no gun then you pay $500!! Vermont

[kingpin008]

Let me put in 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.

+1. Whether or not the bill will pass or not is beside the point - as you mentioned, it's obvious that it will never be passed. The point that Goon is trying to make (which you've seemingly missed) is that it's frustrating at best to see a politician wasting his time on something like this, especially at a time when our country has so much more going on. You can't fight stupid with stupid - and even though it may appear clever on it's face, this proposed bill is exactly that. Stupid.

 

[mgmorden]

Let me put in 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.

Exactly. IMHO, saying this is fine because it won't pass is the political equivalent of waving a gun around and thinking it's fine because "it's not loaded". Doesn't matter if its true or not, our nation's law making processes are not something to brandish in order to make a point.

 

[jbrown50]

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

I like it too.

Just the mere threat of such a law brings the partisan politicians and elitists out of the woodwork.

 

[kingpin008]

I like it too.

Why? It's pretty much 100% contrary to how our country is supposed to run.

 

[goon]

Why? It's pretty much 100% contrary to how our country is supposed to run.

Agree entirely.

Just the mere threat of such a law brings the partisan politicians and elitists out of the woodwork.

The threat... excellent word choice.
Why would you want to threaten someone else's liberty? And if you're a supporter of this, do you have any business complaining when someone twists the law to threaten your liberties?

 

[oneounceload]

In a time of economic shortages, wasting time and state resources over a "feel good" piece of BS legislation that was not intended to pass or even vote on is irresponsible, let alone against everything this country is supposed to stand for.

This person needs to be voted out for malfeasance of office

 

[Warp]

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 agree

 

[jbrown50]

The difference is that the anti-gun crowd doesn't just threaten to abolish liberty. They actually work to do it, AND, they have no doubt that they're justified in doing so. So, why not threaten to abolish their liberty?

Maslac wouldn't have introduced the law if it had a chance of passing so, why the anger from all of you in this thread? It looks as though your anger is greatly misplaced or either you have a different agenda, likely political and elitist.

No, working to eliminate liberty is not the way this country should be run.

 

[addedpulp]

Why? It's pretty much 100% contrary to how our country is supposed to run.

So is every law which intends to make guns incredibly difficult to own, if not entirely illegal... Yet those get passed.

Exactly. IMHO, saying this is fine because it won't pass is the political equivalent of waving a gun around and thinking it's fine because "it's not loaded". Doesn't matter if its true or not, our nation's law making processes are not something to brandish in order to make a point.

So California gun laws are OK because they HAVE been passed? Despite ACTUALLY threatening our rights?

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.

Talking down to others? Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I actually returned to the thread to apologize if I seemed a bit terse with you... I don't think I'll bother.

The difference is that the anti-gun crowd doesn't just threaten to abolish liberty. They actually work to do it, AND, they have no doubt that they're justified in doing so. So, why not threaten to abolish their liberty?

Thanks for that.

 

[kingpin008]

The difference is that the anti-gun crowd doesn't just threaten to abolish liberty. They actually work to do it, AND, they have no doubt that they're justified in doing so. So, why not threaten to abolish their liberty?

Because that's not what politicians are hired to do?

For the sake of argument though, let's suspend reality for a moment and pretend that the anti-gun crowd was a real worry for us at this particular point in time. Wouldn't you want your representatives proposing bills that would actually do something? Or would you be content to have them throw up silly mirror-image legislation in hopes of making the anti's see how ridiculous and unconstitutional their views are?

Maslac wouldn't have introduced the law if it had a chance of passing so, why the anger from all of you in this thread?

Because proposals like this aren't meant to "send a message" to anti-gunners. It's so immediately recognizable as satire that it loses any real power it was intended to have. Moreover, it's intended audience (anti-gunners) don't care, and/or are oblivious to the message.

We're angry because this sort of thing is meant to get the politician's face out there, and get him points for "taking a stand" and poking fun of the anti's. We're angry, because we understand this, and would rather our elected officials do something a little more constructive with their time.

No, working to eliminate liberty is not the way this country should be run.

