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 More..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
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.
That is fricken hilarious. I love it!
I especially love this:
ya think? ;-)Yeah...could also be that Vermont is one large suburb and there is not really 'any' crime to commit. You'd have to be seriously desperate to A) make the necessary drive to rob anything of value in Vermont or B) just plain dumb. It's kind of like how Nebraska isn't exactly known for murders. There's really nobody to kill.
ya think? ;-)
Why should the gun owners be the one's to register, we're just exercising a right. It's much better to register non-gun owners as they're the one's refusing to do their duty to the Republic and will be useless in a zombie fight.
What would be the purpose in registering non-gun owners? So that when your non-gun isn't found at the scene of the crime, the cops will know you're innocent?
Nope, so you know who not to go to for help.
And why does the state (or the public) have a compelling interest in that information?
For the state militia.
For the state militia.
Is participation compulsory? If not, why does it matter who currently owns a gun...especially when anyone on the list could go out and buy a gun if they wanted to join? And if it is, then the point is moot, as everyone will have a gun anyway.
That's what the bill proposes. That because the person has the duty to State militia to ensure that the federal government does not maintain a monopoly on force; that people must own guns so that they can participate in the militia should the need arise. Militia is called up, it's not like a voluntary standing army. When called up, all those of age go.
That's what the bill proposes. That because the person has the duty to State militia to ensure that the federal government does not maintain a monopoly on force; that people must own guns so that they can participate in the militia should the need arise. Militia is called up, it's not like a voluntary standing army. When called up, all those of age go.
So if it is compulsory (if needed), remind me again what purpose this registration will serve?
It's the responsibility of the federal gov't to arm the Militia.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
On a federal level. This is state level. The state militia, which is supposed to exist in contrast to the federal government so the federal government does not own monopoly on force.
That the federal government, that's on a federal level. The State has differing criteria and necessities for its militia. The Federal govenrment could call up the State militia (one way by declaration of war). If the federal government calls it up, they must arm them. But the State has different requirements. The States don't keep troops, they don't have an army; they have a State militia.
The militias are composed of the same people. But it's the State militia. The Federal government is able to call it up if necessary, they were given a method to do so. But the militia isn't generally owned or armed by the federal government. The federal government has responsibilities to the State militias should they call them up. The State's responsibilities for their militias are different than federal. In general on the State side you are responsible for owning your own gun(s).
That's what the bill proposes. That because the person has the duty to State militia to ensure that the federal government does not maintain a monopoly on force; that people must own guns so that they can participate in the militia should the need arise. Militia is called up, it's not like a voluntary standing army. When called up, all those of age go.
The State Militia is the one authorized by the Constitution. The states are specifically prohibited from maintaining troops, except as authorized by the consent of Congress.
Your argument that citizens have a duty to arm themselves in case they are called up is problem, because if they are called up, the federal government has the responsibility to arm them, per the Constitution.
It prompts people to either perform their duty or charges them for a permit for the luxury to skip it. Those registered wouldn't be asked to join militia activities.
So then...it's not compulsory. In which case, why not just have a militia registration instead of a non-gun owner registration?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?