizen. I don’t think there’s much of a possibility of enforcement.

    The South Dakota rule could be described as sounding similar to the Second Militia Act.

    It conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

    Well, except for the whole notion of them being part of an organized militia to be supervised by state authorities.

    Again, my suggestion is that the NAACP and La Raza and immigrants’ rights groups and whoever else begin pushing the training and arming of poor communities and communities of color and so forth. I mean, the legal training and arming.

    And maybe negotiating group discounts with local gun stores, or perhaps a wholesale deal directly with manufacturers.

  32. 32.

    Violet

    February 1, 2011 at 11:03 am

    @Observer:

    If the gov’t can force you to buy private insurance, the natural question is what other private transactions can the gov’t force you to to. They can say either it’s all unconstitutional or it’s all ok.
    __
    This could catch on.

    Indeed. Let’s make a list of things the government forces its citizens to do (outside of taxes) that perhaps should receive more scrutiny.

  33. 33.

    Curly

    February 1, 2011 at 11:04 am

    The rootin’ tootin’-ist state in the union!

  34. 34.

    El Cid

    February 1, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Did someone explain why a “mandate” with ‘fines’ (unlikely to be collected) on those not buying insurance was used instead of some equivalent flat rate (or other simple to calculate) tax credit for those who had it?

  35. 35.

    Jay in Oregon

    February 1, 2011 at 11:04 am

    I’m not sure how exactly that proves his point, but I’m not a wingnut, so wingnut logic doesn’t work on me.

    The logic is simple:

    Liberals hate guns, so forcing everyone to buy a gun will piss liberals off. When they complain about it, wingnuts get to call them hypocrites.

  36. 36.

    Elisabeth

    February 1, 2011 at 11:05 am

    @Tom65:

    Someone should ask him how many jobs this will create and sustain.

  37. 37.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    February 1, 2011 at 11:05 am

     

    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.

    When I was a kid we used to joke that in Germany everything which is not forbidden is compulsory, and everything which is not compulsory is forbidden.

    Nice to see that the good folks in S.D. have a properly Teutonic sense of humor.

  38. 38.

    RSA

    February 1, 2011 at 11:05 am

    I’ve always suspected that it’s the lack of universal gun ownership that’s bankrupting our country. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying too soon because they don’t own guns. But there’s a better way to fix this problem than the South Dakota measure: start small, by having the government buy everyone a gun once they reach 65 years of age. Then we can expand the program.

  39. 39.

    ericblair

    February 1, 2011 at 11:06 am

    @Observer:

    If the gov’t can force you to buy private insurance, the natural question is what other private transactions can the gov’t force you to to. They can say either it’s all unconstitutional or it’s all ok.

    The problem for them is that the Dems are the ones being consistent with this and they aren’t. Even if it wasn’t a state law they’re proposing and therefore just about meaningless from the federal perspective, most of us commie libs object to mandatory firearm laws because they’re dumb,dangerous, and pointless grandstanding, not because they’re unconstitutional.

  40. 40.

    Ash Can

    February 1, 2011 at 11:07 am

    @Observer: What too many people can’t seem to get through their heads is that the ACA does not force anyone to buy health insurance. What it does is to raise your income tax a little if you make that choice, so that the system can still be paid for. Last time I looked, the federal government’s right and responsibility to levy taxes was enshrined in that Constitution that so many people have such exquisitely select memories of.

  41. 41.

    Zifnab

    February 1, 2011 at 11:07 am

    @Observer:

    If the gov’t can force you to buy private insurance, the natural question is what other private transactions can the gov’t force you to to. They can say either it’s all unconstitutional or it’s all ok.

    Assuming penalty for not owning a gun is a minor increase in state-levied taxes, then you might actually have a point.

    If the penalty is some kind of traffic ticket or misdemeanor offense, then you’re completely off your rocker.

  42. 42.

    jfp

    February 1, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Actually, this strikes me as an old reading of the constitution in that the states were free to regulate their militias as they saw fit. However, given the Roberts court ruling that the right to bear arms is an absolute individual right it seems to me that’s no longer operable as if I have an individual right to a weapon I also can waive that right.

