"The Answer," IF we can all get behind this:

[ryan3030]

Being in favor of this is spitting in the face of the rights we all fight for.

Mandating that people do something without having a choice is unconstitutional. Just like we all feel that 2nd amendment violations are unconstitutional.

It's funny, but if you're taking it seriously you need to reevaluate your thought process.

 

[tuttjs]

I don't like it. You will then have citizens who don't want a weapon, or even know how to use a weapon going and buying them to get around the $500. Here comes the accidental deaths!!

 

[Liberty1911]

Anyone that thinks that this is a good idea, is a statist of EPIC proportions. So much for freedom loving "Americans."

pfft!

(Kut spits on the ground at the notion)

Further, "arms" aren't simply guns. "Arms" are weapons of any sort. Anything can be a "weapon," and according, anything can be considered "arms" if used to intiate or repel an attack. According to this idiot's proposed bill if my perferred method of "arming" myself was with a bow and arrow, if I didn't own a firearm, I would be subject to this statist extortion.

If I was an officer in Vermont, I was vocally oppose this bill, and would not enforce it.

Good post. As much as I think it would be nice to give anti-2A people a taste of their own medicine, you have clearly articulated why this proposal is not compatible with freedom loving people. Good job.

 

[Sfrandolph]

I appreciate the tactic of giving the anti-2A folks a taste of their own medicine. But the reality is that total insanity reins within the borders of our fine country. Solution: take all the attorneys and politicians and drop them in the middle of the Atlantic.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I could *maybe* get behind this if it was not gun-specific; that is, if it excused from the tax any who owned any form of "arm" and were not unwilling to use it in their own defense, instead creating/becoming a burden on society by expecting others to expose themselves to risk on their behalf. I could even make the argument that a person who is unwilling to act in his own defense is a threat to "officer safety" by expecting the cop to face danger that originally only the person faced.

With that said, I also have to consider that I disagree with mandating by government action the ownership or purchase of something that the person does not wish to own, and further, that if someone chooses not to act in his own defense, that is his choice. The officer has chosen his field of employment; no one held a gun to his head and forced him to pin on a badge, and with that choice comes the understanding that some risks will be a part of the job. I can compare their facing those risks to someone in my own profession refusing to provide care to a person with a communicable disease or who'd been exposed to something radioactive or otherwise hazardous... or even someone who, seeing a patient beginning to vomit, left the patient compartment rather than provide needed care. Such a person has no business doing the job if he or she isn't willing to face the risks that accompany it.

Conclusion: It's a good twist on an old idea in theory, but in practice, "more taxes" or other growing of the beast we call "government" is never a good idea.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[cosermann]

If the gov't can, as the SCOTUS recently ruled, essentially force people to buy health insurance, or face a tax/fine, then the gov't can also force people to buy anything, including a firearm, or face a tax/fine.

What's the difference? Weird times.

Btw, just for the sake of accuracy,

... It's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. ...

Four (4) states have constitutional carry; Vermont, Alaska (2003), Arizona (2010), and Wyoming (2011). Eleven (11) others have pending legislation to adopt it. [1]

Vermont is no longer the only one (and hasn't been for 9 years).

[1] - Constitutional Carry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bill of Rights]

If the gov't can, as the SCOTUS recently ruled, essentially force people to buy health insurance, or face a tax/fine, then the gov't can also force people to buy anything, including a firearm, or face a tax/fine.

What's the difference? Weird times.

Btw, just for the sake of accuracy,



Four (4) states have constitutional carry; Vermont, Alaska (2003), Arizona (2010), and Wyoming (2011). Eleven (11) others have pending legislation to adopt it. [1]

Vermont is no longer the only one (and hasn't been for 9 years).

[1] - Constitutional Carry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True, but the article is from 2000.