More Gun stuff

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 f More..irst 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. Less..

It is too bad we do not see more politicians thinking like this. This guys needs to run for pesident.

Hooah Cooper, Great post
Its ironic that the lack of gun crime in Vermont which has one of the least restrictive gun laws in the country isn't more noteworthy to the media. Perhaps this Representative will shine a little light on the truth. More legal gun ownership=less crime. Here in CT we have about 50,000 legal handgun permits issued. Of those permitted to possess concealed, the rate of revocation is less than .05%. 4 of those were after justified shootings in self defense resulted in the permit holder allowing police to confiscate the pistol in the course of the investigation. The pistols in all 4 of those instances were returned.
The most crime in the state is in the following cities which each effectively have banned guns citywide. Hartford, Bridgeport and Hew Haven.
The citizens are unarmed in those cities=more crime.
We folks in the sububurbs and rural areas are armed=less crime.
Funny how it works out that way.
I say tax the unarmed for our responsibility in defending their sorry asses.
Less Government, more common sense.
That's my platform.

-(1ATR)-pinkmist wrote:Here in CT...

You have my deepest sympathy

-(1ATR)-pinkmist wrote:The citizens are unarmed in those cities=more crime.
We folks in the sububurbs and rural areas are armed=less crime.
Funny how it works out that way.

I don't know that its that easy of a distinction. However, people who live in rural areas tend to be more independent and self-determinative, where people in urban areas are usually either "sheeple" or the "predators" who prey on them. So I don't think its just the presence or absence of guns per se, but the type of people you are dealing with in each area.

GREAT POST !!!!!!!!