  43. 43.

    liberal

    February 1, 2011 at 11:08 am

    @El Cid:
    Good question.

    Also, why didn’t they put a severability clause in the bill?

  44. 44.

    Allan

    February 1, 2011 at 11:10 am

    @RSA:

    Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying too soon late because they don’t own guns.

    FIFY.

  45. 45.

    Pangloss

    February 1, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Anyone who votes No will drop in the NRA’s ranking. I would not be surprised if it passed, and I would not be surprised if a wingnut judge ruled mandating firearms constitutional but health care isn’t.

    This could be a very insightful object lesson for future historians documenting the sudden decline of the United States to an irrelevant footnote in history.

  46. 46.

    Gus

    February 1, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Wow, things must be fucking peachy in SoDak if this is how the legislature spends their time.

  47. 47.

    Hob

    February 1, 2011 at 11:13 am

    @El Cid: The “fine” is collected as part of the regular federal tax return, so what’s the difference?

  48. 48.

    4tehlulz

    February 1, 2011 at 11:14 am

    I hope this passes. There is a nice Minuteman III I’ve been looking to buy.

  49. 49.

    kerFuFFler

    February 1, 2011 at 11:15 am

    The problem with the gun/healthcare analogy is that healthcare providers are in many cases required to provide care by law to people who cannot pay. Since it is mandatory to provide healthcare, it makes sense to make it mandatory for people to buy insurance.

    Gun manufacturers and retailers are under no parallel requirement to provide citizens with guns without regard for their ability to pay. So there can be no need to mandate gun purchases.

  50. 50.

    PS

    February 1, 2011 at 11:16 am

    @El Cid: Why fines rather than credits? That’s interesting and I’d like to know the answer. My first guess is that tax credits seem too voluntary and may not have appealed to the insurance companies.

  51. 51.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    February 1, 2011 at 11:17 am

    @Pangloss:

    This could be a very insightful object lesson for future historians documenting the sudden decline of the United States to an irrelevant footnote in history.

    Well you certainly are the optimist, aren’t you? From most of the history I’ve read, empires in sudden decline have found numerous ways to keep themselves relevant, all of them being notably messy and unpleasant.

    But then perhaps we are living in the best of all possible worlds.

  52. 52.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    February 1, 2011 at 11:18 am

    @El Cid: The choices were to either fine those that didn’t participate, raise taxes and then give tax breaks to those that had insurance, or just give a tax break to those who got insurance without a break. The second was never going to happen no matter how symbolic the hike was and the third would have gone against the cost of the bill. So that left the first.

  53. 53.

    joes527

    February 1, 2011 at 11:20 am

    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.”

    Are the Republicans using actual 3rd graders to name their bills these days?

  54. 54.

    Chyron HR

    February 1, 2011 at 11:22 am

    In summary:

    Democrats passed a law that they believed to be Constitutional.

    Republicans want to pass a law that they explicitly believe to be UNconstitutional, but it’s okay because they’re making a “point”.

    This proves that Democrats hate the Constitution.

  55. 55.

    Suffern ACE

    February 1, 2011 at 11:22 am

    @Gus: Heavily subsidized ethonol production has made them a bunch of whiners.

  56. 56.

    liberal

    February 1, 2011 at 11:23 am

    @Hob:
    There’s no economic difference. The difference is that doing it the tax/credit way gets around these possible constitutional problems.

  57. 57.

    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)

    February 1, 2011 at 11:24 am

    OT: Jordan’s king fires cabinet amid protests. Tunisia has sparked something big – Jordan’s prime minister has already stepped down following the protests there.

    As to John’s question: if all the protesters packing that square in Egypt had Glock 9mm pistols with extended ammo clips, Mubarak would be gone by now. /South Dakota wingnut

  58. 58.

    David

    February 1, 2011 at 11:25 am

    More than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful.

    In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides. Gun suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than gun homicide.

  59. 59.

    liberal

    February 1, 2011 at 11:25 am

    @Suffern ACE:
    I doubted that, but then looked up SD’s rank as a corn producer. Not too shabby!

    More generally, of course, they get boatloads of ag subsidies. That’s really the political Achilles heel of the teatards budget obsession.

