• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A novel approach to gun ownership

Soapweed

Well-known member
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY..... !!!!!!!!

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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. Vermonts
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. Sounds
reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them
and this fee should go to paying for their defense!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Makes sense to me, but OT and the Liberals won't think so. He wants to go back to the days of Wyatt Earp and his crooked consortium.


Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia

Crime Rate Plummets


The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY..... !!!!!!!!

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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. Vermonts
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. Sounds
reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them
and this fee should go to paying for their defense!


I wish you Rightwing R folks would make up your mind on mandates... For 40 years the Repubs pushed the mandate as the answer to the Health Care and Health Care insurance problem--BUT then when Obama and the D's agreed to that idea and promoted and passed it-- all the Rightwing R's fled screaming "the sky is falling" and proclaiming mandates unconstitutional-- BUT now they again are thinking folks should be MANDATED...

Sounds like the R principles only stand for whatever that R wants for that day..... :wink: :roll: :p :lol:


Does this idiot lawmaker actually think the country would be safer with a bunch of untrained folks who have never handled a gun and really don't want to running around buying a cheap gun to avoid being fined :???:
Sounds like some gun lobbyiest stuffed his pockets well....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Gotta laugh at oldtimers knee jerk response on an article written in 2001... if it was up to oldtimer we would still be under British rule......I doubt if oldtimer even read the total post,,,instead he jumped on his soap box and started his usual rant :D :D :D :D
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Soapweed said:
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY..... !!!!!!!!

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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. Vermonts
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. Sounds
reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them
and this fee should go to paying for their defense!


I wish you Rightwing R folks would make up your mind on mandates... For 40 years the Repubs pushed the mandate as the answer to the Health Care and Health Care insurance problem--BUT then when Obama and the D's agreed to that idea and promoted and passed it-- all the Rightwing R's fled screaming "the sky is falling" and proclaiming mandates unconstitutional-- BUT now they again are thinking folks should be MANDATED...

Sounds like the R principles only stand for whatever that R wants for that day..... :wink: :roll: :p :lol:


Does this idiot lawmaker actually think the country would be safer with a bunch of untrained folks who have never handled a gun and really don't want to running around buying a cheap gun to avoid being fined :???:
Sounds like some gun lobbyiest stuffed his pockets well....

when you have some valid statistics supporting your non sense, let us know.

Here is an emoticon translation for you. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :???: :???: :???: :???: :???: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :???: :???: :???: :???: :???: :? :? :? :? :? :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY..... !!!!!!!!

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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. Vermonts
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. Sounds
reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them
and this fee should go to paying for their defense!


And on top of everything--according to the gun rights sites- it appears this is an e-mail that has been circulating for 12 years-- as Maslack introduced his bill around 1999- 2000---- and has NOT been a Vermont Congressmen for years...

But never let the small stuff like truth and accuracy stand in the way of stirring the pot and fear mongering !!!! :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
I wish you Rightwing R folks would make up your mind on mandates...

it seems as if they are fairly clear...

marginally acceptable at the state level,..

and totally unacceptable at the federal level


I wouldn't go as far as "mandating" gun ownership,..

but I would support mandating firearm safety training for all residents
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
I think you may have missed hopalong's post........it was made before yours.......

I usually purposely miss 99.95% of what Hopalong or any of the other yap dog multi ID stalkers post...

But either way-- if it was Yap Dog or I that posted the truth-- Old Soapweed- the "untouchable" supposed Puritan :roll: of the board- is again posting false and misleading information - but does not seem to care a bit about that since his fellow R-cult lapdogs will defend him all the way......
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
I think you may have missed hopalong's post........it was made before yours.......

I usually purposely miss 99.95% of what Hopalong or any of the other yap dog multi ID stalkers post...

But either way-- if it was Yap Dog or I that posted the truth-- Old Soapweed- the "untouchable" supposed Puritan :roll: of the board- is again posting false and misleading information - but does not seem to care a bit about that since his fellow R-cult lapdogs will defend him all the way......

oldtimer wrote

again posting false and misleading information

This coming from the fourms leader in being a hypocrite,,,who posts more misleading info that oldtimer??????


Maybe you would not make such a fool of your self if you would read post befor your spout your garbage......seems to happen a lot
EHHHHHH
Funny how you jumped on it AFTER i pointed it out :wink: :wink: :wink:

Besides your EGO would not let you NOT read my posts :wink: :wink:
 

James T

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Soapweed said:
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY..... !!!!!!!!

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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. Vermonts
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. Sounds
reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them
and this fee should go to paying for their defense!


And on top of everything--according to the gun rights sites- it appears this is an e-mail that has been circulating for 12 years-- as Maslack introduced his bill around 1999- 2000---- and has NOT been a Vermont Congressmen for years...

But never let the small stuff like truth and accuracy stand in the way of stirring the pot and fear mongering !!!! :wink: :lol: :lol:

OT, I agree with some of the political ideas you throw out but when it comes to gun control, you are way off base. It doesn't matter WHEN the former was circulated, but rather the idea it portrays. If you really are or were, somehow involved in law enforcement, then you know that law enforcement doesn't prevent very much crime but rather just reports it. Meanwhile, thousands of law abiding people are victimized every year. They have a right to protect themselves and those that don't want to be armed are pretty much idiots. They SHOULD be fined for idiocy. They really think that law enforcement is going to protect them. Maybe law enforcement will contribute to their obituary! We have a homicide officer on our payroll for moonlighting work and he has told me many times to get a short barreled shotgun for home protection. And, I did! With that said, todays CCL rules require gun safety training which has helped many understand the workings of the pistol and the laws surrounding the use of it.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
James T said:
Oldtimer said:
Soapweed said:
WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY..... !!!!!!!!

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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. Vermonts
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. Sounds
reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them
and this fee should go to paying for their defense!


And on top of everything--according to the gun rights sites- it appears this is an e-mail that has been circulating for 12 years-- as Maslack introduced his bill around 1999- 2000---- and has NOT been a Vermont Congressmen for years...

But never let the small stuff like truth and accuracy stand in the way of stirring the pot and fear mongering !!!! :wink: :lol: :lol:

OT, I agree with some of the political ideas you throw out but when it comes to gun control, you are way off base. It doesn't matter WHEN the former was circulated, but rather the idea it portrays. If you really are or were, somehow involved in law enforcement, then you know that law enforcement doesn't prevent very much crime but rather just reports it. Meanwhile, thousands of law abiding people are victimized every year. They have a right to protect themselves and those that don't want to be armed are pretty much idiots. They SHOULD be fined for idiocy. They really think that law enforcement is going to protect them. Maybe law enforcement will contribute to their obituary! We have a homicide officer on our payroll for moonlighting work and he has told me many times to get a short barreled shotgun for home protection. And, I did! With that said, todays CCL rules require gun safety training which has helped many understand the workings of the pistol and the laws surrounding the use of it.

I agree, James T. The concept is valid, even if it was first introduced more than a decade ago. Great ideas are timeless, as is stupidity.
 
Top