Sunday, December 23, 2012


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!


  1. President Obama used the six weeks after his election to remain in full campaign mode and attack the GOP relentlessly with the intent of marginalizing House Speaker John Boehner.
    Obama REFUSES to address "Operation Fast & Furious."and yet he is so out spoken when it comes to the NRA.
    More than three hundred people are DEAD because of Obama and Holder, almost TWELVE TIMES the number of dead in Sandy Hook, Connecticut....
    It's a well known fact that gun laws aren´t aimed at criminals but average law abiding citizens.The worst shooting areas in the country all probably have assault weapons bans
    WHY was Obama FORCING GUNS into the hands of Mexican drug cartels?

    WHY is he hiding behind executive privilege?

    WHY are these networks refusing to seek the TRUTH in this matter?

    If the NRA is going to be persecuted for standing up for Second Amendment rights, Barack Obama and his cronies should be persecuted with the FACTS!
    The whole point of the liberal/progressive movement is to free the government from the constitution and thereby replace freedom with a socialist dictatorship. We have more than enough laws. These killers are crazy they don't obey the laws, so why punish the public with more laws that aren't going to mean anything to these crazy people.


all comments will be signed to be published