  60. 60.

    Martin

    February 1, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Oh, please, please, please pass this law South Dakota. We’ve got about half a million gang-bangers that are going to LOVE your state. We’ll even pay to bus them out to you.

  61. 61.

    CaseyL

    February 1, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Completely OT: The latest out of Egypt says they’re running low on essential food items (bread, milk). I’d hate to see the revolt founder because people got hungry – I suspect that’s Mubarak’s last hope, too, trying to starve them out.

    Does anyone know of any aid organization we could contact to suggest doing a food shipment to Egypt? Doctors Without Borders was my first thought: I don’tknow if they’re strictly a medical aid organization, though.

    Aside from the necessity of it, I think it might be a good thing to show the Egyptian people that at least some Americans support them.

  62. 62.

    liberal

    February 1, 2011 at 11:30 am

    @jfp:

    However, given the Roberts court ruling that the right to bear arms is an absolute individual right…

    IANAL, but I don’t think the ruling claimed an absolute right. (How many rights are absolute anyway?) I thought the interest in the ruling was that it created an individual right where none had existed before (in terms of case law), but could be wrong about that.

  63. 63.

    Ripley

    February 1, 2011 at 11:30 am

    I assume this would apply to all the corporate entities in South Dakota, as well, yes? They are, as we’ve been told many, many times over the last few years, persons with inviolable rights, thus they should “provide for the self defense of themselves and others” right alongside the good people of South Dakota.

  64. 64.

    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)

    February 1, 2011 at 11:30 am

    @Ash Can: I’m not sure Rand Paul and many Tea Party folks agree with you on the government levying taxes bit.

  65. 65.

    Tony T

    February 1, 2011 at 11:31 am

    But I already pay for defense and security.
    I pay taxes for cops.
    I do not use gun or bullet resources.
    I do use health care resources.

    If republicans repeal car insurance laws, I’ll believe they are serious about no government mandates.

  66. 66.

    Brachiator

    February 1, 2011 at 11:31 am

    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.”

    Christ Almighty, you can’t have an individual mandate for health insurance, but you can have a mandate to carry a firearm?

    Back in 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia unanimously passed a law requiring “every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition.” I don’t know if it did any good, but the people there are mighty happy with themselves.

  67. 67.

    catclub

    February 1, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Didn’t I see somewhere that George Washington also signed a law that forced citizens to buy guns?

    I think it was in a post that also mentioned a Seaman’s Health Insurance law that required people to buy health insurance.

  68. 68.

    fasteddie9318

    February 1, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

    I would like a Song Dynasty-era fire lance, please.

  69. 69.

    Punchy

    February 1, 2011 at 11:35 am

    The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

    I’m assuming this is a polite way of saying “n#ggers and spics”, right?

  70. 70.

    Martin

    February 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

    @Punchy: And Democrats. But yeah, about that.

  71. 71.

    brianr

    February 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

    @Egypt Steve:

    This.

  72. 72.

    Ash Can

    February 1, 2011 at 11:42 am

    @Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people): If you took what those geniuses knew about their almighty Constitution and turned it into a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle, everything would be missing except a corner piece and a couple of fragments of a cottage windowbox.

  73. 73.

    Scott Lemieux

    February 1, 2011 at 11:44 am

    I dunno, I think it’s perfectly obvious how a really dumb state law proves that the federal government lacks the ability to regulate interstate commerce. It’s in the super-secret Federalist Society Constitution. Somewhere in the back.

  74. 74.

    El Cid

    February 1, 2011 at 11:44 am

    @Hob: I honestly don’t know. Someone once noted how difficult it would be to calculate the credit for some, I don’t really know on that point.

    If the two approaches are pretty much identical, I don’t know why other than traditional Democratic stupidity in naming and labeling the term “mandate” has arisen instead of “tax credits”. Or “higher” or “additional” tax credits. Or emphasizing “will not receive” and the like.

  75. 75.

    hueyplong

    February 1, 2011 at 11:47 am

    On grumpy days, you have to wonder how nice it would be if the wingers had to live with the real life consequences of actual passage of one of their grandstanding legislative proposals. Those African-Americans wouldn’t be buying 3/5 of a gun.

