Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
rbertalotto
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1232
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm
Location: Dartmouth, MA
Contact:

Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by rbertalotto »

http://www.dailypaul.com/158529/no-gun- ... 00-penalty

Don't own a gun, pay $500 so the state can pay for extra police protection..................
Roy B
Dartmouth, MA
www.rvbprecision.com
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 32847
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by AJMD429 »

I hope it's true.

Non-gun-owners SHOULD have to be registered, and pay extra taxes; their 'phobia' creates an unsafe condition for their own household relative to gun owners, and if enough of them cluster in one area, an unsafe neighborhood for others. If that feeble mindset becomes dominant politically in a nation, GENOCIDE is usually the end result.

Therefore, non-gun-owners should definitely pay extra taxes.

I'd suggest we require they post their homes and businesses as "gun-free zones" as well, so sane and responsible people can avoid them.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 7091
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by jeepnik »

AJMD429 wrote:I hope it's true.

Non-gun-owners SHOULD have to be registered, and pay extra taxes; their 'phobia' creates an unsafe condition for their own household relative to gun owners, and if enough of them cluster in one area, an unsafe neighborhood for others. If that feeble mindset becomes dominant politically in a nation, GENOCIDE is usually the end result.

Therefore, non-gun-owners should definitely pay extra taxes.

I'd suggest we require they post their homes and businesses as "gun-free zones" as well, so sane and responsible people can avoid them.
Hey, how about after they are registered, some newpaper publishes the names and address' of those on the list?
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
User avatar
mklwhite
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:30 pm
Location: Arkansas Ozarks

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by mklwhite »

jeepnik wrote: Hey, how about after they are registered, some newpaper publishes the names and address' of those on the list?
Amen!
User avatar
kmittleman
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:32 pm
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Contact:

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by kmittleman »

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...”
ALRIGHT! :D I hope it's true!
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." - C.S. Lewis
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by Malamute »

Has anyone read the comments in the link? It's from 2000, and the guy isnt even a rep any longer. It never passed, and from comments I've seen elsewhere, it wasnt considered constitutionally supportable.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 28252
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by Ysabel Kid »

It does make a valid point though! :D
Image
Rusty
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9528
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: Central Fla

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by Rusty »

It sounds like the same thing that has been fought as unconstitutional with Obamacare in that the Gov't can't force you to buy something that you don't want.
If you're gonna be stupid ya gotta be tough-
Isiah 55:8&9

It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
rbertalotto
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1232
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm
Location: Dartmouth, MA
Contact:

Re: Ya Gotta Love VERMONT!

Post by rbertalotto »

Kennesaw GA and Bowerbank Me have the same law....

The City's most famous ordinance adopted in March 1982 reads as follows. Click here for a link to the Police Department for statistical information on crime or contact the City Clerks office for additional information. Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability, which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Copyright by the City of Kennesaw, Georgia
Roy B
Dartmouth, MA
www.rvbprecision.com
Post Reply