"The Answer," IF we can all get behind this:

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • EvilBlackGun

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   1
    Apr 11, 2011
    1,851
    38
    Mid-eastern
    (MODS: CAN I EVEN POST THIS IN HERE??) Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
    THIS WILL MAKE YOUR 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. 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!!!

    "Silence Is Consent"

    How do I get MY Vermont license??
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    Saw a thread on this a while back. It IS in their constitution, so certainly should be enforced.

    That said, the RIGHT to bear arms should mean you have the freedom to CHOOSE for yourself.
     

    Chaz

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 1, 2011
    220
    16
    Wow......................................... Wow, wow, wow.
    That right there is a helluva concept. That makes me smile.
    Maybe that is just what we need to "offset" the Liberal Lunatics so that the proper place to be is in the center. Us starting of from the center and them from the far left will only end us up on the left somewhere. Much like the negotiations on the Hill right now.
    I LIKE IT................................ for leverage. :rockwoot:
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Anyone that thinks that this is a good idea, is a statist of EPIC proportions. So much for freedom loving "Americans."

    pfft!

    (Kut spits on the ground at the notion)

    Further, "arms" aren't simply guns. "Arms" are weapons of any sort. Anything can be a "weapon," and according, anything can be considered "arms" if used to intiate or repel an attack. According to this idiot's proposed bill if my perferred method of "arming" myself was with a bow and arrow, if I didn't own a firearm, I would be subject to this statist extortion.

    If I was an officer in Vermont, I was vocally oppose this bill, and would not enforce it.
     
    Last edited:
    Rating - 75%
    3   1   0
    Jan 7, 2012
    1,728
    83
    Porter county
    I don't think somebody should be forced to own a firearm and be fined if they don't own one. A firearm requires a lot of responibility and not everyone that can own a gun should. This bill just sounds ridiculous to me.
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    Anyone that thinks that this is a good idea, is a statist of EPIC proportions. So much for freedom loving "Americans."

    pfft!

    (Kut spits on the ground at the notion)

    Further, "arms" aren't simply guns. "Arms" are weapons of any sort. Anything can be a "weapon," and according, anything can be considered "arms" if used to intiate or repel an attack. According to this idiot's proposed bill if my perferred method of "arming" myself was with a bow and arrow, if I didn't own a firearm, I would be subject to this statist extortion.

    If I was an officer in Vermont, I was vocally oppose this bill, and would not enforce it.
    You don't need rep, so I'll give you a solid Harrrumph! instead.

    Kutnupe14 gets it, folks. Re-read his post on chew on it a bit.
     
    Top Bottom