    This might sound funny in SDak, which likely doesn’t have a large black/brown/yellow/whatever population, but I’m guessing that Arizona wouldn’t want to pass a Let’s Heavily Arm All the Brown People Act.

  76. 76.

    cckids

    February 1, 2011 at 11:48 am

    @New Yorker:

    Fine. I’ll buy a BB Gun on eBay for $5. Then can I have my healthcare reform?

    For myself, I want one of the Nerf semi-automatic rifles, with a clip that holds 20 or so darts. Lookout, a**holes!

  77. 77.

    Tsulagi

    February 1, 2011 at 11:51 am

    @Dennis SGMM:

    So if you’re blind do you just buy a shotgun?

    Now you’re thinking right. Of course to compensate for their disability they’d need a Street Sweeper model 12ga. with 20 round rotary magazine.

    I’m not sure how exactly that proves his point

    Both sides do it. It’s the same thing. Duh.

  78. 78.

    cckids

    February 1, 2011 at 11:54 am

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    everything not forbidden is compulsory

    T.H.White quote, from The Once & Future King. Those communistic ants, ya know.

  79. 79.

    scav

    February 1, 2011 at 11:54 am

    @cckids: I gotta go with something (maybe like a crossbow) that hurls flaming pies. That meringue has to be lit to comply with the whole firearms bit to my mind. Or maybe I could launch flaming baba-au-rhums to piss off the temperance crowd.

  80. 80.

    cckids

    February 1, 2011 at 11:57 am

    @scav: Nerf makes crossbows, too. I’m sure some enterprising 10-year old somewhere has come up with a way to make it flame like crazy. But it would really stink up the joint. I love the baba-au-rhum idea. The alcohol would just assist in the flaming!

  81. 81.

    jwb

    February 1, 2011 at 11:59 am

    @El Cid: “Again, my suggestion is that the NAACP and La Raza and immigrants’ rights groups and whoever else begin pushing the training and arming of poor communities and communities of color and so forth. I mean, the legal training and arming.”

    Yes, I’ve been wondering about this myself: how would the teatard/wingnut/gunnut brigade react if leftist groups started to organize militias? What would happen to the gun rights debate at that point?

  82. 82.

    dziliak

    February 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    @Scott Lemieux:

    I’m sure that he knows its pointless but it’ll look good in his district come election time if he gets primaried by the TP.

    Or he could be a TP’er proving his bona fides, in which case he may be dumb enough to believe his own rhetoric.

  83. 83.

    libdevil

    February 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    @RSA:

    To be consistent, the government must also buy guns for poor children, but take those guns away if the children ever find themselves not quite so poor, or when they reach adulthood. In some states, the government must also provide guns to the mentally ill, but Saint Raygun closed a lot of mental health facilities, so there’s less of that going on now. And the government will mandate that gun store owners must provide a gun to anybody who really needs one right now!

  84. 84.

    gypsy howell

    February 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    I”M IN! Where do I sign up? I have a great little spot aimed out at our road that would be simply perfect for a small howitzer.

  85. 85.

    cckids

    February 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    @Martin:

    We’ve got about half a million gang-bangers that are going to LOVE your state. We’ll even pay to bus them out to you.

    Have you BEEN to SoDak? I’m not sure too many city dwellers will “love” the place, no matter how many guns they all get to have. You’ll run out of ammo sometime, and then, you’ll still be in South Dakota. Lookin at the wheat. Watching the wind blow. Swearing as the snow starts in Sept & piles up & up & up, ending sometime in June. Fun times.

  86. 86.

    Berto

    February 1, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Flood S. Dakota with the 3 Ms (Mexicans, Muslims, and Minorities), then see who blinks.

  87. 87.

    asiangrrlMN

    February 1, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    @hueyplong: My thought as well. They want everyone to have a gun–except for those who skeer them.

    Every time I think we hit the nadir of rank stupidity, something like this comes along. I despair sometimes. Really, I do.

  88. 88.

    Maine Independent

    February 1, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Pretty soon jackbooted ATF thugs will be going door to door to make sure you POSSESS a gun. Ammo too.

