Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Gun Control in Vermont

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2013, 12:29 AM   #1
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Daoust_Nat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando,Florida
Posts: 2,035
Liked 1159 Times on 569 Posts
Likes Given: 72

Default Gun Control in Vermont

He's got it right. You want gunj control? Leave the 2nd amendment and those who believe in it and own guns will take care of the rest. Think how fast gun crime will go down (historically this is true) when the good guys keep eliminating the bad guys. Obviously Rahm Emanuel doesn't get it. No guns Higher gun murder rates as the bad guys, whohave all the guns, mow down the victim class of Chicago citizens. AND, he claims he has it right.


Subject: This concept made my day!


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’s 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. Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

Sounds reasonable to me! Share as you see fit.

__________________

A bad day at the range is better then a good day on the job!

Daoust_Nat is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes