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: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Here is another problem with such a crazy way of thinking.
Are you going to be carrying this gun with you 24/7? If not that gun is sitting in your home just waiting to be stolen. I`m sure you all know of things such as breaking and entering right?

So now you have your house broken into and get home while they are still there. Who has your gun now? Or what I`m also supposed to buy a gun safe to own a gun? Hang on mister burglar I got to get my gun from the safe.

I haven`t needed to own a gun my entire life so far for protection?

Perhaps a good trained Dog is a better choice. They can`t be turned against you like a gun. They can`t be sold on the black market like guns. They are less likely to go off just because you thought it was safe to handle. They are (NOT AS) dangerous when your child plays with them.

And for those that think you can shoot someone that breaks into your house and not be charged needs to study how that idea of thinking has proven false and put people in jail while removing their right to bear arms.

As far as I see this it will only escalate crime to be more violent then prevent it.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Interesting articles and the responses from the different postings are equally interesting to read, however there are a few things that can be stated in this aspect:
The right to own a weapon, that can not be disputed and we should all support the right for someone to own and bear guns as they see fit within their own idea. However, if this had passed the state legislature, it would force the one thing that we would not want to see a lengthy court battle over 2 constitutions amendments going up to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. There is a portion of the population, coming from not only those who are religious and those whose very jobs would find owning a weapon a violation of their beliefs. Doctors and medical professionals should not be mandated to carry any sort of fire arm, as it would violate the very nature of their profession to do no harm to any person. Even in the military the corpsmen and doctors are forbidden to discharge any sort of firearm, as it would be in violation of various numbers of treaties that protect them from being shot at. The only time they are allowed to do such, would be in the defense of their patients, and those under their care, even if they are captured by enemy forces. The other would be priests and other lay persons, and the deeply religious, many religions strictly prohibit the carrying or use of any weapon that would end a life, even in the military an organization that is known to be dedicated to the destruction of life, those rules are standard and strictly adhered to. Then there are those whose faith, and believe that such would be abhorrent to such, and thus would force them to violate their belief in not taking or harming another soul, this would discriminate against them and force them to pay an unfair tax on their part.
While I will always support the ownership of private guns, and there are those in my family who do, my own faith and belief dictates to me that I can not do such, as it would be in direct violation to that which I believe in. And any law that would be in such a conflict would have to be decided in court, pitting the First amendment against the second amendment, a court case that non of us would want.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Connman
 


Connman - your comment, "I`m also supposed to buy a gun safe to own a gun? Hang on mister burglar I got to get my gun from the safe " is soooo true. I've lived in locations where the law stipulated that guns had to be locked up in one spot and the ammunition locked in a different spot. Now, this might be OK for the hunting equipment, but people buy handguns for safety. If your home is being invaded, there is no way you would be able to retrieve your gun and ammo from two different locations and then take the time to load - all while your hands are shaking, your heart pounding, and your kids crying. This has been one of my main reasons not to get a gun - along with the fact that handguns have a tendency to be involved in more friendly shootings than used in self-defense. I have a big dog and an industrial-sized container of bear spray. That will have to do.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Awesome!!!! All states MUST follow


Now what to do with those pesky thuglices...



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Yet another reason to move to Vermont. Bernie Sanders and this bill. Yes, I like them both.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:54 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?


No.

Because police officers clean up car wrecks of gun owners or non-gun owners wise guy.

They also direct traffic when they need to, for both gun owners and non gun owners. Etc etc etc.

Do people even think anymore or do they just want to segregate everyone constantly?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by balon0
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Awesome!!!! All states MUST follow


Now what to do with those pesky thuglices...


I won't pay the Govt a penny.

And I won't pay the arms industry a penny.

And no one can make me either.
Ahhh I love being free despite the fact I am surrounded by totalitarian authoritarians.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JustinSee
 


And you've lived in all 57* states right?

*If you don't get that joke don't bother, just read it as 51.
edit on 7-8-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Here is a perfect parallel example.

You have the right to practice religion if you choose, or not.