    Idiots.

  89. 89.

    scav

    February 1, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    @Maine Independent: Metal detectors at schools and public buildings and airports to ensure that everybody is armed. If you don’t beep, they pat you down to make sure you’re carrying plastic.

  90. 90.

    Citizen_X

    February 1, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    @hueyplong:

    SDak, which likely doesn’t have a large black/brown/yellow/whatever population

    Actually, the largest minority in SD comprises 8.2% of the population. Which ethnic group is that? Hint: this state includes the site of the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

    Which, come to think of it, is about the best historic example of a “militia” defeating an invading army that you’re likely to find!

  91. 91.

    T

    February 1, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    But remember, according to the same group of people who favor a mandate like this, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is held to be unconstitutional.

  92. 92.

    RossInDetroit

    February 1, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Felons. Will they be required to own guns? If not the rule making to decide who must/may not own a gun will be highly entertaining.

  93. 93.

    RobW

    February 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    @Fargus:

    Can someone explain to me how I can provide for the self defense of others?

    By paying taxes sufficient to support police agencies and military services?

  94. 94.

    Mr Blifil

    February 1, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    But health insurance “mandates” are unconstitutional. Got it.

  95. 95.

    Caz

    February 1, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    If Congress can force citizens to buy health care, why can’t states force people to buy guns? Seems to me you are in favor of letting the federal goverment force citizens to buy products for their policy reasons, but not in favor of states doing the same thing.

    Can you give me a logical reason why one is ok but the other is not??

  96. 96.

    Mysticdog

    February 1, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

    It is a really good way to make the point. I suggested that they would do this once the court challenges started. I don’t know if it is unconstitutional, but it is definitely unethical to make american buy a commercial product in order to live legally as Americans. It was a stupid idea, and it really does deserve to burn away. I hope it doesn’t take down the positive benefits of the bill in the process, but really, this was a dumb-as-fuck move by the Obama team.

    If the government can make people buy health insurance, what prevents the government from making people buy any other product? Nothing, but human decency which you might have noticed is sadly lacking in our halls of power. Why not make every person pay for drug tests? Why not make every person buy a medical alert bracelet? Why not make every person buy a salad with every meal? A gun for safety? A terrorism emergency kit, complete with duct tape and plastic sheeting? A tracking chip for their child

    All of these things can be justified, and once companies figure out that this will work, they will start putting pressure on the government to make it happen.

    There are lots of things that the government does make people buy from private companies, but they are always associated with priviledges, like driving. This would be the first time that I know of the government forcing people to buy a private product just to live as an American citizen.

    The way to do it right is through taxation and a government program, which is completely ethical and legal. It always was the right way. Obama seriously fucked this all up.

  97. 97.

    oboe

    February 1, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    I give up, I just don’t understand people anymore.

    What’s not to understand? The Second Directive of American Conservativism is “Piss Off Jane Fonda.” As long as it doesn’t interfere with the Prime Directive (i.e. “increase the wealth of the wealthy”) I see no mystery here.

  98. 98.

    teejay

    February 1, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Principles. Republican Principles. Government can’t tell
    citizens to buy insurance but they can require them to buy a gun.

  99. 99.

    Henk

    February 1, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    There is a very large Native population out there on the plains. They should be the first to purchase. I recommend the Barret 50 cal sniper rifle for those long range shots across the prairie.

  100. 100.

    Bill Murray

    February 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    @cckids: Have you BEEN to South Dakota? Your description of the weather is not even good as hyperbole.

    @Citizen_X: South Dakota does not contain Little Big Horn — that is in Montana just north of the Wyoming-Montana border. South Dakota has Wounded Knee.

  101. 101.

    Southern Beale

    February 1, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Someone over in today’s comment thread at Gin And Tacos had this question:

    Would it be unconstitutional to just change the tax code to include a health care tax which one would be exempt from if one has health insurance? If so, why? And if not, how is this different than the individual mandate in the ACA?

    Damn good question. Anyone?

  102. 102.

    rickstersherpa

    February 1, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    @Scott Lemieux: Yep, its the part written in invisible ink that is revealed only in the inner sanctum of the Federalist club.

