A sensable gun registration plan that I like

IZZY · January 4, 2001, 09:27 PM

O.K. before you burn me in effigy just follow this link!

http://www.sightings.com/general6/finally.htm

ENJOY!!!!

CassidyGT · January 4, 2001, 10:29 PM

LOVE IT!!

TheBluesMan · January 4, 2001, 10:47 PM

Sorry, but this idea doesn't fly with me.

Registering non-gun owners and charging them a fee is no different than what they seek to do to us.

I agree that it puts them on the defensive for a change, but I won't stoop to their level. I believe that every person has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether a person chooses to exercise that Right is a personal decision that shouldn't be forced upon anyone.

bigfoot4 · January 4, 2001, 11:13 PM

I HATE TO SAY IT BUT I AGREE WITH BLUES MAN ON THIS ONE
BUT, IT SURE WOULD BE FUN TO SEE "THEM" SQUIRM FOR A
CHANGE

Jeff Thomas · January 5, 2001, 02:14 AM

This idea will seem nutty, so perhaps that is reason enough to laugh it off. However, the concept is roughly valid.

Ever bought or sold a car? Smart sellers of any big ticket item usually ask for more than the selling price they are ultimately willing to accept. Buyers usually offer less than they are ultimately willing to pay. It is tradition, and it fits with human behavior. IMHO, RKBA supporters need to be just as wise.

It takes some devotion of resources, but it is foolish to only pay defense in this game. By putting the dark side on the defensive, (1) they waste their political capital by fighting our offense, (2) more radical pro-self defense proposals (by some parties) can make less radical pro-self defense proposals (by other parties) appear relatively more reasonable, and (3) we can imcrementally take back some of the fundamental civil rights they have destroyed in the last decade.

We're right in our cause. We also need to be smart. And, play hard ... no quarter to those who are willing to allow us and our families to die at the hands of BG's, while the dark side denies us the fundamental human right of self defense.

Regards from AZ

citizen · January 5, 2001, 03:06 AM

Two Questions:

1.What other two states have lower crime rates?

2.Besides myself, who else would SERIOUSLY consider
moving there?

Ed Brunner · January 5, 2001, 04:19 AM

Bluesman;
Is this really stooping to their level or is it an acknowledgement that citizens have a duty to defend certain aspects of our freedom or to pay someone else to do it in their place?
Is gun ownership really a matter of personal choice?
Is it a right to bear arms?
Is it a right NOT to bear arms?

hube1236 · January 5, 2001, 05:19 AM

Using the spel chekker berfore publishing something would add a littel more cridibility to are argyoument

Sword · January 5, 2001, 05:22 AM

Ah yoused ma rednek spel cheker.

Caeca Invidia Es · January 5, 2001, 07:23 AM

I have to agree with TheBluesMan. I find the proposal hilarious, and it seems like the guy is just trying flipping the bird at HCI and friends (alot like Virgin Ut.) But I can't agree with trying to force people to own guns anymore then I can agree with forcing people to not own guns. And quite frankly, there are a few people I know that I would prefer didn't have guns.

ctdonath · January 5, 2001, 09:49 AM

While I'd not approve of actually implementing the plan, pushing the proposal is great. Anti-gunners have a "not me" mentality that makes it easy for them to push restrictions on others; this proposal uses their ideas but reverses the application, saying "if you think people should be registered, then let's register YOU."

I've spent my $500 (times N) to promote "the security of a free state"; it's about time the anti-gunners do their fair share.

IZZY · January 5, 2001, 10:10 AM

If it werent so darn cold in Vermont I would live there!

I believe the Idea that our founding fathers had in mind was a citizen army Vs. the proffessional one of today. ( which is probly neccesary due to the expansiveness of our empire). So indeed legaly most grown men do have a level of community responsability to keep at least one good rifle at home.

A good defense is the strongest counter attack you can put up. Static defense works only when the enemy is out of it's element. Given the fact that today socialists determine much of the playing feild we must fight them for the turf before we become able to "take the high road".

