IN DEMOCRATS WE DO NOT TRUST
Please forward and share please share!
A NOVEL
APPROACH TO
THE GUN
OWNERSHIP
ISSUE
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.
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. Sounds
reasonable to
me! Non-gun
owners require
more police to
protect them
and this fee
should go to
paying for
their defense!
In God
We Trust
|
No comments:
Post a Comment