    I have to tell the guy that it may be a dumb law he is proposing, but that South Dakota has the authority to pass it under both its police power and the power to establish a state militia if it so wishes.

    Of course this is really a chance for the Good Ol’ boys to yuck it up about how this will piss off us liberals. A nice good resentment vent.

  103. 103.

    JoXn

    February 1, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

    The obvious loophole is that for my ordinary self-defense I have no need of any firearm.

  104. 104.

    Citizen_X

    February 1, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    @Bill Murray: Oops. You’re right.

  105. 105.

    elle

    February 1, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    @artem1s:

    I’m sorry, I don’t think your argument makes any sense.

    But health care isn’t something you can avoid like having an auto accident. we are all going to need it at some point, so forced buy-in has always seemed somewhat like endorsing a giant ponzi scheme that really only benefits the insurance companies CEOs. Some day there will be more people taking out than paying in and the bubble will burst.

    So you agree that everyone needs healthcare, but no one should be forced to buy it? It benefits only insurance CEO’s? Don’t forget that under the ACA the insurance companies also have to reduce the amount they spend on overhead to 30%, and no one can be denied coverage. Also, if a person is financially unable to purchase insurance, the government covers them (tax credit or something).

    I also disagree with your bubble argument. The ACA also deals with preventative measures, including free regular checkups and small procedures for the elderly…I’m not sure about every other person though. That’s why this bill was so huge, because they had to look at all the factors that affect access to and cost of health care, and address these in some measure.

    Finally, how can anyone consider everyone having access to healthcare as undemocratic?

  106. 106.

    Lihtox

    February 1, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Well, I already pay money towards my self-defense: I pay taxes which go towards police and military protection. And I agree: it would make a lot more sense to have taxes pay for health insurance for everyone, rather than having to give money to large corporations who will waste some of that money on advertising and buying fashionable CEOs from other companies. Is South Dakota pushing for the public option? That would be great? (Or let me opt out of my share of the war in Afghanistan– that would be good too.)

    The health-insurance equivalent of their bill would require everyone to go to medical school, so that they can provide for their own health care. I am not an expert in medicine and I am not an expert in self-defense, and in a civilized world I don’t have to be.

  107. 107.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    February 1, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    @JoXn:

    The obvious loophole is that for my ordinary self-defense I have no need of any firearm.

    With mad Kung-Fu skillz like that, you’d better stay off of airplanes.

    /Chris Matthews

  108. 108.

    Gatsby

    February 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    What’s the penalty if one does not buy a gun?

  109. 109.

    azlib

    February 1, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    This proves nothing. Such a law may in fact be constitutional. It depends on what is in the SD constitution. Legislatures can do dumb things and this is really dumb.

  110. 110.

    pseudonymous in nc

    February 1, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    If there are any Democrats left in that state legislature, one of them should introduce an amendment that heavily subsidises the acquisition of handguns for the poor, and suggest that the state itself should give out free Glocks to Native Americans and other low-income communities.

    (This has been another episode of “State Legislators Do The Most Fuckwitted Things”.

  111. 111.

    Hob

    February 1, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

    I want an anxious, nerdy, nellie type of gun that both girls and boys like. Oh, and one that doesn’t require me to be able to aim it.

  112. 112.

    Jasper

    February 1, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    @Mysticdog:

    The big difference between bracelets and guns and readiness kits is healthcare isn’t something that people CHOOSE to obtain. If a person gets very sick or in an accident, they require medical attention, and hospitals MUST treat them, whether the patient can pay or not.

    Those without insurance, other than the very wealthy, are taking a bet they won’t need care. If they win, they keep the benefits of saved insurance premiums. If they get sick or in an accident and lose the bet, you and me and all the rest of us who insured against serious illness or accident bail out that freeloader with higher costs and premiums. It’s private benefits – savings on premiums – and socialized costs when we pay his or her bill.

    I know conservatives are used to defending private profits and socialized costs for our corporate overlords, but I’m not sure why anyone would defend this on an individual level. Personal responsibility!!

  113. 113.

    ThatGuy

    February 1, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    I believe this falls under the “it pisses off liberals” column for why wingnuts act the ways they do.