But we should pass a law that fines people 500$ for not being part of a organized religion.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Connman
 


Uh.. If the burglar is a resident of Vermont, he'd likely own a gun already.

Also, don't play the what-if game. We can play the what-if game all day long with pros and cons about this bill and it won't change anything, just give us all headaches.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

I won't pay the Govt a penny..........And no one can make me either.



You are required to pay Property Taxes to fund schools even if you don't have kids.
You are required to pay a Federal Highway Tax on your gasoline even if you don't drive on Federal Highways.
You are required to pay States Taxes to fund Fire Departments even if you live in a concrete house that can't burn.
You are required to pay Federal Taxes so the Federal Government can give it to churches even if you are an atheist.

Precedent says.....they already made you pay.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Here is a perfect parallel example.

You have the right to practice religion if you choose, or not.

But we should pass a law that fines people 500$ for not being part of a organized religion.


Not really a perfect example. It costs nothing to join a religion, just right down you belong to some random religion and you won't be fined. This bill on the other hand, would require you to purchase a gun (and go through training, etc).
edit on 7-8-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

Yes, that is true, but can you force a priest or a doctor, both of whom are forbidden to do such, to violating their oaths and beliefs?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Nice.

Source

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. “

Give this guy a medal.


Nice going Vermont! This will surely drives criminals out of Vermont... they'll move to more nice neighborhoods, like New York.


Good idea, but screw the fine, the state should waive the fine if a gun is purchased so someone that gets burned by this ticket can solve the F'in problem rather than just become a cash cow.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
How many guns are going to get poked in somebody's face when they go to collect,lol,what a scam,here's a bet:more people will go to jail once this scam is enforced(imposed) then ever before in the little state of Verm.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Hey Officer,oh Officer,would you look at my gun to see if its loaded properly..bang bang



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by muzzleflash

I won't pay the Govt a penny..........And no one can make me either.



You are required to pay Property Taxes to fund schools even if you don't have kids.
You are required to pay a Federal Highway Tax on your gasoline even if you don't drive on Federal Highways.
You are required to pay States Taxes to fund Fire Departments even if you live in a concrete house that can't burn.
You are required to pay Federal Taxes so the Federal Government can give it to churches even if you are an atheist.

Precedent says.....they already made you pay.


Well in theory but not in practice.

No property tax for those with no property.
No gasoline tax on those who walk or ride bikes.
No State or Federal Tax if you don't have a job (or payed over 10,000$ per year) to get taxed in the first place.

So technically there is a direct simple way to avoid all of these things. It's a choice, it just matters how determined you are and how many sacrifices you are willing to make.

Most people are willing to submit to authority because they want possessions themselves. Possessions are over-rated however and you cannot take them with you when you die.

If you choose to avoid being subjugated, you will also have to sacrifice materialistic indulgences.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by Connman
 


Uh.. If the burglar is a resident of Vermont, he'd likely own a gun already.

Also, don't play the what-if game. We can play the what-if game all day long with pros and cons about this bill and it won't change anything, just give us all headaches.


Ok if they already will own a gun it can be traced to owner unlike one gotten from a breaking and entering.
And sorry the what if is brought out in such a bill right from the get-go. Life does not require you to own a gun. Correct?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Vitchilo and your flaggers, you're clearly out of their mind!

Since when does a "right" stands for an "obligation", enforced by the legal system?

A RIGHT is to be allowed, free, to do something, and not having the State go after you for it.

If every single person, according to the US Constitution has the right to bear firearms, then all the ones that, for some reason, don't want to doing so, CANNOT be blamed for doing so. Even if they don't wanna use this kind of violence to defend themselves, that's their problem, and not yours, or anyone else. This also means your grandma most probably will be charged a fee for not carrying a gun! If you're just too stupid to realize the extent of this, then I might be wasting my time.

A RIGHT IS NOT TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO SOMETHING, this is, on the contrary, a recognition of their sovereignty into a given behavior or practice.
edit on 7/8/11 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
If this were to be true (it's not), it'd be the worst idea imaginable.

"Don't want to own a weapon you don't need? Prepare to pay for it."

The United States of Morons.




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join