It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill introduced in Vermont : 500$ fee for non-gun owners

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


you like stupid laws like forcing healthcare? You and your kind opened up a can of worms and you are going to get full tyranny.

Non gun owners pay a tax to support the defense of the state. We are tired of paying our police to defend you when you feel you are not worth defending. We are tired of scraping your dead bodies off the ground because you live in a fantasy world where crime only happens to the other person and never to YOU!




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TaxpayersUnleashed
 



And the states comprise the Fed.
You're still advocating forcing people to do what you want, at gun point. (The irony, huh?)

Forcing someone to buy a gun or be fined is no different than forcing someone to buy health insurance. Stop trying to rationalize and jump around the concept.

The government has no right to force one to buy health insurance, nor do they have a right to force one to purchase a gun.


At no point have I advocated for government mandated health insurance. My kind? I own guns. I don't pride over them like they make certain parts of my body bigger like some people here do. Good job reading the thread.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Haha, I never thought I would see something like this proposed in any level of government. I can understand the reasoning and interpretation of the second amendment, but it is a semi-slippery slope if you ask me. I would think that if they were going to start fining non-owners, then they should foot the bill and distribute the firearms free of charge. I would move there in a heartbeat. But seriously though, there are many people who are not responsible or mature enough to own a firearm, not to mention carry it around in public.

Although it may lower crime rates and increase death rates associated with burglaries, there are bound to be people who are just itching to shoot someone for no good reason. Also, drunks with guns can be bad, although being from Texas I have plenty of experience in that area, and have yet to have a bad experience, that can not be the case with everyone.

So basically, I am not sure if it would empower me or scare me to death knowing that the crazy yelling at me in the parking lot is packing heat. Lol, interesting to say the least.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


If the government knows who doesn't have a gun, then they know who does.


I do like your thought process



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


i am failing to see the logic of making people who dont own guns pay a 500 tax. the state of bernie sanders

says it all.

i am speechless on this one


felons cant buy guns and if you cant own one then they charge you a fee, also if you get caught with one during their licensing phase you go to jail



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
So what arms manufacturing corporations hired lobbyists to push for this type of totalitarian money making scheme?

This is not a lawful tax folks. You can't be forced to exercise your rights or taxed for choosing.

These tycoons must think we are idiots, and that we would fall for a Trojan horse like that. Yeah right.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
It's totalitarian.

If you are forced to do something, you aren't free anymore.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Personally I think it is a good idea this day in age to own and carry a weapon, however I don't think its a very good idea to fine those that choose not to own one. I also believe that if a government is going to require something then they should also have to pay for it, and not by taking money from the little guy. If they are going to require them the they should distribute them.

So, does this mean that felons will be able to own a weapon or will they be charged the 500$ because they are unable to own by law. This makes it a law that makes it mandatory for felons to pay 500$ or break the law which would probably lead to even more fines.

Anyway, its interesting but its just not very practical.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Yeah it would be interesting, but taxing for not having something is not how the USA was supposed to work. It is like another wage tax. Taxing the right to have a gun is okay b/c you get something out of it. Penalizing people for not buying something is just wrong(guns are not cheap.)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I can't believe so many people here are taking this seriously. It is a proposed bill. Obviously it is not really expected to pass into law. I believe it is more of a rhetorical thing. Seriously guys read between the lines.



Originally posted by Domo1
To me it's the same as charging someone $500 to own a gun in a liberal state.

I'm pretty sure that is, in fact, the guy's point.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Those defending their constitutional right to own guns should be inflamed by this. A fee for exercising your freedom of not owning a gun? I am all for the second amendment in the U.S and defend the freedom to bear arms, yet this is a joke. Forcing people to arm up. So what are pacifists criminals now?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


This is why capitalism fails.

It's obvious someone in the local government is being bribed by a weapons supplier.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


i am failing to see the logic of making people who dont own guns pay a 500 tax. the state of bernie sanders

says it all.

i am speechless on this one


Failing to see the logic? Let me explain for you. Say that a person, a home owner, does not believe in guns, and has not one gun. Then a criminal who does have a gun breaks into the person's home. The person has no way of defending himself, so he calls 9-11. The police, who know that this home owner is not armed, rush over to save him. The $500 fee covers that expense, which is actually an extra expense.

Then another home owner has the same thing happen. This one has a gun, and shoots the criminal dead. The police to not have to rush over there to save this guy, he has taken care of the problem himself.

I strongly believe that EVERY home owner, every home. should have a gun in good operational order, loaded and ready. I do, right under my mattress, within easy reach is my .44 Cap and Ball Remington Revolver. She is loaded and capped, and can blow a large hole in a human body, shattering any bones the ball come in contact with, and creating an infected wound on the victim. I have a sign near my door, it says, "We Do Not Call 9-11! Trespassers will be Shot. Survivors Will Be Shot Again! Think About It!"

I should add that our County has have a lot of home invasions of late, mostly old people who are so religious they do not believe in guns. One, and well loved retired teacher, was brutally raped and murdered last year. She did not believe in guns.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Youve been duped sucka!



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Love the fact that people don't read the thread!


What's even better is to compare the people who support this to those who were against the Healthcare bill and vice-versa.

It's amazingly telling!

No to Healthcare but this is *great*!

Yes to Healthcare but this is such *crap*!

Heheh really, too freakin' funny!



Flagged for the great insight.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


That is pay for the law enforcement that has to come and protect non-gun owners. In short- it basically says "if you don't wanna protect yourself, than pay us what we need to protect you." Make enough sense for ya now?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
i am all for it as long as there is a free public option where they hand out guns to those that cant afford em.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Could you imagine how much this law would cost to enforce? Students living on campus are residents of the state but cannot keep guns at the school by law. People living in extended care facilities are residents but should not have guns. Would it be legal for force a student to pay $500 when he's not allowed to even have a gun because of a different state law? Would it be legal to force a 75-year-old living in a nursing home to pay when he's not mentally capable of owning a gun? Can you imagine the class action lawsuits?

Then, think of all the new people going out and buying guns. The state would be on the hook for gun safety training (oh boy, one more stupid thing the schools will have to teach). Not to mention all the 18-year-old kids who will end up buying guns and will leave them in their cars and drive to school (woo-hoo - Juvenile Detention). Along with gun safety, is the state going to inspect each home with a registered firearm to make sure it is in a gun safe or locked room (another sub-law). I mean...this could get ridiculous!



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by neo96
 


That is pay for the law enforcement that has to come and protect non-gun owners. In short- it basically says "if you don't wanna protect yourself, than pay us what we need to protect you." Make enough sense for ya now?


They are paid by us but choose to harass people on other crimes ( jay walking, walking after dark, wrong color in wrong part of town, being homeless, etc. etc.) or sit at the coffee shop so you are wrong in that statement.




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join