Legislation as political theater?

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.

Sounds like some "sauce for the goose" legislation, no?

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.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

Ah. So you're writing legislation you know is un-Constitutional and will not pass to illustrate how other legislation is un-Constitutional? Is this really how we want our elected officials to act? Though I agree with his point, surely there must be a better way to make your point rather than clogging the legislative schedule with show and tell?

..and don't call me Shirley!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at <a href="http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/">Proof Positive</a>