Peace and War...

IZZY

Thumper · January 5, 2001, 12:10 PM

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..."
Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45. (Complete letter of June 5, 1824)

"A free people ought...to be...armed..."
George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

I kinda like the idea...it makes me smile.

Wallew · January 5, 2001, 12:46 PM

To all who agree with BluesMan,
Do you think we should pay for (via our taxes) the police to 'protect and serve' us? We all do. So what's the real difference? If you choose to make use of the services the police provide more often than I do as a gun owner, then you (non-gun owner) should be willing to not only PAY a little more than I do for that service, but the police should KNOW that when they arrive at your residence, you will not have protected yourself and could find you in all sorts of trouble from people intent on harming an unarmed individual. I think it's only fair, if you place more pressure on the police resources than I do, YOU SHOULD pay more than I. Should they be registered? I don't see the purpose, other than allowing the police to know who is and isn't armed. This would actually be a REVERSE REGISTRATION of gun owners. Not on the list? You MUST be a gun owner.

Please, no flames. I'm using the pluralistic YOU, meaning non gun owners, not the 'you' who agree with The Blues Man.

TheBluesMan · January 5, 2001, 02:04 PM

Wallew is right about us all paying for the police to "protect and serve" us, but, often times police officers are nothing more than mop-up men who come in and take notes after a crime has been committed. I don’t think that non-gun owners put more pressure on police resources than gun owners do; it’s criminals who put pressure on police resources. Wallew is also very right about the de facto Reverse Registration.

Ed Brunner - I respect your opinion very much, but I believe that this is stooping to their level. We need to support the rights of all, even those who oppose us, or we are not worthy of those rights ourselves. Having First Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I have to go to church. Having Fourth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot ever submit to a search. Having Fifth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot admit to a crime. Of course this registration and fee system does give the antis the chance to "feel our pain" for a change.

I support the right of the people to not exercise their rights if that is what they choose to do. Conscientious objectors to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can serve in a capacity to defend our freedom that does not interfere with their beliefs.

jimpeel · January 5, 2001, 02:36 PM

Here's the rub:

Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend themselves;

Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their families;

Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their neighbors;

Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend strangers about them;

Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the state;

Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the nation, and;

Firearms owners stand at the ready to assist the lawful local, state, and federal authorities in time of need.

On the other hand:

Non-firearms owners defer their defense to those who respond bearing arms on their behalf;

Non-firearms owners stand idly by while their neighbors are harmed;

Non-firearms owners stand idly by while strangers about them are harmed;

Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the state is attacked;

Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the nation is attacked, and;

Non-firearms owners are completely dependent on the local, state, and federal authorities for their defense; while having no thought to any duty to reciprocate when those who are so employed are themselves in peril.

This means that these people are a drain on the resources that are in place -- which are for the investigation of crimes, not their personal defense -- and, as such, they should be expected to pay more for that upon which they incessantly depend. It is time they paid for the lives of those who they employ to lose their lives in their stead.

Ed Brunner · January 5, 2001, 09:08 PM

I think the decision to rely on others for any service makes us indebted. This debt is also paid by those who elect not to depend.
It's sort of like the anti-smoking argument. The smokers allegedly relied on nonsmokers for their health care, so look what happened.
TheBluesMan; thank you for the kind words. We can agree or disagree. This looks like a totally minor disagreement.

45King · January 6, 2001, 07:23 AM

Perhaps so. Note that this does not require anyone to own a gun. You have a choice: own a gun, no registration; don't own a gun, get registered.
Have any of the anti-gun proposals ever had a concientious objector clause for those who object to being dependent upon the state for their protection?
I'm for it, and would support it were it introduced in my home state.

I agree with Jim; it's those who are dependent upon the state who put the drain on resources by allowing criminals to commit so many crimes through their lack of direct action. If you shoot a goblin in valid self-defense, sure, the police are still going to have to respond, and sure, there'll be a lot of paperwork, but at least everyone involved has the satisfaction of knowing that the perp is either in custody or removed from the gene pool. No time or effort has to be spent tracking him/her down.