We agree! Excellent.

 

[kingpin008]

So is every law which intends to make guns incredibly difficult to own, if not entirely illegal... Yet those get passed.

You're correct, but that doesn't make them right. And, it doesn't mean that we should continue the process, just because it suits our desires.

Put another way: America doesn't work on a tit-for-tat system - having your rights imposed upon does not give you the right to "even the score" at the expense of someone else's.

 

[goon]

The difference is that the anti-gun crowd doesn't just threaten to abolish liberty. They actually work to do it, AND, they have no doubt that they're justified in doing so. So, why not threaten to abolish their liberty?

Maslac wouldn't have introduced the law if it had a chance of passing so, why the anger from all of you in this thread? It looks as though your anger is greatly misplaced or either you have a different agenda, likely political and elitist.

No, working to eliminate liberty is not the way this country should be run.

I fail to see the logic. If the law didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing to begin with (and it didn't), all that's been done is that the guy who introduced it made himself look like a moron. And worse yet... he has abused his power. He wasn't voted into power so he could attack the liberty of the citizens of his state - whether I agree with how those citizens would use that liberty or not.

On grounds of principle, I oppose it because I don't like attacks on my rights, or on your rights, or on anyone else's. You should be able to own guns or not. It should be your choice, not mine, and certainly not any government's.

And as for elitist or political agendas...
My only political agenda is to support the rights of others to live their lives however they see fit as long as they don't harm anyone. I point-blank don't care what you do as long as you're not hurting anyone else or violating their rights. I don't think it's right or productive to impose pointless limits on your rights and I don't want my taxes used to try to exercise some kind of idiotic control over how you live your life.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins... otherwise, swing your fist around all you want.
That's my agenda.

 

[llwsgn]

in his book "Hunter's guide to long range rifle shooting" Wayne Van Swoll mentions a community in Washington state that has a mandatory firearms ownership statute on the books. if it be true are those folks backwards or ahead of the curve?

 

[jbrown50]

Kingpin and Goon,

Politicians are hired to represent the people AND to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

You know why Maslack introduced this but, you refuse to admit it. Why?

Why should the Second Amendment be sacrificed for party politics?

 

[addedpulp]

You're correct, but that doesn't make them right. And, it doesn't mean that we should continue the process, just because it suits our desires.

Put another way: America doesn't work on a tit-for-tat system - having your rights imposed upon does not give you the right to "even the score" at the expense of someone else's.

It's not about vengeance, we're not getting even. The point he's making is that, if that's how the system is going to run, that's how people have to play the game to make a point. The meek may inherit the earth, but chances are, if gun owners continue to try to play it nice and civil on all levels and be the bigger man, we're going to be little more than friendly giants, and second-class ones at that. If that's how the system works, sometimes you have to play the game, whether it's the way it should work or not.

 

[kingpin008]

Politicians are hired to represent the people AND to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Correct. They do that by passing laws, not wasting time attempting to make "examples" of groups they don't agree with by proposing bills that would curtail the freedom of hundreds of thousands of people.

You know why Maslack introduced this but, you refuse to admit it. Why?

I do? It must be awesome to be psychic. If you know so much about what I supposedly know, why don't you tell me why I won't "admit" it.

After that, you can stop throwing out strawmen.

Why should the Second Amendment be sacrificed for party politics?

It's not being sacrificed. Unfortunately it's not being defended, either.

 

[crossrhodes]

This is 10 yrs old

This has been one of those internet ghost that makes the rounds every now and then. Google the name and find out how long that guy has been dead.

 

[kingpin008]

Added - I get what he's trying to do. I simply happen to think that if that's how the system works, then the system is broken and politicians should be spending time fixing it, not showing us how it can be perpetuated.

Anyway, I've had enough. Addedpulp and Jbrown: I see where you're coming from, I just happen to think it's incorrect. I really don't feel like going around and around again, so I'll be bowing out now. Have a good night.

 

[Justin]

Guys, Fred Maslack isn't a member of the Vermont House of Representatives.

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2009/11/stop-with-fred-maslack-emails-already.html