Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: THI IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME (Must Read)

  1. #1
    Regular Member linerider69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Louisburg
    Posts
    84

    THI IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME (Must Read)

    This makes perfect sense:




    Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

    Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont ís constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."
    Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

    Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

    Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

    " America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards."

    This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

    I LIKE IT!!!



    'IN GOD WE TRUST'

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    *like!*

    let me re-phrase: I like the cause and ideology to an extent.
    but still, this is just one more way government is trying to control people. we are a free nation, free people, we should be free to make our own decisions. the 2A was written to maintain a free status; free from government control. and this is literally government trying to control the people, thus making the people not free which defies the whole point of the 2A
    Last edited by motoxmann; 01-10-2013 at 11:18 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by linerider69 View Post
    Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.
    Umm. Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana(unincorporated areas at least)?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    Umm. Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana(unincorporated areas at least)?
    This was from 1999 (14 years ago), and the bill went nowhere.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •