Good Gun Control

[Rusty]

Finally ..... A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

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 b@st@rds."

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.

[OI phones in...]

L Neil Smith posited this very thing in one of his books. An alternate history where Texas never joined the Union and the denziens there were required to have a permit to go unarmed...

[O.S.O.K.]

I like it!

[AJMD429]

I love it.

It is about time the freedom-freeloaders step up and admit who they are. They expect 'freedom' without 'responsibility', or they expect us to do the 'responsibility' part for them.

[Mutt]

Can't remember where but I read that in the early settlement days
Any man going to church was required to be armed as to protect his family and the church if needed. I understood there was a penalty
for not doing so.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Mutt

[DBW]

I like it except the part about the social security number which itself violates the Constitution. My understanding is that our SS# is only supposed to be within the context of an issue of the Social Security Insurance program and nothing else. SS of course being a mandated insurance program the same as the pending Slave Care legislation.

[kimwcook]

I like it. As is common knowledge, at least amongst most guntoters, an armed society is a polite society.

[Rusty]

I read somewhere that this bill was proposed for many years but the rep is no longer in the house there. This was old but worth posting.

[Sixgun]

That all might work where you boys come from, but here in SE Pa., it would be a nightmare. Philadelphia is 25 miles from me, and with about 75% of that popluation being illegals and felons, with the remainder having an IQ that about equals a stalk of celery, I would be a little nervous.-----------------------Sixgun

[AJMD429]

I like it except the part about the social security number which itself violates the Constitution. My understanding is that our SS# is only supposed to be within the context of an issue of the Social Security Insurance program and nothing else. SS of course being a mandated insurance program the same as the pending Slave Care legislation.

Good point, but I figure that maybe they (non-gun-owners) need to 'feel our pain' and understand what it's like to have rights violated. I suppose that wouldn't be good in the long run, but it's fun to think about them stammering and squirming in protest...

[OI phones in...]

That all might work where you boys come from, but here in SE Pa., it would be a nightmare. Philadelphia is 25 miles from me, and with about 75% of that popluation being illegals and felons, with the remainder having an IQ that about equals a stalk of celery, I would be a little nervous.-----------------------Sixgun

Why would that be a problem? All it would mean is that the innocent morons would finally be able to shoot back at the criminal morons...

Stupidity should be fatal anyway. Darwin in action.

[OI phones in...]

I like it except the part about the social security number which itself violates the Constitution. My understanding is that our SS# is only supposed to be within the context of an issue of the Social Security Insurance program and nothing else. SS of course being a mandated insurance program the same as the pending Slave Care legislation.

That was also brought up - and addressed - with the same reasoning - in/around L Neil's book(s).

Fwiw, the underlying philosophy in the book(s) agrees with you.

[DBW]

I like it except the part about the social security number which itself violates the Constitution. My understanding is that our SS# is only supposed to be within the context of an issue of the Social Security Insurance program and nothing else. SS of course being a mandated insurance program the same as the pending Slave Care legislation.

Good point, but I figure that maybe they (non-gun-owners) need to 'feel our pain' and understand what it's like to have rights violated. I suppose that wouldn't be good in the long run, but it's fun to think about them stammering and squirming in protest...

Thinking about it for fun is okay. But two wrongs don't make a right. I have no desire to tread on anyone's rights, even if I disagree. I only want reciprocal treatment.

The problem currently is that gun owners are viewed as "nut" while anti-gunners are portrayed as normal. Prior to the statist liberals came to power gun ownership was as American as it got. Today it is the opposite. Now if we could stigmatize the anti-gunner ideology negatively as they've done us maybe in a generation or two we can get it back to the natural way. What we have now is as unnatural as Adam & Steve or two mommies.

[Grizz]

he's dead wrong about Vermont being the only state. Alaska recognizes the right of citizens to be armed, open or concealed, without any permitting, no paperwork required.

but I do like the idea of taxing those who refuse to arm and defend themselves. think of the enormous burden on the rest of us who have to pay for police protection for them. it's only right that they pay up for the extra police it takes and the extra work the police have to do to protect the refuseniks...

Grizz

[Gun Smith]

If it's still active, the bill will never pass. But it might get him reelected.

[madman4570]

State Rep Fred Maslack for President! I love it!

[Ysabel Kid]

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the b@st@rds."

Love it!!!

Actually, if you think of it, anti-gunners in right-to-carry states benefit from those of us who, to paraphrace Thomas Paine's words, "like men, undergo the fatigue" of preparedeness and a willingness to defend ourselves, our loves ones, and others. The criminals don't know who is packing and who is not. A tax on those won't undergo that fatigue is only proper.

J/K on the last part - I can't stand taxes period, especially unconstitutional ones (90% of what we're assessed with now), and though this would be fun, it proper wouldn't pass (perhaps though at a state level.