Perhaps this should be called "Essential Differences Deux." Here's what we were talking about before. But just when you think the U.S. has chosen to focus on the weather, somebody somewhere does something bizarre.
A state representative introduced legislation in South Dakota that would require each adult over the age of 21 to own a gun.
He acknowledges it's a stunt, designed to show that federal legislation requiring everyone to own health insurance is unconstitutional.
Apparently the logic is this: if the federal government can require everyone to buy health insurance for protection, why can't the state require everyone to buy a gun for protection?
Because, they say, protection is protection is protection, right?
Is it? Because last time I checked, guns are really NOT the same as health insurance. My ability to shoot someone is NOT the same as my ability to receive and pay for an operation or other health care that preserves or restores my health.
And the appliance that moves the computer's cursor is not the same thing as the little brown rodent in the fields or the white rodent that lives in laboratories, even though the word "mouse" describes each one.
Also, stunts like this don't contribute to the conversations about healthcare and gun control that could fruitfully happen in the U.S. They're disrespectful and a big waste of time.
It's this kind of stuff that mystifies me about the U.S.
But don't get smug, Canada: I'm not hearing any letup in the "omigod, we don't want an election!" rhetoric, either.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A U.S. writer living in Canada examines borders, boundaries, and other invisible (though not imaginary) lines.