Agree also with the point that we should indeed introduce some very radical pro-defense laws which create a lot of controversy so that in the meantime, we can slip in a few less radical but just as needed laws. It's not honest, but then, we're talking politics, and politics, by its very nature, is not honest. Politics is the dark science of convincing people whose behavior is moral that they should subject themselves to rules and restrictions needed only for those whose behavior is not moral.

Let's fight fire with fire.

mussi · January 7, 2001, 04:05 PM

Vermont is AFAIK a democrat state. Yet they have the most liberal gun
laws in the US, especially for carrying guns. How comes THIS?

sw627pc · January 7, 2001, 04:55 PM

Mussi,

You have to understand the overall local picture. I suspect that Vermont is much like Indiana. A democrat in Indiana would be a republican in NY. A republican in Indiana would be unthinkable in NY. All a matter of perspective.

powderific · January 7, 2001, 05:30 PM

I've got a question, the law says that you may not posses a firearm if you are under 16 without a parents consent, does that mean that if i lived in vermont, and i had my parents permission,i could carry a concealed handgun?(im 15)

Bullpup · January 8, 2001, 06:55 AM

Your right blues man, police are more of a mop up crew and it would be a reverse registration which is just as bad. We as firearms owners do do all these good things such as defending our country and such, but we do this of our own and because we are good people ,not because we are hired to do so like the police are (not that police aren't good people, but they are hired by the public to perform these duties). Lets say someone in front of your house in the street is fighting with someone else. The neighbor next store sees this and goes out there and stops the fight (his trusty side by side convincing the two to stop )Now the other neighbor does nothing(partially because he's not home) Now should he be forced to pay the Government more money because he wasn't there to do any thing about the situation in front of your house?? He didn't take any direct action to stop it did he?
We can't start doing things like this. Just beacause you didn't take direct action to stop a crime doesn't mean your
automatically responsible for it. Are you responsible for the fire that destroyed your neighbors house since you didn't take any direct action (risk your life) to stop it?
It's the criminals that commited the crimes who are responsible for them. They are the ones who are putting the pressure on the system.

Jimpeel,non gunnies do pay for it,like you and I through their taxes and for them
the life or property of theirs they just lost because they weren't properly prepared. It is not for person B to fine person A for not taking care of his own life. Person A suffers the consequence of not being armed by losing his life or his property.

Why should we register people who haven't even committed a crime? What if this list was found by the criminals? What if they went to each and every house of the persons on the list and raided it and maybe killed the people inside? Sure it would be poetic justice , but I as a person don't exist to make life miserable for those around me wether they own guns or not. I as a person have the right to own guns or not to own guns. I think my owning of guns gives me an extra leval of protection against those who might wish to hurt me, but that's my decision to make ,not the governments. Even if you own guns it's not a guarentee that you will prevent crime. Lets say you do own a gun and you see that theres a cop and a bad guy dueling it out. You pull out your gun and start firing at the bad guy. You miss
with the first two shots but your next two get him between the eyes, to late the cop's already dead , but if your marksmanship had been better you probably would have gotten him with the first shot and not missed thereby preventing the bad guy from killing the cop. Are you resposible for the cops death? You did take direct action, but what the hell does that matter as the cop's dead. I know that I may be taking this to the extreme but that's were this could take us. Another looonnng post, Ide better ice my typing finger before it swells up

iso1 · January 8, 2001, 10:22 AM

Here's the text of the bill as introduced:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2000...ro/h%2D760.htm

Interesting, because it also says that the $500 fee would be applied only if the person is also eligible for military service.

Exemptions for LEO and military, of course.

Quote:

AN ACT RELATING TO REGISTRATION BY CITIZENS NOT OWNING FIREARMS

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

Sec. 1. 3 V.S.A. § 118 is added to read:

§ 118. REGISTRATION BY CITIZENS NOT OWNING FIREARMS

(a) Residents of this state who are 18 years of age or older, and who do not own a firearm as defined in section 4016 of Title 13, shall be required to:

(1) register with the secretary of state's office, the person's name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number and state of issuance; and

(2) pay a registration fee of $500.00 if the person is eligible for military service.

