A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by Deuce Coupe, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. Deuce Coupe

    Deuce Coupe Member

    Aug 29, 2009
    I could not check this out to find out if it is true or not, but one heck of a good idea.


    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
    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.

  2. txinvestigator

    txinvestigator TGT Addict

    May 28, 2008
    Ft Worth, TX
    The entire premise is absurd.
  3. Army 1911

    Army 1911 Well-Known

    Mar 17, 2008
    Dallas Texas or so
    It would be like charging mutes because they don't verbally exercise their first ammendment rights.
  4. sharky47

    sharky47 Active Member

    May 4, 2008
    This is equally offensive as gun control, I have no problem with people not owning guns, different strokes for different folks and all that.

    Plus it leaves more for me to buy.....
  5. TexasR.N.

    TexasR.N. Active Member

    Oct 12, 2009
    I love the thought of poking anti-gun people in the eye so to speak, by making THEM register. Kind of turning the table on them. However, like somone else said, I could care less if a person chooses to own or doesn't. Part of what made our country great....personal freedom.

  6. Gator5713

    Gator5713 New Member

    Oct 17, 2009
    "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the
    system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

    Thats probably one of the best, most succinct statements I've seen regarding the state of this union!
  7. Texas42

    Texas42 TGT Addict

    Nov 21, 2008
    This is funny. Of course it is a joke. Alaska also allows permit-less concealed carry.
  8. jgedmond

    jgedmond Active Member

    Dec 2, 2008
    The premise is no more absurd than the federal bans and restrictions of gun ownership specifically prohibited by the 2nd amendment. Those have the same basis for existing - none.

    The Founders were very clear on the need for all able citizens to be armed for the defense of the country and to resist oppression by the federal government. Given the Founders' intent, the argument could be more strongly made to ostracize those who choose not to own guns as opposed to those that do.

    Unfortunately, Americans have become "comfortably numb".
  9. KellyAsh

    KellyAsh Active Member

    Aug 22, 2009
    Roatan, Honduras
    I think its funny as hell but I also think its a step towards greater gov't control over all of our lives...exactly what we, here, are all against. Freedom is the name of our game.

    I might feign support to give the libtards something to think about, that gate can swing in both directions, but thats it. It really is a horrible idea to take seriously.

    Maybe a better idea is to offer a tax break to those who wish to own and carry guns...lessen gov't control as an incentive.
  10. Texas1911

    Texas1911 TGT Addict

    May 29, 2017
    Austin, TX
    That's pretty funny. I would never support that bill, as it's no different than charging gun owners, but it is funny to hear it from the "other hand" so to speak.


Share This Page