A Modest Proposal To Amend HB 1041

Last year, I wrote a post about my Republicanism. Since then, I have read a good number of conservative authors at places like The National Review and The American Conservative. These articles repeatedly pointed out that conservatives and Republicans believe in freedom and responsibility, Further, Republicans and conservatives understand, in ways that other mammals cannot, that the world is filled with bad actors.

HB 1041 is a bill to "provide for the carrying of a concealed pistol without a permit." The legislation's sponsors certainly will contend that they proposed the legislation because they realize that freedom to carry pistols without a permit is the only available method to stop unabated wickedness wherever a good conservative or Republican  may find it.

According to the Argus Leader,

Republican Rep. Drew Dennert is sponsoring a constitutional carry bill in the House. He says backers have the promise of the governor and support from the public and both legislative chambers.

Given that Governor Noem seems supportive, one hates to temper the enthusiasm of "constitutional carry" advocates. Obviously every Republican or conservative who carries a pistol under HB 1041 will train weekly to become as proficient with a pistol as Wild Bill Hickok, Such people will, of course, never crack under pressure nor will they ever miss their intended target.

That said, South Dakota still retains a few Democrats. Some have even been elected to the legislature. The state also has a university system, and these educational institutions are known to be the last bastions of socialists and other nefarious scoundrels. It is, therefore, not beyond the realm of possibility that an irresponsible person might take unfair advantage of the "constitutional carry" freedom provision and carry a concealed pistol or several concealed pistols. Because South Dakota is home to 800,000 resident, it is not unlikely that several thousand feckless folk may abuse the the "constitutional carry" freedom. These capricious citizens may accidentally wound themselves or others.

It, therefore, becomes one's duty to offer a modest proposal, with all due apologies to Jonathan Swift, in the form of an amendment to rectify the situation.

The amendment would require every person carrying a concealed pistol also carry a trauma kit. The kit would contain gauze with a clotting agent, a chest seal, a trauma bandage, medical tape, a tourniquet, and heavy duty medical gloves. It would also require that the person carrying the concealed pistol and trauma kit should be able to show proof of competency with the medical items being carried. This proof could be demonstrated either by certificate of training or a field test consisting of properly applying the tourniquet and other items in the kit.

Some conservatives or Republicans may contend that this proposal springs from some hidden liberal bias. In an effort to allay such fears, prudence moves me to point out that a Blue Force Gear Micro Trauma Kit NOW won the 2018 NRA Golden Bullseye Award for "Accessory of The Year." If it as an approved NRA accessory, surely conservatives and Republicans cannot object to making it part of a "constitutional carry" law. (Neither the NRA nor Blue Force Gear sponsor this blog.)

I cannot conceive of a Republican or conservative legislature not wanting to ensure that freedom is accompanied with responsibility, so I eagerly anticipate sponsorship, debate, and passage of the amendments proposed above.

A Modest Proposal To Guide South Dakota Democrats As They Respond To South Dakota Republicans Formally Calling For President Obama' s Impeachment

The fact that South Dakota Republicans in convention assembled called for President Obama's impeachment has caused no small stir. Earlier today, reporter David Montgomery tweeted that the Argus Leader story about the impeachment has been shared over 40,000 times.

Clearly this struck a chord: 40,000 people have shared our story about the @sdgop calling for Obama's impeachment: http://t.co/JjsAXKoFHs
— David Montgomery (@ArgusMontgomery) June 23, 2014

Republicans clearly believe they are on the side of the angels. After all, at least one delegate is offering to pray for those who cannot see the need to impeach President Obama.

Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with a life-long Democrat who opined that Republicans' dislike of the President stems from the fact that Obama is a black man who is a President not a waiter. I suspect that not a few Democrats and left-leaning independents share that view and believe that this resolution is racially motivated. They may even believe that a Republican delegate contemplated giving a speech similar to one that Homer Stokes makes in this scene from O Brother Where Art Thou. Given the nature of the resolution, the speaker would, of course, change the word "hang" to " impeach." (Those of you who hate watching YouTube Clips should go to the 50 second mark or click on the Homer Stokes link to read the speech.)



Because so many Democrats believe that Republicans hate Barack Obama merely because of his race, South Dakota Democrats will likely be sorely tempted to issue a strongly worded resolution condemning their Republican neighbors for lacking charity for all while possessing malice toward one.

Such a resolution would no doubt be satisfying but counterproductive. It would certainly be expected. Because Democrats are a minority party within South Dakota, they need to move beyond the expected. I modestly suggest that they, in the spirit of bipartisanship, echo the call for impeachment if said impeachment proceedings are accompanied by war crimes trials for former President George W. Bush and former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Now some Republicans who backed their impeachment resolution might take umbrage at the fact that prisoner exchange not sanctioned by Congress differs greatly from starting a war under false pretenses. The blood and treasure lost by latter pales in comparison to that lost by the former. There are,however, ways to get them to support this resolution if the Democrats propose it.