(b) The requirements imposed by this section shall not apply to residents who are law enforcement officers or members of the armed forces of this state or the United States.

I like it. Makes perfect sense to me. But, like gun-registration, how to enforce it?

IZZY · January 8, 2001, 02:28 PM

How to Enforce it...ha,ha.. Just like in old times there must be a muster day for the militia, where every man shows up with their rifle.. It was quite extravagent in virginia, people showed up in all sorts of wild costoumes..

besides that the law would set a general tone..most law abider would want to "do no wrong" and the rest can live in fear of being busted,...just like they put me or you in fear of every-one in N.Y...

P.S. Can any one answer Powderrific? All I know is check the law with the state police (tell them its about a "friend" and call from a pay phone just in case) Plus there is a fedral law mandating majority age (18) for Ownership to keep in mind...Any one from Vermont??????

IZZY · January 8, 2001, 02:44 PM

Bullpup And blues Man,

Dudes dont forget we already register non-crimminals for the sake of defense...Its called "Selective Service" THE DRAFT it is still law and any one till the age of 26 must register or face a possible penilty of ( o.k. let break out the draft card " YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION MAY VIOLATE THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT. CONVICTION OF SUCH VIOLATION MAY RESULT IN IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN 250,000 u.s.d. OR BOTH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE".

Now I hope that if we get our state muster bills passed ( one of these days) it will only be made a misdomenor so we don't cage men like animals and strip liberty vs. defend it.

I dont like "selective" service. But you bet I am registered!!! (ssn# and current adress...) The state roll in Vermont could be used to see which citizens of the state are worthy to be cast to the feds in time of war...Scince they do no one any good they could be the first to serve our greater Imperium...

January 4, 2001, 10:29 PM	#2
CassidyGT Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 1999 Location: South PA, USA Posts: 402	OUTSTANDING!!! LOVE IT!! __________________ Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF TRT) Pennsylvania Tyranny Response Team "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." --Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

January 5, 2001, 02:14 AM	#5
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	Actually, it is time we play a little hardball ... This idea will seem nutty, so perhaps that is reason enough to laugh it off. However, the concept is roughly valid. Ever bought or sold a car? Smart sellers of any big ticket item usually ask for more than the selling price they are ultimately willing to accept. Buyers usually offer less than they are ultimately willing to pay. It is tradition, and it fits with human behavior. IMHO, RKBA supporters need to be just as wise. It takes some devotion of resources, but it is foolish to only pay defense in this game. By putting the dark side on the defensive, (1) they waste their political capital by fighting our offense, (2) more radical pro-self defense proposals (by some parties) can make less radical pro-self defense proposals (by other parties) appear relatively more reasonable, and (3) we can imcrementally take back some of the fundamental civil rights they have destroyed in the last decade. We're right in our cause. We also need to be smart. And, play hard ... no quarter to those who are willing to allow us and our families to die at the hands of BG's, while the dark side denies us the fundamental human right of self defense. Regards from AZ

January 5, 2001, 03:06 AM	#6
citizen Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2000 Posts: 796	Two Questions: 1.What other two states have lower crime rates? 2.Besides myself, who else would SERIOUSLY consider moving there? __________________ ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM NRA, GOA, AOC Ignorance can be cured, Stupid is forever Life is too short for dial-up

January 5, 2001, 04:19 AM	#7
Ed Brunner Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1998 Location: Natchez, MS, USA Posts: 2,562	What price freedom?? Bluesman; Is this really stooping to their level or is it an acknowledgement that citizens have a duty to defend certain aspects of our freedom or to pay someone else to do it in their place? Is gun ownership really a matter of personal choice? Is it a right to bear arms? Is it a right NOT to bear arms? __________________ MOLON LABE UNTIL IT'S OVER! Ed

January 5, 2001, 05:19 AM	#8
hube1236 Registration in progress Join Date: April 28, 2000 Location: New Orleans, USA Posts: 785	Not Being a Snob, but Using the spel chekker berfore publishing something would add a littel more cridibility to are argyoument

January 4, 2001, 09:27 PM	#1
IZZY Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Florida Posts: 938	O.K. before you burn me in effigy just follow this link! http://www.sightings.com/general6/finally.htm ENJOY!!!!

