no gun then you pay $500!! Vermont

[BFC]

I am sure the guy is just making point but I am surprised at how many here applaud this. What ever happened to freedom and liberty? Last time I checked,more laws rarely solves problems.

We have been regulated for so long in all parts of life that I think the mentality has shifted so that folks are happy to be "given" rights, ie concealed carry, as oppose to be allowed (or not) to exercise rights that were given under the constitution.

Therefore when folks see new legislation(s) that are in line with their point of view on a given subject, they are more than happy to support it. But it's still legislation and by design, a type of control. I realize that society need some level of rule of law, that is not the point I am arguing here.

I just find no joy in law or regulation that should be a god given right in the first place. Choosing to own a gun or not is choice that comes with freedom and liberty. Nobody should have a say in what is an individual decision.

 

[zxcvbob]

there is no way to even enforce it......because they dont register guns........so they dont know who doesnt own a gun.

Sure there is. You pass the law now as a symbolic gesture. In a few years, a new administration takes over. They levy the $500 tax on everybody; you either pay the tax or show proof that you own a gun (which then gets registered.)

Any law can be perverted and used for evil. (that's why I wish *all* federal laws sunset after 10 years. If it was a good law, it shouldn't be too hard to reauthorize it)

 

[Mike1234567]

While I agree with some that it's stupid... it's also kewl as heck.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Kennesaw GA passed a similar law in 1982 in response to Morton Grove IL passing a law banning handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Kennesaw allowed quite a few loopholes to allow persons with an objection to owning a gun to opt out, so it was largely a symbolic gesture. Ultimately Morton Grove repealed its handgun ban in response to the SCOTUS ruling against DC gun ban in Heller'08 and the anticpated ruling against the Chicago gun ban in MacDonald'10.

 

[travisd]

South Dakota tried to pass a law (as a joke) requiring every one over the age of 21 to purchase a gun. It was to prove a point that SD can't require everyone to buy a gun like how the federal government cant force everyone to buy health care.

 

[kingpin008]

While I agree with some that it's stupid... it's also kewl as heck.

No it's not. It's a wanna-be dictatorship. America is a free country. That extends to the freedom to not own or carry a firearm if one so chooses.

It's like if I, as a vegan, were to become a politician and try to pass a law that penalized people for eating meat. After all, vegetarian diets are healthier for you, and thus would lower our national dependence on healthcare.

Would you applaud it? Of course not, because we live in a country that specifically preserves the rights of our citizens to do as they please, whether it's good for them or not.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ Point taken.

 

[Warp]

It's not defended for free. People pay taxes, which goes to pay for police and other emergency services. Not wanting to own a gun has nothing to do with getting a "free ride".

Right you are.

 

[GambJoe]

thumbs down

It's government overreaching. I don't think the government should know if I own any guns or not.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Whowever proposed this KNOWS it will never become law. He was just trying to put the silly anti-carry laws in perspective by doing the same thing in reverse.

 

[MedWheeler]

There is a town in Central Florida that just last year proposed the same thing. Of course, it was symbolic-only in nature. I would not want to be told I had to buy and maintain a firearm any more than I would want to be told I had to buy and maintain health insurance. (Oh, wait.. too late..)

 

[Revolver218]

Interesting, I live in Vermont and have never heard of this. There are literally hundreds of bills introduced in the capitol each year that never make it beyond a committee because they are so ridiculous that most representatives would be ashamed to have their name associated with it. This one, however, sounds more like a joke than a real bill.

 

[oneounceload]

Sounds like this politician is practicing making laws so he can go to Washington DC and continue the insanity there.

With the state of the country, does he really need to waste valuable time and resources on something like this?

 

[mgmorden]

Stupid law. As said, freedom is about being able to make a choice. A dictator that proclaims that I HAVE to do a whole slew of things that I'd do anyways is still a dictator.

Want a good piece of legislation? Lobby to change the tax code so that the purchase price of a single firearm (I'd support 1 per year, but even 1 time for life would be good) of up to say $500, could be deducted from one's income taxes (and structure this so that it's allowable as a non-itemized deduction).

