Saturday, October 24, 2009

Finally A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work

a savvy twist on sensible gun registration -- i love it! make the non-gun owners pay their fair share!
bernard baruch carman
* * *
* * *
- seeker of truth / seeder of truth •∞Liberty
- infinity games ∞ infinity solutions ∞ audio/Mac specialist
Finally A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work
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!


  1. If it is Constitutional to require each resident to purchase a health insurance policy, then it is also legal for each resident to purchase a newspaper, to donate to a political party, or to purchase a firearm.

    If we tell the libs the implications of the legal theory upon which their "public option" of health insurance, then maybe it will reduce their ardor for their present madness.

    -- Ewin

    then again, i don't think libs or cons really give a damn about the Constitution, only what they want to force upon the American public.  regardless, i thought i'd also post your comments as well.

    -- bbc

  2. upon receiving a couple emails back from friends about this, i felt compelled to send a follow up email:

    folks, lighten up!

    in posting this, i was making more of a statement with it than actively supporting the idea (as i am against government force in general).

    but i mean, why shouldn't Americans pay their fair share when they choose to lax their own personal responsibility in reducing crime in their communities, while putting that financial burden upon others picking up their slack?

    it's obviously proven that any area which has a well armed citizenry has far less crime -- one cannot argue with the numbers after all!

    therefore, why should i pay more for government services which are providing for slackers who cannot take care of themselves properly?

    - with this statement, THINK about the parallel idiotic statement that pushers of socialized health care use asserting that smokers & drinkers should pay more taxes because they're not taking good care of their health and others have to pick up the slack!

    i'm seriously loving this, especially after hearing so much wacko support for the idea of health care being an entitlement... so yeah, i'm going to have some fun with this for sure! ;-)

  3. I think I might actually favor the legislation. Freedom isn't free. Libertarians fail because they think liberty ought to be handed to them on a platter and whine when it doesn't happen. We should factor in the freedom effects of such matters as:

    * increasing urbanization
    * central energy
    * high immigration levels
    * religion (Sharia, anyone?)
    * knowledge of how to use a firearm

    The NRA started off as a foundation to teach marksmanship. The urbanized North had great difficulty defeating the agrarian South in the Civil War because the Southerners knew how to shoot. So, despite superior weaponry and army size, the North still struggled.

    Our suburbanized Bill and Ted's Excellent Culture is gurly mannish on guns. The Second Amendment won't fix this. Gun training in the schools or summer internships on military bases can. Forget legalities. Take a liberal out to the shooting range.