January 4, 2001, 10:47 PM	#3
TheBluesMan Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 15, 1999 Location: Ohio Posts: 7,558	Sorry, but this idea doesn't fly with me. Registering non-gun owners and charging them a fee is no different than what they seek to do to us. I agree that it puts them on the defensive for a change, but I won't stoop to their level. I believe that every person has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether a person chooses to exercise that Right is a personal decision that shouldn't be forced upon anyone.

January 4, 2001, 11:13 PM	#4
bigfoot4 Member Join Date: November 2, 2000 Posts: 64	I HATE TO SAY IT BUT I AGREE WITH BLUES MAN ON THIS ONE BUT, IT SURE WOULD BE FUN TO SEE "THEM" SQUIRM FOR A CHANGE

January 5, 2001, 05:22 AM	#9
Sword Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2000 Posts: 188	Ah yoused ma rednek spel cheker. __________________ When they try to take away my 2nd Amendment rights, tell them Hell's comin' and I'm comin' with it! Armed and Dangerous

January 5, 2001, 07:23 AM	#10
Caeca Invidia Es Staff Alumnus Join Date: November 18, 1999 Location: Earth Posts: 834	I have to agree with TheBluesMan. I find the proposal hilarious, and it seems like the guy is just trying flipping the bird at HCI and friends (alot like Virgin Ut.) But I can't agree with trying to force people to own guns anymore then I can agree with forcing people to not own guns. And quite frankly, there are a few people I know that I would prefer didn't have guns. __________________ MOLON LABE! I don't approve of political jokes, I've seen too many of them get elected.

January 5, 2001, 09:49 AM	#11
ctdonath Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 1999 Posts: 1,904	While I'd not approve of actually implementing the plan, pushing the proposal is great. Anti-gunners have a "not me" mentality that makes it easy for them to push restrictions on others; this proposal uses their ideas but reverses the application, saying "if you think people should be registered, then let's register YOU." I've spent my $500 (times N) to promote "the security of a free state"; it's about time the anti-gunners do their fair share.

January 5, 2001, 10:10 AM	#12
IZZY Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Florida Posts: 938	If it werent so darn cold in Vermont I would live there! I believe the Idea that our founding fathers had in mind was a citizen army Vs. the proffessional one of today. ( which is probly neccesary due to the expansiveness of our empire). So indeed legaly most grown men do have a level of community responsability to keep at least one good rifle at home. A good defense is the strongest counter attack you can put up. Static defense works only when the enemy is out of it's element. Given the fact that today socialists determine much of the playing feild we must fight them for the turf before we become able to "take the high road". Peace and War... IZZY

January 5, 2001, 12:10 PM	#13
Thumper Senior Member Join Date: August 15, 2000 Location: Sugar Land, Tx Posts: 1,507	Here are a couple... "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45. (Complete letter of June 5, 1824) "A free people ought...to be...armed..." George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790 I kinda like the idea...it makes me smile.

January 5, 2001, 12:46 PM	#14
Wallew Junior member Join Date: October 3, 1999 Posts: 910	To all who agree with BluesMan, Do you think we should pay for (via our taxes) the police to 'protect and serve' us? We all do. So what's the real difference? If you choose to make use of the services the police provide more often than I do as a gun owner, then you (non-gun owner) should be willing to not only PAY a little more than I do for that service, but the police should KNOW that when they arrive at your residence, you will not have protected yourself and could find you in all sorts of trouble from people intent on harming an unarmed individual. I think it's only fair, if you place more pressure on the police resources than I do, YOU SHOULD pay more than I. Should they be registered? I don't see the purpose, other than allowing the police to know who is and isn't armed. This would actually be a REVERSE REGISTRATION of gun owners. Not on the list? You MUST be a gun owner. Please, no flames. I'm using the pluralistic YOU, meaning non gun owners, not the 'you' who agree with The Blues Man.

