Now this is a "gun registration" I can get behind

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

WOW. that is daring. i like it. finally someone sees the 2nd the way it was meant to. still WOW.

 

[Err]

Err, I agree. Really Im just glad to see a rep seeing the 2nd as our founding fathers meant it, which as stated in the article so nicely, to ensure that the .gov doesnt have a monopoly on force.

Oh I agree man, not many politicians will take a firm stance supporting 2A rights. I find it funny that in all 26 other ammendments, "the people" clearly defines each individual person. But somhow the 2nd one got screwed up? lol I dont even know why there is controversy over it.

 

[komodo182]

All I could do was laugh.

 

[Aqua Sanctuary]

I do think its a step in the right direction, for everyone to be armed. But also a step in the wrong direction for "We the people" and how our money is spent(taken). The 500 dollars wouldnt help anyone but the government.

The thing is.. I like my gun ownership to be somewhat annonymous. Registering with the state that I do not own a gun is like putting myself on the "break into my house" list, if it were to fall into the wrong hands.


thanks for the new sig Dmopar haha

 

[akskirmish]

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.

Atleast one statement in this is false.
But I like this idea as well and would certainly support something of this nature.....With a bit more info reading and understanding of course...

 

[JD7.62]

Atleast one statement in this is false.
But I like this idea as well and would certainly support something of this nature.....With a bit more info reading and understanding of course...

Maybe they should have said its the only state in the lower 48 that doesnt require a permit to conceal carry.

 

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

Registering with the state that I do not own a gun is like putting myself on the "break into my house" list, if it were to fall into the wrong hands.

this is def true

 

[siebertn]

Where do i sign up for a visa to move to Vermont

 

[Ullopincrate]

This makes more sense in respect to the mind set of the framers than any other "illegal" gun law out there. Since "congress shall pass no law infringing these rights" I'd say all gun laws are illegal. Just my $.02

 

[dmopar74]

I do think its a step in the right direction, for everyone to be armed. But also a step in the wrong direction for "We the people" and how our money is spent(taken). The 500 dollars wouldnt help anyone but the government.

The thing is.. I like my gun ownership to be somewhat annonymous. Registering with the state that I do not own a gun is like putting myself on the "break into my house" list, if it were to fall into the wrong hands.


thanks for the new sig Dmopar haha

see now thats the point, you can either spend the $500 on a gun and arm yourself, and while doing so your also supporting a great right and stimulating that economy, OR send your $500 away to never never land.

and no prob lol.