PDA

View Full Version : An Idea whose time has come


Vincent
10-29-2009, 09:34 AM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

At long last, some common sense...

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/3370580/ShowThread.aspx

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.

Godfather
10-29-2009, 11:04 AM
What a load of bull.

You support dictating to people how they choose to spend their own money and provide for their security? While we're at it let's force everyone to buy health insurance, force everyone to buy a gym membership so they're not consuming as much health care, ban unhealthy food, alcohol, and cigarettes, make everyone buy a cell phone or OnStar so they can call the police in an emergency.

And what do you plan to do if someone can't shell out the money for a good gun? Better give a free one to everyone below an certain income level.

SteelersinCA
10-29-2009, 11:39 AM
That is perhaps the loosest Constitutional interpretation I have heard in a long while, and as a criminal defense attorney I have heard some loose ones!!

Now rights = mandates???

Vincent
10-29-2009, 11:47 AM
What a load of bull.

You support dictating to people how they choose to spend their own money and provide for their security?

Hardly.

While we're at it let's force everyone to buy health insurance, force everyone to buy a gym membership so they're not consuming as much health care, ban unhealthy food, alcohol, and cigarettes, make everyone buy a cell phone or OnStar so they can call the police in an emergency.

If you read what this representative is saying, it means nothing of the sort. He is saying, and I agree with him, that the 2nd amendment is a mandate to bear arms and maintain a militia for the security of the state. It has bupkus to do with mandating any of the above. It says that citizens are responsible to bear arms and participate in the security of their states. The representative is saying that those that choose to shirk that responsibility should be registered, and should bear some of the cost they have defrayed in doing so.

Great idea. Frames the whole gun debate in the correct context instead of all the bull@#$% case law that has whittled away at the 2nd amendment.

And what do you plan to do if someone can't shell out the money for a good gun?

The same thing the gubmint does to us all with all the bull@#$% they foist on us. Tax 'em. The 2nd amendment places responsibility for the security of the states on the citizens. If a citizen chooses to shirk that responsibility, they should pay. I realize this logic flies in the face of the entitlement mentality so craftily inculcated into victims of public and "higher" "education". The idea of personal responsibility is such an anacronism. :rolleyes:

Better give a free one to everyone below an certain income level. Many have guns already. :chuckle: But seriously. I could get behind giving Grandma Beulah a "nine" and a case of rounds. WTF not?

SteelCityMom
10-29-2009, 12:09 PM
Yeah, I don't agree with this either. This bill has no chance whatsoever of passing...sorry.

And I'm all for gun rights, but mandating people to own guns? I just don't agree with it. I see where this guys coming from with his interpretation, but I don't think he's correct in it. If you read the part of the 2nd amendment after the part you bolded, you'd notice it says "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", not the MANDATE shall not be infringed.

It's crossing a fine line in my opinion and won't even get close to being passed.

Also, if you want to start quoting the constitution here, you should look into this.

With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, control of the army and the power to direct the militia of the states was concurrently delegated to the federal Congress. The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia, and "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States", with the States retaining authority to appoint officers and to impose the training specified by Congress.

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....

Until these citizens are enrolled and notified that they are part of a militia, then there is no mandate saying that they are required to own a gun. Also, if you are not a white male, you would be exempt from this tax, according to the constitution lol.

Godfather
10-29-2009, 12:13 PM
What do you plan to do with a blind person or an old person with arthritis who can't pull a trigger? What good does it do to give a gun to people who can't shoot straight?

What do you do in households with young children? Then the parents have to keep the guns locked up so the kids don't find them and shoot each other, and a criminal who breaks in gets the drop on the homeowner.

People should have the right to choose the best security measures for themselves. Period. It has nothing to do with "entitlement" mentality--the entire point of government is collective self-defense. You couldn't even do away with the police because someone still needs to arrest criminals. Not to mention that police are trained professionals and most of us are not.

I love how someone who claims to be a conservative is drooling over big government, one size fits all solutions.

