'States considering charging NON Gun owners with fines.

Interesting Indeed



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 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."
[great point!]

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!

And theses truths should go viral.

....................................................................

What a fresh insight into the duty as stated in the constitution. The last sentence says it all for me.

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

They want us to pay for things many of us don't need or want or seldom use... so it's only FAIR that they should also be required to pay for the things they don't need or want or seldom use./b]

I love this!

It is entirely in keeping with what I've been saying, that rights & duties go hand-in-hand...Americans have a Second Amendment DUTY to arm themselves to be a well-regulated militia. That is what gives them the Second Amendment RIGHT to buy arms.

They didn't need a second amendment to have the right to buy guns to defend themselves...They always had that right, written or not, however, the government might be able to limit the type of arms people could buy in such a case.

Buying competent arms for the militia is much more than just the semi-autos they are trying to restrict; it is the right to buy rocket launchers, 50 cals, grenades etc....Those are arms too, and they are arms guaranteed by the second amendment. So if those are unavailable for purchase by reasonable American citizens, you already live under an unconstitutional tyranny and should be marching on washington to DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO OBTAIN & BEAR THEM.

This is what the anti Gun crowd really fears! A strict interpretation of the constitution! SWEET!

it costs money to protect these sissies!

Not according to mah cuzin da Kum Flu Queen.

All folks can fend off attackers with just a brush of the eyebrow.

I am perty sure I know who yeu are referring 2!

I'm so glad that this is happening.

Not saying I agree, nor that its a good idea, in the final analysis.

Just that.... while everyone is acting all panicked about guns, and so many are pushing to take away more gun rights - someone is taking such a strong and dramatic step in the opposite direction.

I love this statement above.

I don't agree that non gun owners should have to pay a fee or fine and register though. I'm sick of government telling me I have to register for every damn thing or pay a fee or fine for every damn thing.

However if such a law is passed, I will go get a gun and learn how to shoot it as the hour is late and there may come a time when we have to shoot some bastards.



Now I am hoping 'they' don't arrest me and put me in jail for having said that.

a right cant be a mandate



thats an oxymoron,,,,

purchases of products cant be mandated. that would be true plutocracy

where manufactures and government could work together to financially bully people into purchasing their products

doctors could lobby to have fines imposed on taxpayers who refused to stop smoking , or who didnt have gym memberships, because they are more likely to need doctors to 'do the job they are paid to do'

now, if they mandated at 18, that everyone is drafted to truly get the training, understanding and opportunity to PROTECT themself, that would be a different question, in those cases guns are PROVIDED To those being mandated to use them

but people would be up in arms if they were mandated to register with the service, and just as up in arms if they were mandated to own a gun at their own expense , with training at their own expense, and potentical consequences at their own financial liability,,


police are PAID to protect taxpaying public, regardless of which rights they choose to use

if all citizens were armed, what would be the NEED to police,, the complaint seems empty as well,,,

the argument is as lax as the suggestion that a platinum coin should be used to defer debt



taxes are paid based on inoome, not based upon how many services they may or may not need


it has no legs to stand on, legally speaking

if we pass a law requiring people to pay a fine for what they choose not to PURCHASE,, the western world will know we have truly lost our minds,,,,

I agree...military weaponry should be available free of charge for all reasonable living citizens and paid for by taxing the corporations.

Maybe Obama should make an executive order in that regard?...The people might change their mind about him if he could do stuff like that for them.

and with a requirement to enlist, to receive proper training and appreciation for the power and consequences of such a weapon,,,and to prove one truly has an interest in 'protecting' their countrymen,,,

I agree that one shouldn't simply be able to walk in and buy a grenade launcher and should get some training in the competent use of the weaponry he picks up, but enlist for what? He'd already be a part of the civil militia.

enlist to prove they can actually face an 'enemy' as opposed to being fantasy cowboys who play too many video games and watch too many westerns,,,

Nah... forget that crap...Who are they gonna enlist with?...a potential future enemy?

It will be enough that they are trained to be competent with the weaponry.

well,what's good for the Goose,is good for the Gander!

So,in that case Gungrabbing from Citizens also has no leg to stand on!

You sure sang a different tune about buying health insurance.

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHAAH . . . . . AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Bwhahahahahahaha!


All kinds of products are forced on us by the government right now. Plenty of them that you support!


LOL



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTPReonNp-0Like this?

Srry, the glorification of the Military is part of the problem. I can just about guarantee short of the spec ops groups, I have more training, and can score better with most weapons than the average guy in the military.

Duty toward WHOM?

No such Thing,NOT in a Free Society!
Demand from WHOM?
Government doesn't grant Rights!
It's function is to be the protector of those Rights!

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/duty.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny.

Funny enough, I was going to say the same about the OP and anyone who agrees with him. You b*tch and moan about health insurance, but want everyone to be forced to buy a gun or pay a fine? Interesting.

That is if we were really intereted in such a piece of legislation being passed.

Cant speak for the OP, but I would fight against any kind of registration of non-gun owners as much as I would for gun owners.

The unintended consequence would be the opposite of what we would want, registering non-gun owners is really registering gun owners at the same time. Whats left over and all that . . .

Also, the idea that we should tax people based on their life styles to me is offensive to my sense of liberty.

HOWEVER, the absurdity is HILARIOUS! Seeing the contradictions form as people argue against this legislation all the while arguing for things like a sugar tax in NY, or universal health care mandates and the list goes on.

It really goes to show you bad ideas abound, it is almost natural for humans to want to tinker with a system, but far too few are equipped to think past there own rhetoric.