So I got this in an email. What do yall think?

[Extremely Pro Gun]

I like this guys point of view, he would have my vote.

Finally .... A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.

 

[ants]

Perhaps they will decide to do that with all our rights.

If you don't publish something in the press, you pay $500.
If you don't worship a god, you pay $500.
If you don't require a jury trial, you pay $500.
If you don't exercise some particular right, you pay another $500.

 

[kingpin008]

I think it's ridiculous. Free men and women are free to live their lives as they see fit. Not owning a gun does not make an individual incapable of defending their home or their fellow statesmen, and it certainly doesn't entitle the government to tax them arbitrarily.

 

[Extremely Pro Gun]

Pay $500 or buy a used shotgun for $100 you may want it some day.

 

[Jim K]

I think it is, and is intended as, a sarcastic jibe at gun control. No, it would not be a good idea, but then the administration is planning to fine anyone who does NOt obtain health insurance, so the idea of imposing a fine for not doing something the government thinks we should do is not too far from reality.

Jim

 

[gadinort]

Or better, as in the book Molon Labe, citizens that can pass a rifle accuracy test receive a tax credit.

 

[MT GUNNY]

It brings up a "Reasonable" counter argument to a Anti Gunner, In there wayward way of thinking!

 

[BBQLS1]

My heart likes the idea, but you are basically registering those who don't have guns, which means the government would know who has them. Two wrongs don't make a right?

 

[azyogi]

there are some who should not have a gun, because of anger issues, eyesight, or just plain too stupid to trust with a gun. do youi really want to require them to buy one. As was mentioned above, maybe a tax credit for those who carry, or a law requiring all expenses related to carry permits, claases etc. come right off of taxes owed. They can raise the tax on ammo and permits all they want it would only starve big guv.

 

[Titan6]

There is not a single valid argument to support this.

 

[sanerkeki]

That is crazy, let people be/

 

[ChaoSS]

Of course this is crazy. As a political satire, aimed at pointing out the ridiculousness of gun control laws, it is brilliant.

The fact is that the right to keep and bear arms is protected, the right to not keep and bear arms is not specifically protected, thus if it is ok to register and tax people for exercising the right that is protected, it would make sense to do the opposite as well.

 

[BigMustard]

Perhaps they will decide to do that with all our rights.

If you don't publish something in the press, you pay $500.
If you don't worship a god, you pay $500.
If you don't require a jury trial, you pay $500.
If you don't exercise some particular right, you pay another $500.

I think that pretty much says it all.

 

[Guns and more]

I oppose ALL new taxes.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I'm not sure how seriously this should be taken. I agree that it sounds like a joke at the anti gunners out there. But no, I don't think it would be a good idea. The beautiful thing about freedom is that you always have two sides to the issue. I believe that I should be able to own any firearm I want to but I also respect the freedom of those who choose not to own any. Freedom goes both ways. Don't infringe on mine, and I won't mess with yours.

 

[TeamPrecisionIT]

IF this works to repeal all the other "Gun Control" related laws (NFA, GCA, BB, et al), then it would be brilliant and why I actually voted yes. But I do see the counter arguments that have been made and they make complete sense as to why if I were to vote on this, I may have to vote against it.

 

[crossrhodes]

Vermont

I live in Vermont, I own lots of firearms and I like the way thing are. Leave us alone!!!...

"we have signs posted on our road, Armed Neighborhood Watch, it's a neighborhood thing"


Semper Fi

Guns-out

 

[kd7nqb]

Of course this is satire and good satire at that. But I dont think the idea would a good one.

 

[DeepSouth]

That is crazy, let people be/

I oppose ALL new taxes.

+1

I shouldn't be taxed because I own a gun and someone else shouldn't be taxed because they don't. It is a personal decision.....It's called freedom.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

+1 DeepSouth

 

[gondorian]

Despite the prevalent opposition to this idea on THR it actually has legal precedent. In 1792 congress passed the militia act which states:

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, [...] every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service..."

There also were several proclamations in England during the pre colonial period called Assize of Arms which required all male of certain age to be armed, with their arms depending on their wealth

 

[Dokkalfar]

As a satire this is rather brilliant. But to actually implement it is about as dumb as many of the laws proposed against gun ownership.

 

[Pony Express]

I oppose ALL new taxes.

I second that.