To put South Dakota Republicans at ease, South Dakota Democrats should call for the impeachment trial and the war crimes trials to be held in South Dakota. Surely, there can be no better backdrop for an impeachment trial than Mount Rushmore. The Crazy Horse Monument would be an equally impressive site for a war crimes tribunal.

Further, one would suspect that more than a few Republican and Democratic business owners who derive most of their income from tourist dollars might worry that the Republican impeachment resolution will cause a small backlash. These trials would likely bring thousands of tourists, many of them rather wealthy high rollers, to the state.

I suppose some on the political left might be ill-mannered enough to point out that two of the faces on Mount Rushmore honor slave holders and that Native Americas were truly the victim of war crimes. They might vociferously point out that historic grievances are being overshadowed for the sake of political spectacle. Surely, a beautiful backdrop would cover multitude of such minor sins.

Only the most rabid partisan could object to a plan that promotes bipartisanship and increases South Dakota's tourist trade, so I can see few objecting to this modest effort to heal any harm that the Republican's prayerful effort has caused.

A Modest Proposal That Should Allow Businesses To Refuse Service To Anyone

I thought we were through with religious freedom/we don't want gay customers legislation after it met defeat in Kansas and South Dakota, but PNR brought up the issue yesterday and Cory responded. More importantly, Arizona is waiting for Governor Jan Brewer to decide what to do with Arizona's version of the bill*, so I guess this post is still timely.

First, let me say that I feel a bit sorry for my conservative businessperson friends. They spend their lives preaching the doctrine of self-reliance, but when a few gay people want to use their services or shop at their stores, they have no recourse but to beg for government assistance in order to refuse service. I can't imagine the angst that this conundrum must cause.

I, therefore, offer a modest proposal to ease the emotional distress: create your own religion. For example, one could establish the First Church of The Wedding Photographer and Baker. Some bakers might have problems with traditional Christianity. Jesus multiplied those loaves and Elijah helped the widow with the oil and flour. Neither miracle could have been good for the local bakers' bottom line. Photographers have, from time to time, had to deal with those folks who contend that photographs are nothing more than two-dimensional graven images.

Appropriately, there is a business set up to provide ordination credentials. Doctrines also exist that should serve these businesschurches: the concept of moral therapeutic deism should work well for most businessclergypersons. (That title might need a bit of work but being a blergyperson just doesn't have a good ring to it.) The doctrine's chief tenets are pretty straightforward.

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.

2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.

3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.

4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.

5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Given that the term was first used in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers  published in 2005, these businesschurches should be a hit with the coveted 18-29 demographic. Businesslogians (or is it theonessians) will have the thorny problem of determining whether coveting a demographic breaks the 10th commandment, but I doubt those concerns will affect their advertising campaigns adversely. More importantly, it doesn't seem to differ much from the discounted grace preached by megachurch luminaries like Joel Osteen.

This is too short of a post to deal with the tax issue, but I'm sure bureaucrats can work it out fairly quickly. Once that issue is solved, each businesschurch (I suppose they could be called busurches) can set up its own membership criteria and provide services to members only. As long as they don't get stupid and make everyone wear those jackets from the 90s, no one should complain.

*the post originally called the legislation a law, but Governor Brewer has not signed it. I should have been more careful.

A Modest Proposal: Let's Treat Guns And Porn In The Same Manner

Many folks who want to put guns in the hands of everyone also want to limit or ban violent video games and films. In short, they believe they can protect the second amendment by stomping on the first.

So allow me to make this modest proposal. Let's treat guns and porn-sexual or violent-the same way. I don't care about people's sexual fetishes. I certainly don't want to see them displayed in public. I also don't care about people's gun fetishes and would prefer never to see a civilian packing a gun in public.

First, everyone over twenty-one who has not been convicted of sex crime can buy or download all of the adult-performed porn-sexual or violent-that he or she desires. (I will stipulate that the performances must be consensual.) Civilians over twenty-one can buy all of the guns they want.

Second, people can watch all of the sexual or violent porn they want in their homes or legally parked vehicles but no one outside the residence or vehicle should be able to hear or see the material. People with guns can have them in their homes, in their vehicles, at the gun range, and in the field while legally hunting. Heck, if they want to they can buy up every old television in the state, go out to the back forty, make sure no one is around, and shoot the old televisions into smithereens if they want. When not in use, the guns must be locked up.

Third, no porn in schools, churches, courthouses or supermarkets. No guns in schools, churches, courthouses or supermarkets. (I will, of course, make allowances for police officers and evidence in courthouses.)