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[/quote]
Indeed!
I actually like this guy.
He is the anti-liberal.
If Liberalism is now the god that ruleth America we need more devils like him.
When appealing to reason with libs doesn’t work, tit for tat is the ace card.
[/quote]
Especially when tit for tat is creating a new tax. Some ace card.
Out of curiosity, does the 2nd amendment specify what type of arms is meant by arms? And if we say it means firearms then a strict reading could mean the firearms of that time so Vermont residents need to go and buy muskets.
I am not against gun ownership but when people start bringing up a “strict” reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as though the framers were infallible fortune tellers they are in effect saying that slavery should still exist and women should not vote, among other things. If they were wrong about those things then it means they could have been wrong about others. It’s why they allowed the ability to amend their living document; they didn’t believe in their own infallibility or perfection. They understood the concept of change all too well as they were the embodiment of it.
It should be easier to ban or restrict a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun than a hand held weapon intended for military applications.
Savvy?[/quote]
When I tried to buy a Red Ryder BB gun for my oldest son in New Jersey in 98, I was told I had to have a police permit to even hold it at the sporting goods store.
I just bought one for him the next time I was back in Nebraska.
[/quote]
NJ is ridiculous. When I went to the local PD to get an application to buy a firearm I just gave up after seeing what they required. And this was to just purchase a weapon, any weapon including a hunting rifle or shotgun, and keep it at home, not for a conceal permit.
Out of curiosity, does the 2nd amendment specify what type of arms is meant by arms?
[/quote]
No.
LOL! No, it couldn’t mean that. No sane interpretation of the 2nd Amendment could mean that. And if I need to explain why the chances are you’ll never get it anyway. It’s like suggesting that the founders only intended to protect speech containing words that were around at the time. Not only is there no evidence for it and much against it, the idea is also completely ridiculous.
The Constitution would never have been ratified if it contained an anti-slavery clause. What the Declaration did do was to lay the foundations for abolishionism by proclaiming that all are created equal and entitled to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. In fact, it was these words that were frequently invoked by the abolishionists to justify their cause. Clearly you are not familiar with any of this history or the Constitution/BoR. Perhaps you should rethink your position when you’ve learned a bit more about them.
Their “living document?” That’s exactly what they didn’t intend.
Have you seen the newest form of bullshit, there is a proposal to pass a Rain Tax here ?[/quote]
No. WTF?[/quote]
"Today, Los Angeles County officials will pitch a new plan to cut pollutants by capturing rain closer to where it falls – and the county’s flood control district wants property owners to pay for it.
An ambitious proposal would tax every one of the countyâ??s 2.2 million property owners and use the revenue to capture, filter and reuse the stormwater before it ever hits the complex storm sewer system that twists and turns under Los Angeles County’s nine watersheds. County supervisors hold a public hearing Tuesday to hear questions about and challenges to the proposal."
That’s a county thing. Combined sewer/stormwater is an issue in many large cities. Again, let’s tax the earners and owners for a service they already pay for.
In states like California, Washington, and Colorado, they passed laws which legalize marijuana, which is illegal in the Feds. But they managed to pull it off anyway.
Why does a state had to follow a Federal mandate if the Feds don’t have to follow a state mandate ?
I figure some of you might state Federal Preemption, but that has not stopped states from passing laws knowingly against Federal Law, and they got away with it.
Andrew Napolitano chimed in on this, and he said that Feds must use Federal personnel to enforce Federal Law, so states can wag their finger at them and say this is not your business within the states themselves.