Registration program I think is a good idea...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Big John

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 20, 2009
    606
    18
    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.
     

    Lucas156

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Mar 20, 2009
    3,135
    38
    Greenwood
    That is a great point. So it a person who doesn't carry a firearm to protect themselves is a burden because they depend on someone else to protect them. Never thought of it that way.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    That is a great point. So it a person who doesn't carry a firearm to protect themselves is a burden because they depend on someone else to protect them. Never thought of it that way.

    It's a bit to the opposite extreme, but it puts a point across to the other side. Look how asinine your idiots laws are! How would you like it if we reversed it and did THIS to YOU! :D

    NO, I don't think it's what the Founders intended, but I think it's a good step to gaining our rights back! :D
     

    Paco Bedejo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 23, 2009
    1,672
    38
    Fort Wayne
    Heck, if we're gonna be fined for not having health insurance...

    That's a law I could get behind. Allow them to avoid the fine if they take a 2 hour safety course & purchase a handgun with a holster.
     

    Lucas156

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Mar 20, 2009
    3,135
    38
    Greenwood
    It's a bit to the opposite extreme, but it puts a point across to the other side. Look how asinine your idiots laws are! How would you like it if we reversed it and did THIS to YOU! :D

    NO, I don't think it's what the Founders intended, but I think it's a good step to gaining our rights back! :D


    We are...extremists....arent we? :rolleyes:
     

    Astrocreep

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 30, 2009
    252
    16
    Indy
    Sounds like a great way to galvanize opposition to firearms ownership in our country again.

    Imagine how angry this would make the fence-sitters and gungrabbers...

    An interesting idea, but I fear the repercussions.
     

    Arm America

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 26, 2009
    1,381
    38
    West of Greenwood
    So there would be a list of NON - gun owners.
    That list could fall in the wrong hands...
    leaving a list of current gun owners to the Government which is worse yet.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    So there would be a list of NON - gun owners.
    That list could fall in the wrong hands...
    leaving a list of current gun owners to the Government which is worse yet.

    You know, I didn't think of that. Registering all NON-gun owners could amount to a list of Gun-owners....

    SNEAKY....
     

    cosermann

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 15, 2008
    8,392
    113
    Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack . . . 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

    Rep Maslack doesn't have to "believe" this. It's a pretty well established historical fact that the framers were quite leery of standing armies and the attendant risks thereof. It's not a matter of opinion really.

    A few quotes from Jefferson to illustrate:

    "There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

    "I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

    "Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." -- 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

    "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

    "A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." -- Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

    "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." -- to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

    James Madison and a number of other framers could just as easily be cited.

    Don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating the immediate dissolution of our standing army (which is a very fine one, btw). We didn't get to the point of having a large standing army instantly, and we can't get to the point of having "something else" (whatever that might be) instantly either.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 30, 2009
    60
    6
    Wow, I hope he really pulls it off, and the rest of the governors follow his lead. He definitely has an excellent grasp of the constitution.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    Wow, I hope he really pulls it off, and the rest of the governors follow his lead. He definitely has an excellent grasp of the constitution.

    You're not really serious right? IF this were to pass, which I'm sure it won't, it could ultimately lead to alist of gun owners by registering those who don't own guns. Plus I doubt it will account for all the legal and illegal immigrants as well.

    I really don't see this as a good idea...
     
    Top Bottom