Vermont Got It Right

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1 Jan 26, 2013
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 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.

There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes and fees 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!
TONI with an I

North Tonawanda, NY

#2 Jan 26, 2013
BFLO NEOCON wrote:
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 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.
There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes and fees 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!
Yawn
Hoorahh

North Tonawanda, NY

#3 Jan 27, 2013
Yes, Vermont is correct, that is exactly the intention of the founding fathers.
"It is the right, indeed, the duty, of all citizens, to be at all times armed, to defend the Constitution, against all forms of tyranny, whether foreign or domestic"!
hmmm

North Tonawanda, NY

#4 Jan 27, 2013
...Wow, if NYS passed a law, making non-gun owners register and pay $500. each...that would help the deficit...why didn't Chomo think of that, he's dreamed up about every other money grab...
proof that

Tonawanda, NY

#5 Feb 3, 2013
...more guns ...Less crime...

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6 Feb 9, 2013
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking to purchase up to 7,000 “personal defense weapons”(PDW)-- the same rifles called "assault weapons" when owned by civilians, The Blaze reported Saturday.

The initial request was posted last June, but just recently came to light, Jason Howerton wrote.

According to Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com , DHS said the "select-fire" weapons are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The weapons sought by the DHS would be capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire and would be equipped with high-capacity 30-round magazines, the same type some want to see banned for use by civilians.

New York state Sen. Greg Ball, a Republican, addressed the request in a press released earlier this week.

“Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self defense," he said.
Earl

North Tonawanda, NY

#7 Mar 16, 2013
..."the police cannot stop an invader, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him ONLY, after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun owners than in one of disarmed citizens-even if you don't own a gun yourself"-Harry Brown

Since: Aug 10

Hollis Center, ME

#8 Mar 16, 2013
BFLO NEOCON wrote:
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 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.
There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes and fees 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!
the funny part is that you think this guy is intelligent

Since: Aug 10

Hollis Center, ME

#9 Mar 16, 2013
BFLO NEOCON wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking to purchase up to 7,000 “personal defense weapons”(PDW)-- the same rifles called "assault weapons" when owned by civilians, The Blaze reported Saturday.
The initial request was posted last June, but just recently came to light, Jason Howerton wrote.
According to Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com , DHS said the "select-fire" weapons are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The weapons sought by the DHS would be capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire and would be equipped with high-capacity 30-round magazines, the same type some want to see banned for use by civilians.
New York state Sen. Greg Ball, a Republican, addressed the request in a press released earlier this week.
“Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self defense," he said.
lol, bauerle posted this idiocy too.

Conservatives seem to lack basic common sense. Any 4th grader could tell that story is bs
just the facts

North Tonawanda, NY

#10 Mar 16, 2013
...again liberal frustration is most obvious, when they have no facts of their own, they whine and cry that 'It's lies, all lies, I tell you"...don't listen to that, don't you know, you're not supposed to know that, if it were true NBC would tell you!... ohhhh...I'm melting"

Since: Aug 10

Hollis Center, ME

#11 Mar 16, 2013
just the facts wrote:
...again liberal frustration is most obvious, when they have no facts of their own, they whine and cry that 'It's lies, all lies, I tell you"...don't listen to that, don't you know, you're not supposed to know that, if it were true NBC would tell you!... ohhhh...I'm melting"
so you're saying you believe that stupid dis story?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Buffalo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 min TTRUMP4EVER 20,294
slumlords in buffalo (Jan '09) 1 hr Dave 62
I refuse to endorse Trump 5 hr Zeke the Pinhead 5
News D.C.'s Essential Bagels 18 hr The doode 2
Ghetto assed names 19 hr Zeke the Pinhead 25
The real deal about blacks Tue Zeke the Pinhead 30
Buffalo Zoo Has a New Exhibit Tue Zeke the Pinhead 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Buffalo Mortgages