MACH1
10-29-2009, 12:48 PM
This thread really brings out the gun haters.
:shout: PANIC

A blind person or "old" would have hand held tazors. :chuckle:

What do you do in households with young children?
The same thing every other responsible gun owner does. Keep them out of the reach of children. And teach them gun safety, works well with my seven year old. He can nail a shot shell at fifty yards with his 22. He knows they are weapons and are not to play with. And yes I do have a gun safe that we keep most but not all in. As far as the burglar goes, they wont get the drop.


People should have the right to choose the best security measures for themselves. Period. It has nothing to do with "entitlement" mentality--the entire point of government is collective self-defense. You couldn't even do away with the police because someone still needs to arrest criminals. Not to mention that police are trained professionals and most of us are not.

Like how we should have the right to choose our own health care and not get fined if you don't have any?
And the article never said anything about doing away with the police.

Vincent
10-29-2009, 12:54 PM
Yeah, I don't agree with this either. This bill has no chance whatsoever of passing...sorry.

In Vermont it might.

What do you plan to do with a blind person or an old person with arthritis who can't pull a trigger? What good does it do to give a gun to people who can't shoot straight?

What do you do in households with young children? Then the parents have to keep the guns locked up so the kids don't find them and shoot each other, and a criminal who breaks in gets the drop on the homeowner.

Maslack isn't saying the gubmint should force guns on anybody. He's saying that those that don't carry their responsibility to the security of the state should defray some of the costs, and be registered as such because the state can't count on them in an emergency.

People should have the right to choose the best security measures for themselves. Period.

Entirely agree. Again, this idea is reframing the entire "gun" argument back in its original context that citizens bear responsibility to defend their state.

I love how someone who claims to be a conservative is drooling over big government, one size fits all solutions.

When and where did I say I am or am not conservative. Like others, you infer.

SteelCityMom
10-29-2009, 01:21 PM
In Vermont it might.

No, I'm sorry, It doesn't have a chance there either. I gave you the constitutional reasons why.

You may also want to look into the Milita Act of 1903, where it is clearly stated that the federal government is responsible for training and arming the states militia.

U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia[1], sponsored the 1903 Act towards the end of the 57th U.S. Congress. Under this legislation, passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

SteelCityMom
10-29-2009, 01:48 PM
Futhermore....

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, a political sentiment existed in the newly formed United States involving suspicion of peacetime armies not under civilian control. This political belief has been identified as stemming from the memory of the abuses of the standing army of Oliver Cromwell and King James II, in Great Britain in the prior century, which led to the Glorious Revolution and resulted in placing the standing army under the control of Parliament.[20] During the Congressional debates, James Madison discussed how a militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression:

The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789)

There is not one mention of mandatory gun ownership here either. This just simply states the notion that the government has no right to take away a citizens right to defend themselves.

SteelersinCA
10-29-2009, 02:45 PM
Infringement on a right cuts both ways. While your right to carry should not be infringed, your right not to carry should not be infringed either. Besides, owning a gun is a "LMAO" correlation to defending the state. I served in the military for a number of years, if I choose not to own a gun, I'll raise holy hell if someone thinks I'm going to pay a tax for "not defending" my state.

MACH1
10-29-2009, 02:50 PM
And it doesn't say the only people allowed to have guns is the military or law enforcement. See, there's two sides to that debate some would like to believe.

Vincent
10-29-2009, 02:59 PM
Confession....

I posted this because it is the first time I have seen anybody frame the argument this way. In the political climate of 2009, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law. And I will go on record as saying I don't think anybody should be forced to bear arms.

I like the direction this guy has taken the debate. I think its closer to the intent of the fathers than current public "discourse".

revefsreleets
10-29-2009, 03:20 PM
That's exactly what this is...a reaction to equally ridiculous assertions from the other side of the aisle. And it's clever of this guy to take this approach, as most people will take it completely seriously. And why not? Ridiculously stupid pieces of legislation are commonplace now from the left, so a good way to fight that fire is with some fire from the right...