South Dakota Wants You to Have a Gun-At Your Own Expense

This morning I woke to this presser from the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I realize that South Dakota is probably not serious. Rather, this proposed bill is intended to show supporters of ObamaCare the ridiculousness of their ideas. If a citizen can be forced to purchase health insurance, why can't he be equally forced to purchase a gun, or for that matter, broccoli:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today said a proposal before the South Dakota Legislature that would require all adults in the state to buy a gun “should make perfect sense to anybody who supports Obamacare.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said legislation sponsored by five South Dakota lawmakers that would require anyone over age 21 to purchase a gun for ordinary self-defense seems reasonable.

“If you can mandate that people must buy health insurance,” Gottlieb observed, “then you can mandate that people must buy a firearm. After all, they both can keep you alive and well.”

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported that the requirement, if adopted, would become effective on Jan. 1, 2012. The provision exempts people who are legally prohibited from owning guns.

“Anyone who argues that such a proposal is nonsense should apply the same standard to Obamacare,” Gottlieb said. “That goes double for anyone who thinks mandatory gun ownership is unconstitutional.

“There is no place in the Constitution I can find where it mentions that having health insurance is a protected civil right,” he noted, “but the right to keep and bear arms is right there in the Bill of Rights. We know, thanks to last June’s ruling by the Supreme Court, that the Second Amendment right to have a gun applies to all citizens in every state.

“Anybody who thinks the health care mandate is constitutional, but doesn’t think the Second Amendment is an individual civil right apparently has trouble reading the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings,” Gottlieb said. “Maybe those individuals want that government-run health care so they can get their eyes checked.”

How much clearer do we need to make it for the Progressives on the Supreme Court?  If a citizen can be mandated to purchase ObamaCare, couldn't a person's income be so filled with mandates that there is nothing left for him to pursue happiness?  It is the ultimate control.

Update:  Selwyn Duke provides the example of where this analogy breaks down today in a short piece on American Thinker entitled That South Dakota Mandate. The exact analog to the SD bill is indeed Massachusetts and RomneyCare. Both are Constitutional under each State Constitution, and both are bad ideas. But since I don't think anyone has a serious intention of actually passing the SD bill, it still makes a good point.