THAT would encourage firearms ownership, and the carrot is always more productive than the stick.

If this passed (and I'm sure it has a snowball's chance in hell of doing so), I can GUARANTEE you that it would turn a whole bunch of people who are completely neutral non-gun owners into anti-gunners.

 

[Art Eatman]

The bill apparently was a reaction to some anti-gun folks yapping about passing gun control laws or waiting periods or some such silliness. So, instead of playing their game, the guy went exactly the opposite direction in writing the bill and introducing it.

Don't go reading more into the deal than is actually there, or you'll be making much ado about nothing.

 

[Strykervet]

I like the idea of it because it sparks discussion. Of course the antis won't like it. But it puts them in our position, it makes them think about what it would be like to have to register with the government based on their beliefs, plus pay a premium for thinking that way.

No way it will pass. But it seems like the only way to get attention regarding this matter. We want to be left alone. No doubt they will want to be left alone too, and this will make them think about it.

 

[addedpulp]

There are people who put their names on the ballet for president each election, sometimes in single states sometimes in more, just to make the point that anyone can, and because they have the money. I think a law like this being an option, even if it's ridiculous, makes similarly peculiar anti-gun laws look sillier by relation.

 

[jbrown50]

The bill apparently was a reaction to some anti-gun folks yapping about passing gun control laws or waiting periods or some such silliness. So, instead of playing their game, the guy went exactly the opposite direction in writing the bill and introducing it.

Don't go reading more into the deal than is actually there, or you'll be making much ado about nothing.

Exactly.

To re-iterate what M-Cameron wrote:

this isnt intend to pass, its intended to send a message....

The message is "suppose we selfishly disregarded the rights of others, just as you do?"

 

[goon]

I'm all for gun ownership, but if you don't want to own a gun you shouldn't have to. And equally important, maybe it's safer for everyone if you don't.

 

[addedpulp]

I'm all for gun ownership, but if you don't want to own a gun you shouldn't have to. And equally important, maybe it's safer for everyone if you don't.

Someone's really missed the point, and many other posts.

 

[goon]

Someone's really missed the point, and many other posts.

Nope, there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.
Messing around with someone's rights isn't the kind of thing that should be used to make a point.

 

[addedpulp]

Nope, there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.
Messing around with someone's rights isn't the kind of thing that should be used to make a point.

Clearly there is, because it's been stated again and again that this WILL NEVER be passed, so it's hardly going to be messing with anyone's rights.

Let me put it incredibly plainly: ANYTHING can be put up for vote as a law. ANYTHING. Just because someone suggests it doesn't mean it will EVER be even remotely considered. This was put out to make a point, and if you think that this will EVER "mess with someone's rights," you need to go back to Political Science 101.

 

[thedrewcifur]

i like the idea. i think i will bring that idea up at the next city meeting.

 

[goon]

Clearly there is, because it's been stated again and again that this WILL NEVER be passed, so it's hardly going to be messing with anyone's rights.

Let me put it incredibly plainly: ANYTHING can be put up for vote as a law. ANYTHING. Just because someone suggests it doesn't mean it will EVER be even remotely considered. This was put out to make a point, and if you think that this will EVER "mess with someone's rights," you need to go back to Political Science 101.

Let me put it incredibly plainly right back at you - I don't care if it's got zero chance of passing or not, threatening someone's rights just to make a point is a low tactic. I don't like it when my rights are threatened and I oppose the threatening of anyone else's rights on the same principle.
I don't know why you singled me out but it's obvious that you don't agree with me. Still, if you can't engage in a civilized discussion with someone you disagree with without talking down to him or her, maybe you are the one who is in need of some expanded education or remedial training. I am relatively sure that most of us learned those skills in elementary school, but perhaps you could find an online course or self-help book to assist you. Unfortunately, I am unable to direct you to a reputable organization to help you with your problem. I wish you the best of luck.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If you are found "unfit" or are otherwise legally disqualified from NOT owning a gun...do you get your $500 back?