OT. from News of the Wierd by chuck Shepherd. A bill introduced in the Vermont Legislature by Rep. Fred Maslack in January would penalize any adult who chose not to own a gun, by requiring him or her to register with the state and pay a $500 fee for the privilege of being unarmed.

-- John (litttmannj@aol.com), February 29, 2000

Answers

I like it. The police must work additionally hard to protect the unarmed...

I hope that they also require genetic testing, background checks, and similar nonsense!

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), February 29, 2000.

you have a link ? Thanks

-- Awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), February 29, 2000.

"An armed society is a polite society."

-- ElCoyote (ElCoyote@Wasteland.com), February 29, 2000.

Actually, vermont is the ONLY state in the union that has a very close to intended the interpretation of the second amendment. As in, you are BORN with a right to own and BEAR arms, zero interfernce from the state. Period. It also has an extremely low crime rate as well. The bill is intended to send a political message, in answer to washington's and other states increasingly stupid and misguided "gun control laws". Very similar to what kennesaw georgia did in reaction to morton grove illinois several years ago. Morton grove outlawed handguns completely. Their crime rate skyrocketed immediately. Just like what happened in australia more recently. Kennesaw passed a tongue in cheek non binding resolution requiring at least one firearm per household. Guess what? Kennesaw's crime rate dropped, where all other municipalites in the extended metro atlanta area all kept going up. It's a lesson to be learned. Those guys a long time ago were pretty smart in some matters, mostly in human nature, that's why the constitution is about the best outline of a workable political system ever written. Too bad it's not followed more, it's supposed to be the law of the land. If the corrupt idiots in washington dc were really so smart, so careful in their laws, so very GOOD in what they did, well, washington dc would be an almost ideal model city. I defy ANYONE to find it that way. ANYONE. DC is the ****hole of the US. There's a lesson there for everyone. The federal government can't maintain ONE CITY, who thinks they can continue to pretend that "they" know what's best for the rest of the country.

I say "right on" vermont! And arizona, too, for declaring their willingness to seceed when/if fedgov screws up one more time with "gun control" laws,especially any kingly "emergency orders".

-- youhavearight (tocarry@no.steenking.permits.from.bureaucrats.orgs), February 29, 2000.

Guess they can put that $ 500 per head towards the "Gun Free Zone" signs that oughta go on the front doors of non-owners.

More seriously, would this also mean that, to prove a citizen should not be levied that assessment, he or she must exhibit said firearm? And have it's serial number duly recorded? Hope not.

Darn, what an idea for Ohio! Sure can think of a few Ohio state pols who would absolutely have conniptions! Not to mention the governor!

Come to think of it, it just might sell. Why? $ 500 a head times, say, half the population of the state?

-- redeye in ohio (not@work.com), March 01, 2000.

Address of the gun free sign:

http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/gunfree1.gif

-- Longshot (longshot911@email.com), March 01, 2000.

Bravo!Damn good idea.We need more of this.

-- American (patriotic@heart.net), March 01, 2000.

Lousy idea. We don't need more registrations and more fees. We have the right to bear arms. Great. Now go away and let me live my life without registering anything or paying any fees. Whether I choose to exercise my right to bear arms is my own damn businesses, one way or the other.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

Rep. Maslack's bill was actually aimed at the Militia. He wanted to return to the way the laws used to be enforced, ie: if a citizen isnt willing to arm himself as part of the Constitutional Militia, then he would have to pay up.

The law used to be used to encourage citizens to do their duty. This bill was introduced with the idea of sticking a finger in the eye of the egalitarian, collectivist, herd of swine on the Left, along with the parasites who own firearms, but who eschew the notion of their "military" utility. (Anyone who owns firearms, but is willing to give mine away because they are not like yours is a parasite. The Second Amendment doesnt contain a reference to hunting or hobby usage)

Bravo for him! The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms doesnt exist in a vacuum. Only by acting in concert with other Individuals can one have any hope of keeping our Republic intact.

G2

-- Grenadier2 (grenadier2@hotmail.com), March 02, 2000.