Vermont State Representative. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own State Constitution with due diligence, his factual interpretation of these documents is opening the eyes of folks in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack has 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 of the Constitution 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.
Vermont 's State Constitution say's 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!
by
Big Mama
Member since:
July 21, 2012 Vermont State Representative has the solution to the anti- gun crowd.
January 18, 2013 06:58 PM UTC
views: 0
|
12 people recommend this
|
comments: 42
Join the ConversationBig Mama has chosen to only allow friends to comment on this post.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.

















Comments: 42
I'm with Rep. Fred Maslack. It's high time the left pays their "FAIR SHARE".
It is like being in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" You end up surrounded by pod people waiting for them to start pointing and shrieking.
Think of it this way - a crimial breaks into your home, rapes your wifre and daughters, steals your stuff, ande takes off.
A non gun owner, screams till someone hears them, 2 or 3 ambulances show up to transport them to the hospital for care, followe by years of therapy to get over the attack, insurance pays for the home damage and loss of items, the police investigate, the crook is caught, prosecuted and housed fed and guarded till his sentence is over, where he goes out and does it again. Costs are exhorbitant, but the treatment is all needed and deserved. Future costs to them, and all the future victims are not even able to be caluculated.
But in a gun owners home, the criminal is shot and killed. Police come and see ahtw happened, and the body is taken to the morgue. No hospital bills, no psychiatric help for anyone, no police costs beyon sokme reports, No trial costs, no investigative costs to try to find and apprehend the criminal - only one ambulance to the morgue, not repeat offenses by the crook, no cost to jail, house, feed, guard. supply with treatments, counceling, TV bopoks and movie entertainment, or excersise equipment. Total cost to homeowner, about 2 bucks for bullets.
I dont think 500 a year is enough!
Want to risk not wearing a mortorcycle helmet, no seat belt in the car, ride a bicycle on the freeway?
Go for it!
It is your own risk.
IF you are that irresponsible, and we protect you, you will be irresponsible enough to cause MANY accidents. Do it your own way, wigh no care for yourself - you will only cause one.
A former State Director of Insurance was a pewronal friend of mine - we were going to lunch one day, and the ASST Dir came to him - Air bags had only been out about a year - his comment was wshilling, but informative.
He said air bags looked like they would increase costs by 100's of billions over time - because what would normally be a single death payout, was turning into decades of care for those in comas etc - same as with motorcycle helmets.
*She Who Must Be Obeyed