Coyote Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Fun e-mail I got today. Without doing too much research, it appears this has been floating around for a few years...Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to theU.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" andrequire them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would becomethe first state to require a permit for the luxury of going aboutunarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning agun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as notonly the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clearmandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership wasadvocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a"monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermontsconstitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to beararms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those personswho are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be requiredto "pay such equivalent.." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation toarm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "anysituation that may arise."Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would berequired to register their name, address, Social Security Number, anddriver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimategovernment interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the stateshould they be asked to do so," Maslack says. Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with theleast restrictive laws of any state.... it's currently the only statethat allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them hasresulted 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 thesystem, but too early to shoot the bastards." This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to paytaxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Soundsreasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect themand this fee should go to paying for their defense!I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagr Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Lol. I wish this would happen somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawlins87 Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aforrest4 Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbotom09 Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Word! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownsfan1 Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Thats cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Sounds like Switzerland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attentiongetter92 Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Me gusta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) The basic principle of militia did require mandatory adherence by all males of the required age. Including supplying your own firearm and ammunition. Unfortunately, nothing was ever set to penalize those that did not wish to comply. And only one third to two thirds ever did. This appears to try and remedy that. I would guess that deep searching of colonial news of the era, would have discussion on the very subject.edit: Interesting history article of colonial militia tactics. A modern difference would be large numbers of regular military among civilians.Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia - Thoughts on Eighteenth-Century Military Tacticsedit: weird factoid: The headquarters for a colonial militia was the local town beer tavern. A militia really wouldn't show up to drill and train, unless given free beer for showing up. It became a social event, and the entire family joined in. Edited January 13, 2013 by ReconRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.