  114. 114.

    goatchowder

    February 1, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    We already have an individual mandate: to PAY THE FUCKNIG POLICE.

    Next question please.

  115. 115.

    lou

    February 1, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Again, my suggestion is that the NAACP and La Raza and immigrants’ rights groups and whoever else begin pushing the training and arming of poor communities and communities of color and so forth. I mean, the legal training and arming.

    I’ve wondered that myself. What would happen in Virginia where they allow people to strut around like Hollywood cowboys with holsters around their hips if guys from D.C. moved to Virginia and dressed in white Ts, baggy pants and braids were to start showing up at their favorite restaurants with holsters and guns. Hey, it’s legal!

  116. 116.

    Ruckus

    February 1, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Your first problem is trying to understand crazy. Isn’t not having any good sense and logical thought part of the reason you thought they were crazy in the first place?

  117. 117.

    gelfling545

    February 1, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    @dmsilev: Well, if you don’t buy a gun yourself the government will have to pay more when you have to go to the emergency gun room to be treated for serious lack of firearms. Or something.

  118. 118.

    Less Popular Tim

    February 1, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    @New Yorker:
    You will not buy a BB gun on eBay:
    http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/firearms-weapons-knives.html

  119. 119.

    Catzmaw

    February 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    No lie. A few months ago I was standing outside a pawn shop waiting for a friend (no, seriously), when gun counter guy stepped out for a cigarette. We got to talking and he asked me why I didn’t own a gun. I told him I didn’t have anything against a person who has received training and dedicates time every month to remaining proficient in both safety and use of a gun, but that I would never own one without obtaining and maintaining proficiency; besides, I said, where I live the cops usually respond to emergencies within a minute. I don’t feel the need for a gun. He then told me that I HAD to buy a gun. In fact, he said, it was mandated by Jesus and was in the Bible. I asked him where in hell I was supposed to find Jesus telling me to pick up a gun in the Bible and he quoted some Old Testament verse about picking up swords against “mine enemies” but explained – the way one would to a special needs child – that it only said swords because guns hadn’t been invented yet and Jesus (even though the quote was thousands of years pre-Jesus) clearly wants me to have a gun. I told him that was the most ridiculous thing I’d ever heard and he replied that he just couldn’t get things past ignorant people like me who don’t understand the Bible. Imagine that. All those years of Catholic school, five years of college, and three years of law school, and I never did learn that Jesus wants me to open my heart to Smith and his best buddy Wesson. I blush in my ignorance.

  120. 120.

    Batocchio

    February 1, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Some town in Florida tried to pass something like this within the past ten years. Switzerland actually requires some gun ownership, but their situation is different than South Dakota’s. I’m most concerned about the paranoia behind these moves.

  121. 121.

    Mark Andresen

    February 1, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    Bat Shit Crazy is in the air everywhere!

  122. 122.

    Dr. Squid

    February 1, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    @Citizen_X: The largest minority in SD is Montanans?

  123. 123.

    Cory

    February 1, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    LOL, that’s a pretty awesome way to prove a point!

    Since health care and new technologies are so expensive, it would be awesome if there was some kind of online application that offered people free prognoses that were automatically generated online.

    People could just take an online quiz where they fill in certain information and an automated response detailing what medication or device works best to alleviate their pain or discomfort could pop up. And since it would be online and the Internet is free, the only associated cost would be a hosting fee.

    There’s already a similar app: http://mindflashad.com/branding-concept-quiz/posts

    but it does free business branding concepts instead, but the idea is the same.

    That’s all most doctors or physicians do anyhow – is just look symptoms up in a book. So an automated online application could just do the work for them and save people the trip and money.

  124. 124.

    A Conservative Teacher

    February 1, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    If you support Obamacare, you support the provision in it called the individual mandate. The individual mandate uses the power of government to make you engage in an activity that you would not engage in previously, such as buying healthcare.

    This bill says that if Obamacare is legal, than so can any other bill that requires you to buy anything at all- in this case, a gun. That’s kind of the big point about opposing Obamacare- if the government can force you to buy something, they can force you to buy anything. It is surprising that the logic of all of this is beyond your ability to grasp without explanation.

