Home > Miscellaneous > You Have A Constitutional Obligation To Arm Yourselves!

You Have A Constitutional Obligation To Arm Yourselves!


[TWG Note: This legislation is from the year 2000, but wanted to share it with you all because I find it pretty entertaining. What an idea! Love this!]

‎THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

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 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. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

Categories: Miscellaneous
  1. Noah Craig
    February 2, 2011 at 12:07

    Old, old, news. This was proposed 10 years ago. Fred is no longer a Vermont Rep. And its provision, like forcing you to buy health insurance, is unconstitutional.

    I propose that the unarmed be required to large orange cone-shaped hats, not unlike traffic cones, but more user friendly. As should ALL politicians, public servants, Muslims, and anyone else I hold in disdain.

    • February 2, 2011 at 12:48

      Thanks. It may be old news, but I think it’s hilarious.

  2. Noah Craig
    February 2, 2011 at 12:10

    OOPS. should read ‘be required to WEAR large, orange cone-shaped hats’.

  3. charlene seamon
    February 2, 2011 at 23:40

    i say do it make them cowards pay and by the way my home state of ALASKA doesnot need a stinking permit and now az also

  4. August 6, 2011 at 06:38

    I love this.

  5. August 6, 2011 at 15:31

    Hahaha! That’s freaking great…

  6. rick
    August 8, 2011 at 09:15

    The writer is misinformed. Alaska does not require a concealed carry permit to carry a firearm concealed either.

  7. Reaver
    August 9, 2011 at 15:05

    Granted I love firearms, I think that its unconstitutional to force firearms on someone.
    That’s a no go.
    RvR

    • Kit
      May 7, 2012 at 10:21

      The writer didn’t say anyone “had” to own a firearm. He said that if someone didn’t, he or she should be made to pay for their police protection, since they refuse to own a firearm.

      • May 7, 2012 at 10:22

        SO WHAT?

        What’s your point?

  1. January 10, 2013 at 14:08
  2. February 4, 2013 at 07:17

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,547 other followers

%d bloggers like this: