What a great idea!!

[georgec]

Maybe Vermonters are ‘tree huggers’ – but watch out, they might be packing. I never met any of the tree huggers when I was working up there – but I was calling on independent business people – guess they had better things to do than hug trees. I would have expected something like this to come out of New Hampshire – with their state motto of –“Live Free or Die!”

WHAT A GREAT IDEA !!!!!!!!!!!
The most intelligent thing I have read yet. Read it thoroughly and then see if you don't agree with State Rep. Maslack. In short, make the bleeding heart liberals pay for their protection. Best example is the nation of Switzerland. Everyone is given a rifle and military training. They have the lowest crime.

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 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

[What's_nitro?]

So do you get a bigger tax break if you own more than one gun? What about explosives???

[BrianG]

That makes total sense! Requiring permits to carry a weapon is just silly. Only the law-abiding citizens will follow that rule, but not the criminals. And since it's the criminals we have to watch out for, what's the point?

[E-Revonut]

I for one love it! Almost makes me want to move to Vermont!

Interesting, I think this should be instilled everywhere.

[Finnster]

I thought Conservatives hated mandates forcing you to buy products for your personal & communal protection and to contribute their fair share and pay their own way...? ;)

[lincpimp]

I like the idea that he is interpreting the constitution correctly. I love it when the demos harp on about "sporting arms" and such when they reference the constitution. Back in the day everyone had a gun for "sporting" reasons (they just called it hunting for food), the constitution has the 2nd ammendment there so that the gov't can't take the guns away and then have carte blanche on what they do (just like england did with their subjects). The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting, or target practice or anything of the sort. Concealed carry licensing is another BS law. Just a way to get money, and info (fingerprints etc.) from the ctizens in a way that the constitution sis not want (look up just what the constitution allows to be asked in the census, and you will see how tight the forefathers want to keep the choker on the gov't).

As far as taxing people who do not have guns, why not just shoot them instead... Just kidding, I do not belive in any tax other than the fair tax... Tax the stuff people buy and leave it a that. The more you spend the more tax you pay, pretty damn simple.

At least this guy is going of the deep end in the right direction, if only to counter the anti kitchen knife crowd and all the other dimwits trying to save the world by banning plastic bags and other inanimate objects...

[SunnyHouTX]

Here's a tip: QUIT TROLLING

[schofield]

im a vermonter and i will never carry a gun or pay to not carry a gun.

[schofield]

There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.

so people that own guns don't get to call the police? cool

[lincpimp]

The police offer no real protection. If someone is breaking into your house and threatening to kill you, give the police a call, and they will make it there in time to draw a chalk line or two. Or in my case they will be able to take my statement and call the coroner out to get rid of the "remains"...

Why anyone would want to put their life in some gov't employee's hands is beyond me. I would just rather protect myself and my family. Plus guns are cool (just ask any young boy) and they make a great future investment if you purchase shrewdly!

Linc is right, while I appreciate people that are first responders and what they do, they are not able to be every where at one time.

You should compare the time an average home invasion takes and compare it to how long it takes the police to respond to a 911 emergency call<------That does assume the bad guys give you time to call the police.

Where I live it takes the police about 13 minutes to respond, that is a little longer than I want to chance.

[georgec]

Originally Posted by schofield

There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.

so people that own guns don't get to call the police? cool

That's just being silly!

[lincpimp]

Originally Posted by 76Bentley

Where I live it takes the police about 13 minutes to respond, that is a little longer than I want to chance.

About 12mins and 59secs longer than you want to chance, right?

I have nothing against the police either, but I always remember what Rodney Dangerfield said "look out for number 1 and watch out for number 2!"

Not actively participating in your own personal protection is like not saving for retirement, it will bite you in the butt one day, and at that point there is nothing you can do about it.

[georgec]

Well said linc! Don't prepare for either and you will find yourself in deep #2