    I’m on record as opposing this sort of thing. Most of you are on record as supporting this sort of thing. Better get ready to go buy a gun!

  125. 125.

    Shade Tail

    February 2, 2011 at 1:59 am

    @A Conservative Teacher:

    If you support Obamacare, you support the provision in it called the individual mandate. The individual mandate uses the power of government to make you engage in an activity that you would not engage in previously, such as buying healthcare.

    Uh huh. So if you were sick or injured, you would not buy health care unless forced to? To each their own, I suppose.

    This bill says that if Obamacare is legal, than so can any other bill that requires you to buy anything at all- in this case, a gun.

    I would chide you for your bad grammar, “teacher”, but far more important is your apparent inability to realize that just because a bill says something doesn’t make it true. I hope you don’t teach Civics (or English).

    I’m on record as opposing this sort of thing.

    We’re on record as not caring about what you oppose. Far more important to us is that you obviously have no idea what you’re writing about.

  126. 126.

    digitusmedius

    February 2, 2011 at 8:29 am

    I wonder if these morons stopped to consider that if the government is given power to require gun ownership the government is given power to regulate the marketplace, i.e., how guns are manufactured and sold, i.e. what kinds of guns are permitted and all the other “accessories” of firearms (e.g. ammunition) as well. If they want to make a parallel to health care, they’ll need to go all the way or STFU.

  127. 127.

    jon

    February 2, 2011 at 9:18 am

    “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

    How can I provide for the self defense of others? Astral projection? Being Agent Smith from the Matrix movies?

    It’s defense, not self defense, if it involves others. Just like it’s a handjob, not masturbation, if it isn’t my own penis.

  128. 128.

    VJBinCT

    February 2, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Democrats could learn from this proposed legislation. A bunch of about-to-retire house members could introduce legislation to nationalize gun and munitions manufacture, and the distribution channel. And outlaw the NRA. (Then only outlaws would be NRA members.)

    As a public service distribute explosion proof full coverage helmets to all the wingnutty folk, to protect the rest of us.

    It would be fun to watch.

    Oh, and also require gun registration and gun-owners insurance.

  129. 129.

    Svensker

    February 2, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Next up, Republicans will pass laws removing the insurance mandate for driving a car and also too will make it illegal for the govt to require me to pay for wars I don’t like very much.

    Go Repukes!

  130. 130.

    Mysticdog

    February 2, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Those without insurance, other than the very wealthy, are taking a bet they won’t need care. If they win, they keep the benefits of saved insurance premiums. If they get sick or in an accident and lose the bet, you and me and all the rest of us who insured against serious illness or accident bail out that freeloader with higher costs and premiums. It’s private benefits – savings on premiums – and socialized costs when we pay his or her bill.

    Actually, most people without insurance simply can’t afford it. A lot of people with it can’t actually afford to use it. Because, you know, a fuckload of the insurance premium is actually paying the massive company overhead and CEO salaries and bonuses and the amazing insurance industry perks.

    I honestly would be very happy if my current insurance “tax” taken out of each paycheck was added back in, then taxed for real by the government for a more efficient, less costly national healthcare system. That would be just fine.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Today In Winger Logic : Lawyers, Guns & Money says:
    February 1, 2011 at 11:51 am

    […] a really dumb state law that does not seem to violate the federal Constitution proves something about the (in)ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. What it proves, exactly, is unclear to me. But if you take some acid and throw on The Dark Side of […]

  2. LIGHTNING ROD: S. Dakota Proposes Mandatory Gun Ownership to Prove Point | Con Games says:
    February 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    […] John Cole at Balloon Juice: “I’m not sure exactly how that proves his point, but I’m not a wingnut, so wingnut logic doesn’t work on me.” […]

Primary Sidebar

Image by HinTN (5/22/25)

Recent Comments

  • NotMax on Thursday Evening Open Thread (May 22, 2025 @ 6:23pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 6:23pm)
  • Jay on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 6:21pm)
  • Baud on Thursday Evening Open Thread (May 22, 2025 @ 6:19pm)
  • Baud on Thursday Evening Open Thread (May 22, 2025 @ 6:18pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!