THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY.!

[Guest083013]

This is really not such an absurd idea. The fellow's argument that the Framers anticipated (and I believe they did...actually I suspect they anticipated that all free men would WANT to...) every able-bodied man to have a firearm makes sense; they (all free men) were to be 'the militia'. But, even if he's sincere...and this is not just some attention-getting exercise...it won't go anyplace. Perhaps it should. I also think his one line beginning with 'It's too late to work within the system...' is probably correct.

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 reads 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..."

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.

Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense.!


(bolded4Rr)

[Coolpops]

I am a big 2nd amendment guy myself. However, feel this proposal
is going toooo far. Look at it this way, I have the right to free speach;
but I also have the right to keep my opinions to myself. No sense in
charging me to remain quiet !!!!!

[Guest081519]

I agree with you coolpops. I shouldn't be forced one way or another.

By the way, I need a spotting scope for a long range precision rifle course, any suggestions under $300? PM me if you do.

[armystrong]

Thats just awesome... I can agree with it in theory but there are some people that just shouldnt have firearms and this will put weapons into their hands more likely than not.

[luzfirus]

Careful