Thread: register non-gun-owners!

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/bl...egister-nongun



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 affirming 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.

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='11 November 2009 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1257915707' post='56958']

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.[/quote]



SHHHH!!!



Don't tell that to the anti-gun lobby! They might bust a nut!

[quote name='nonsqtr' date='11 November 2009 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1257915707' post='56958']

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/bl...egister-nongun



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 affirming 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.

[/quote]



I can't believe the stupidity I just read.

[quote name='jacksbrat' date='11 November 2009 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1257917430' post='56967']

I can't believe the stupidity I just read.

[/quote]



"Change" is coming, son.



Bigger "change", than you ever imagined.

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='11 November 2009 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1257949834' post='57110']

If the government gets away with charging people who don't buy insurance, they can begin charging people for all sorts of things they don't buy.



Homeland Security demands that you buy a gun...



Cap and Trade demands that you buy energy efficient replacements for your equipment...



FDA demands that you buy vitamins ....



FCC demands that you buy a short wave radio.... in case of emergencies ....



From the Nanny state's POV, if you do buy, it helps the economy. If you don't buy, it helps with taxes...



They can lock me up. I will not comply.

[/quote]



Seconded.



I'm with you, kMiller.



They can lock me up. I will not comply.



How DARE my government shove this idiotic "plan" down my throat, against the overwhelming wishes of the People?

Stinger (of all people) provided the link: 72% of this country does not want this healthcare bill.



72% !!! That is certainly a veto-proof majority, and in fact it's even enough for a Constitutional

Amendment! These weasels on Capitol Hill, they've defined a felony offense for not

participating in this stupid little game, which means, you lose your vote, you lose your handguns, and

you have no chance of ever getting another job. Oh yeah, and 5 years in the can, and a quarter million

bucks which you STILL OWE WHEN YOU GET OUT, if you don't have it for them to take away "before" they

lock you up.



I'm not going to stand for crap like this. If they pass this thing, I will fight it, with every ounce

of my being. I feel the same way towards this, that I felt towards George W Bush's little adventures

in torture.



This is wrong, it's evil, and not only will I not support it, I'll do everything I can to tear it down.



Well, I guess we'll be in the FEMA camps together, kMiller. Got a smoke?

You know, it just occurred to me (again) - our elected Weasels must be really stupid.



Here they are, they just spent THREE WHOLE MONTHS touring around the country doing their little

"town hall" meetings, and taking the People's pulse - and, what did they see?



They saw lots of people, trying to send them a message.



And it appears, that message was entirely lost on them!



I mean, what was the purpose of the Town Halls then? Was it a "let's see how bad it is" exercise?



Tell ya what, I need to take a little break, I'm gonna go oil my rifle, I might need it soon.

[quote name='Djinn' date='11 November 2009 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1257955938' post='57209']

Meh. I'd just purchase and register the most inexpensive gun possible, and then sabotage it to an irreparable degree. Since there's no mechanism in the bill concerning inspections, I'd be compliant with the letter of the law. Plus, I'd be able to raise my kids in a gun-free home.

[/quote]



Well, to each his own, I suppose.



I'm gonna teach my kids how to hunt and fish, AND use a loaded weapon.



No son of mine is gonna lie down for a FEMA camp, I'll tell you that much.



kMiller is right - it starts with somethin' small, and then it just expands.



Nah man, this is fundamental. We need to get back to limited government.



We the People, need to constrain our government. It's that simple.