This post could have been called ‘Upside Down World!’
The bottom line is this.
It would be unconstitutional to mandate health insurance in America but conservatives want to force people to purchase a gun.
YIKES! YOKELS GO BAT-CRAP CRAZY (Which also could have been a title for this post.)
The point these South Dakota elected representatives are trying to make is that mandating health coverage is wrong.
They have state health care coverage that comes with their elected positions, but why should the average citizen be allowed coverage? Why should everybody be forced to have health care!?
Obviously these legislators have not thought through the reasons insurance companies needed this mandate in the federal law so to provide greater coverage for millions of uninsured.
My question is why any sane person would try to make their argument against health care coverage with a bill aimed at creating more death, bloodshed, injuries, and reasons for mandated health care coverage?!
Whoever thought this gun bill was a way to make points against health care coverage in America needs to sit in the back of the legislative chamber….with their face to the wall.
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.”
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.
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 