December 19th, 2012

Posted: December 20, 2012 at 9:15 am

Think About It…….                                                                                                                December 19, 2012

Alaska leads the way in its approach to gun ownership including being one of only two states that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.  However, a bill facing the Vermont legislature is a novel approach to the gun ownership issue and is a really great idea for Alaska and could have worked well in the Connecticut tragedy.

Vermont State Representative 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 definitely makes a lot of sense.

Malack has proposed a bill to register all “adult 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 access 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 to 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 an 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 resister their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state and pay the $500. Fee. The representative says “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so.”

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state…’s currently one of only two states that allow 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.

Maslack says “America is at that awkward stage.  It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” This really makes good sense when you think about it! 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.  Certainly non-gun owners require more police protect them and this $500 registration fee should go to paying for their defense!

One can only wish that the principal and teachers in that Connecticut school would have had the means to protect the innocent children and themselves in that terrible tragedy.

Think About It!      JCD   12-19-2013

** Comments on this story do not represent the thoughts and / or opinions of KSRM Radio Group, Staff, Management or Sponsors. **

3 Comments to “December 19th, 2012”

  • JCF says:

    This is clearly a bad idea. There is a clear correlation between the number of guns in this country and the related guns violence as well as the number of mass shootings in countries which are lower in countries that have fewer guns per capita and in countries with stricter gun control.

    Not to say that it gun ownership should be illegal – that is a clearly protected right in the Constitution. But let’s get real…when the Constitution was written weapons were far cruder than they are today. You could not fire 30 rounds from one clip in a couple of minutes and there were no armor-piercing rounds.

    Further, you find the wording in the Second Amendment says “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.” If you read that a person’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed translates to every citizen must own a gun, I think you are reaching quite far.

    Also, let’s use some common sense. While Vermont does have one of the lowest crime rates in the country, it is not because of gun ownership – they actually only rank 20th on per capita gun ownership. This is probably the case because Vermont is “The most rural state…with 82.6 percent of its population living in either rural areas or small cities” US Census Bureau. The place wth the highest crime rate in the country? Washington D.C. which is completely non-rural.

    Try not to fall prey to NRA propaganda.

  • Bluff Bunny says:

    I think this is an excellent idea, and one that would prove the anti-gun fanatics wrong, once and for all.

    JCF is clearly a product of the current day Socialist-leaning mindset.:More power to government will solve every issue.

    In regard to limiting what weapons THE PEOPLE might be allowed to possess, he says :”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” note: FREE STATE, reaffirms the intent was to put the civilian militia on the same footing as the (current) military. Otherwise, the PEOPLE would be put to a great disadvantage in any conflict between the PEOPLE and the government.

    WE, the People, fund the huge amounts to keep a strong military, but limiting the 2nd Amendment to unequal status, defeats the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I, personally, would not care if people were able to own tanks and bazookas and other similar weapons, because the average America is law-abiding and would never use those in an irresponsible way. But you will never, with any amount of new laws, prevent CRAZY PEOPLE from using whatever they can, to kill others when they go berserk.

    If some nutcase launches his car, full speed, into a crowd, do you then demonize cars?
    If another crazy person makes a pipe bomb out of fertilizer, do you ban fertilizers? If another psycho attacks his co-workers with a hammer, do we outlaw hammers?


    JCF should do his homework. Switzerland, where nearly every home has a gun, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Those countries where guns are banned, still suffer high crime rates.CRIMINALS WILL NEVER OBEY THOSE LAWS! He goes on to say :”when the Constitution was written weapons were far cruder than they are today.” That may be true, but the government still had ONLY the same kinds of weapons. Using his rationale, there would be no valid automobile laws because they didn’t HAVE automobiles, back then.

    The gun-haters never stop vilifying the NRA when their anger should be directed against those who refuse to put the blame where it belongs – against those who make no effort to identify mentally damaged people who do not OBEY the law.

    He says we need to use common sense and relates that the rural nature of cities may be a factor. Well, Washington D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and they also have one of the highest crime rates. Hmmmm. Maybe we should make it illegal to live in cities?

  • Chris says:

    I love the idea!!!!