PDA

View Full Version : Blown AWAY!!!!!!


sarge1572
03-31-2010, 8:21 PM
How'd this guy get elected?????


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 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.

America

Home of the free,

BECAUSE of the Brave

Knight
03-31-2010, 8:27 PM
I want to say that this is awesome, but I can't in good conscience support a program that requires that kind of registration for something as innocuous as not owning a firearm.

It's a free country either way; if people choose to not own guns, it should be their right.

thefinger
03-31-2010, 8:41 PM
amazing

shooting4life
03-31-2010, 8:42 PM
He knows it is not going anywhere. It is just for show

Zomgie
03-31-2010, 8:44 PM
The health care bill should include a free gun to every US citizen on their 18th birthday. As long as we're spending tax payer money might as well make it worthwhile... :rolleyes:

CitaDeL
03-31-2010, 8:45 PM
I like the way this guy thinks.

I agree that those who will not defend themselves are a burden on society- if you are entirely dependent upon police for your protection, you are no different than those who will not work for a living and leech off taxpayer funded entitlements...

nn3453
03-31-2010, 8:52 PM
He knows it is not going anywhere. It is just for show

^^

Although great to read, it is political grandstanding.

wildhawker
03-31-2010, 9:03 PM
Congress has previously required every male of military age to own a firearm and ammunition; the twist is that a registration scheme to promote a well-regulated and organized Militia is likely Constitutional.

anhero
03-31-2010, 9:07 PM
... I can't in good conscience support a program that requires that kind of registration for something as innocuous as not owning a firearm.

fixed it for you

It's a free country either way; if people choose to not own guns, it should be their right privilege.

I'll agree that they have the right not to own a firearm. They should also be held to the same standard and require to register for not owning one.

Think of the children. /sarcasm

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.

^^ Not a truer statement was said.

Shotgun Man
03-31-2010, 9:14 PM
Ridiculous, and gives a gunners a bad name. Vermont and New Hampshire are pro-gun states. Stunts like this will only hurt us.

chrisw
03-31-2010, 9:16 PM
:) I like it. To encourage firearms proficiency they should add a yearly qualification where you get tax breaks for shooting well.

madhatter
03-31-2010, 9:25 PM
Can we have someone in this state that can give us this kind of law.:43:

Wild Squid
03-31-2010, 11:30 PM
As much as I don't like his stance on freedom of choice, I think that's just the kind of guy we need in CA office, he'll drive the anti-gunners crazy buck wild.

POLICESTATE
03-31-2010, 11:33 PM
I'm not gay but I do believe I could kiss State Rep. Fred Maslack

not4un
04-01-2010, 12:56 AM
(GunReports.com)--A letter that offers a novel interpretation of how to move forward with gun legislation is making the email rounds.

The letter contents said that Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack of Poultney proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state.

The original bill was H. 760 and was introduced in 2000. Maslack is no longer in the Vermont House.

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. However, no action was ever taken on the bill.

groats
04-01-2010, 5:46 AM
If I remember my history correctly, this has legal precedent going all the way back to jolly old England before the revolution.

Able bodied men between certain ages (18 and 50?) were required to own guns and ammo, or pay a fine.

todd2968
04-01-2010, 6:36 AM
Beautiful

goodlookin1
04-01-2010, 6:38 AM
While I think it is everybody's national duty to protect themselves and others by arming themselves.......this legislation, if passed, would be just as encroaching on the rights of those who choose not to arm themselves as the healthcare garbage that just passed saying that not buying health insurance is engaging in commerce. This is flat out unconstitutional and I oppose it 100%.

You cannot tax, fine, or impose penalties for not exercising a constitutional right. The whole deal about a "right" is that it is a choice of the individual to engage in it or not. It cannot be forced or denied.

We Americans have the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If it makes you happy not to shoot guns, then so be it.

Decoligny
04-01-2010, 6:44 AM
ANCIENT HISTORY

This guy hasn't been in office for at least 10 years.

This legislation was proposed and shot down LONG AGO.

This article keeps popping up every month or so.

ocspeedracer
04-01-2010, 6:46 AM
so, I'd vote for this guy as president.

groats
04-01-2010, 6:51 AM
This guy hasn't been in office for at least 10 years.

This legislation was proposed and shot down LONG AGO.

This article keeps popping up every month or so.

Which only proves that it is a good idea.

You don't see posts calling for the return of - say, the Yugo - do you?

radioburning
04-01-2010, 7:09 AM
Imagine if every citizen legally able to carry did...

Everyone would get a lot nicer I think.

stag1500
04-01-2010, 8:53 AM
Congress has previously required every male of military age to own a firearm and ammunition; the twist is that a registration scheme to promote a well-regulated and organized Militia is likely Constitutional.

Right. And we all have to sign up for the draft.

dilligaffrn
04-01-2010, 9:01 AM
SWEET!

LOL

But I do not think it will fly, for example, I would hate to pay a tax because I don't have solar panels on my roof, or drive a green car etc.

PS love the April FOOLS BANNED!

POLICESTATE
04-01-2010, 9:18 AM
Imagine if every citizen legally able to carry did...

Everyone would get a lot nicer I think.

You bet, and we wouldn't have any smart-mouthed kids running around, not because they would be shot but because they would have been raised right in the first place.

dustoff31
04-01-2010, 10:34 AM
The fact the guy who proposed this is long gone notwithstanding, this is one of those things that sounds good on it's face but could have really bad unintended consequences. It this not in fact a gun registration scheme?

(Adjusts :TFH:) Say administrations or times change, as they do. Wouldn't the fact that one did not register as a non-owner, give the state reason to believe that they do in fact own guns? Would there be searches to ensure that you were not a non-owner who failed to register?

cljpj3
04-01-2010, 10:36 AM
Wow

loather
04-01-2010, 11:44 AM
The fact the guy who proposed this is long gone notwithstanding, this is one of those things that sounds good on it's face but could have really bad unintended consequences. It this not in fact a gun registration scheme?

(Adjusts :TFH:) Say administrations or times change, as they do. Wouldn't the fact that one did not register as a non-owner, give the state reason to believe that they do in fact own guns? Would there be searches to ensure that you were not a non-owner who failed to register?

He's right. Registration schemes go both ways.

I'm sure there is at least one felon or child molester (or other scum) living in Vermont anyways. Not to defend scum-of-the-earth like that, but it brings up an interesting legal question about compelling someone to pay a fee when they have no other option available: if the choice is buy and keep a gun or pay the fee, and you're unable to buy the gun ...

Sutcliffe
04-01-2010, 12:19 PM
He knows it is not going anywhere. It is just for show
Nice to see our PAID representatives earning their keep by wasting a lot of time.