Last updated on 2014.10.26
The South Dakota Gun Owners continue to hyperventilate about their pet fringe issue of being able to carry a gun wherever and whenever they want. This narrow special interest group has sent out carbon-copy attack flyers in District 35 against Democratic House candidates Jay Pond and Shane Liebig and in District 4 against Democratic Senate candidate Steve Street accusing them of weakening gun freedom. Not gun rights, mind you, since rights entail responsibilities. SDGO wants gun freedom, gun anarchy, guns everywhere, in every hand.
I ask you, fellow South Dakotans, to consider what SDGO wants. Suppose we granted SDGO its fantasy of being able to walk into courthouses, kindergartens, and bars with guns. Suppose we arm every citizen. Someone please explain to me how such action would solve any of the major social issues facing South Dakota:
- Do guns improve funding for education?
- Do guns stop brain drain and attract talented teachers, doctors, and entrepreneurs to South Dakota?
- Do guns protect property rights from eminent domain by TransCanada?
- Do guns pave our roads and fix our bridges?
- Do guns get people off food stamps?
- Do guns improve race relations?
The South Dakota Gun Owners want us to vote on one narrow issue, largely because they have no solutions for the real issues facing South Dakota.
"rights entail responsibilities"
So be intellectually honest and apply that to healthcare Cory, which you will not find in the Bill of Rights.
Typical Sibby. He thinks the Constitution guarantees his right to kill you, but not to help heal you if you're sick. Promoting the general welfare IS IN the Constitution proper, there's no need to put it in the Bill of Rights (...except maybe for dolts like Sibson who need things spelled out for them.)
Fleming, passed on your shallow logic there is not need for the Bill of Rights at all. Making the Corporate Medical Establishment wealthy is not promoting the general welfare.
I don't expect a group organized to promote gun "freedoms" to solve all the problems of the state. They are a special interest group, and their interest is guns, guns, more guns, and tea party politics. These folks think the NRA is a bunch of communist sympathizers. Dueling banjos come to mind whenever this odd, inbred-looking group of crazies surface from their bunker.
So, Rorschach, you have seen the members of SDGO and identified them as inbred with your Genetic Vision Binoculars?
Trolling trolling trolling.
Cory, gun rights don't cost anything. In fact, cities with concealed carry laws tend to have lower crime rates, which have an economic cost, so if anything gun rights save money. The right to bear arms certainly doesn't cost anymore than the pursuit of happiness or freedom of speech. I'm afraid I can't follow your argument from roads and food stamps to "gun freedom" - perhaps you can enlighten.
"These folks think the NRA is a bunch of communist sympathizers."
The NRA are primarily about political power and secondary on Second Amendment. That would not make them communist symphathizers.
Local Zionist decries a well-regulated militia:
"Lederman said he would have voted for the so-called "parking lot bill," since guns would only have been allowed in cars in parking lots, not in business buildings. He said when property rights and the Second Amendment right to gun ownership conflict, he would support the Second Amendment."
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/s-d-candidates-debate-sales-tax-increase-gun-rights/article_cfc10ae8-81a3-5386-8fbf-8efa744f71f6.html
Agreed Steve. The NRA, like most any large bureaucratic organization, is not pure in goals by any means.
careful Cory. This gun nuts are just that nuts.
Mitchell Daily Republic had a story about people buying guns who think Obama is going to take them away. Maybe these people shouldn't have guns.
"So be intellectually honest and apply that to healthcare Cory, which you will not find in the Bill of Rights."
Steve I think the constitution talks about the promoting the general welfare of the people. healthcare could fall under this.
"Making the Corporate Medical Establishment wealthy is not promoting the general welfare."
same argument could be made about the gun manufactures Steve
It's not a question for anyone other than those unwilling to accept the consequences of the process the Constitution lays out. ACA has been passed by congress (as per the Constitution) and upheld by the Supreme Court (as per the Constitution). So what part of the process doesn't Sibby understand? Let's just say it's not uncommon for him to have a completely different reading on any given piece of literature than the average literate reader. That strikes me as being Sibby's problem, not ours.
The only question I have after reading this post is: "Why do rights have to benefit causes such as education, medicine, race relations, etc...?" The bill of rights has ten amendments that (theoretically) prevents the government from restricting certain rights. My perspective about these rights is that they are not for the benefit of society as a whole; they are for the benefit of each individual in that society.
Hey, R, I think Dueling Banjos is great American music. I wouldn't insult it by associating it with SDGO.
Sure, I'll enlighten, Bree. Guns do less to solve real everyday problems in 21st century America than other sensible policies in the problem areas I identified above. That doesn't mean I reject gun rights. I do reject the SDGO's deliberately misdirecting guns-—ber-alles political tactics. Go ahead, carry your guns. But don't try telling voters that guns should trump other issues in deciding who should make policy. There are more important problems to solve and more important rights to protect.
Well Cory, I will grant you this one since you surprisingly said you don't reject gun rights - which isn't quite "support" and I'm sure we have a different definition.. but still it warms my little conservative heart to hear you say it. Gun rights aren't hurting too bad in South Dakota at the moment and there are other issues. I'd be fine with seeing some people disappear from the legislature no matter how much the NRA likes them.
I'm a thirty year and ongoing NRA member Bree. That being said, your last post warms my conservative heart. When anyone can throw a camo vest on for campaign pics once every two years and get an NRA endorsement over a true member, NRA has then sold their soul which they do daily.
I don't expect the South Dakota Education Association to tell me who is good or bad for creating medical policies for the state.
I don't expect the Dentists Association to tell me which candidate will be best for bolstering education in South Dakota.
Why should I expect the SDGO to tell me anything other than what they think about candidates' stances on gun rights?
It seems wrong to criticize a special interest group for doing what it's meant to do just because you'd rather discuss what you (and I) deem more salient issues. That's the beauty of the right to free speech.
If I know what Jay Pond's stance is on X, Y, and Z are, I can vote for him and just let him know I'd rather he not sponsor/vote for anything to restrict firearms in SD... driving better discussion between constituents & policy makers.