January 5, 2001, 02:04 PM	#15
TheBluesMan Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 15, 1999 Location: Ohio Posts: 7,558	Wallew is right about us all paying for the police to "protect and serve" us, but, often times police officers are nothing more than mop-up men who come in and take notes after a crime has been committed. I don’t think that non-gun owners put more pressure on police resources than gun owners do; it’s criminals who put pressure on police resources. Wallew is also very right about the de facto Reverse Registration. Ed Brunner - I respect your opinion very much, but I believe that this is stooping to their level. We need to support the rights of all, even those who oppose us, or we are not worthy of those rights ourselves. Having First Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I have to go to church. Having Fourth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot ever submit to a search. Having Fifth Amendment Rights doesn’t mean that I cannot admit to a crime. Of course this registration and fee system does give the antis the chance to "feel our pain" for a change. I support the right of the people to not exercise their rights if that is what they choose to do. Conscientious objectors to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can serve in a capacity to defend our freedom that does not interfere with their beliefs.

January 5, 2001, 02:36 PM	#16
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	Here's the rub: Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend themselves; Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their families; Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend their neighbors; Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend strangers about them; Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the state; Firearms owners stand at the ready to defend the nation, and; Firearms owners stand at the ready to assist the lawful local, state, and federal authorities in time of need. On the other hand: Non-firearms owners defer their defense to those who respond bearing arms on their behalf; Non-firearms owners stand idly by while their neighbors are harmed; Non-firearms owners stand idly by while strangers about them are harmed; Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the state is attacked; Non-firearms owners stand idly by while the nation is attacked, and; Non-firearms owners are completely dependent on the local, state, and federal authorities for their defense; while having no thought to any duty to reciprocate when those who are so employed are themselves in peril. This means that these people are a drain on the resources that are in place -- which are for the investigation of crimes, not their personal defense -- and, as such, they should be expected to pay more for that upon which they incessantly depend. It is time they paid for the lives of those who they employ to lose their lives in their stead. __________________ Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

January 5, 2001, 09:08 PM	#17
Ed Brunner Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1998 Location: Natchez, MS, USA Posts: 2,562	jimpeel; My point exactly! I think the decision to rely on others for any service makes us indebted. This debt is also paid by those who elect not to depend. It's sort of like the anti-smoking argument. The smokers allegedly relied on nonsmokers for their health care, so look what happened. TheBluesMan; thank you for the kind words. We can agree or disagree. This looks like a totally minor disagreement. __________________ MOLON LABE UNTIL IT'S OVER! Ed

January 6, 2001, 07:23 AM	#18
45King Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 1999 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 1,033	Missing a point? Perhaps so. Note that this does not require anyone to own a gun. You have a choice: own a gun, no registration; don't own a gun, get registered. Have any of the anti-gun proposals ever had a concientious objector clause for those who object to being dependent upon the state for their protection? I'm for it, and would support it were it introduced in my home state. I agree with Jim; it's those who are dependent upon the state who put the drain on resources by allowing criminals to commit so many crimes through their lack of direct action. If you shoot a goblin in valid self-defense, sure, the police are still going to have to respond, and sure, there'll be a lot of paperwork, but at least everyone involved has the satisfaction of knowing that the perp is either in custody or removed from the gene pool. No time or effort has to be spent tracking him/her down. Agree also with the point that we should indeed introduce some very radical pro-defense laws which create a lot of controversy so that in the meantime, we can slip in a few less radical but just as needed laws. It's not honest, but then, we're talking politics, and politics, by its very nature, is not honest. Politics is the dark science of convincing people whose behavior is moral that they should subject themselves to rules and restrictions needed only for those whose behavior is not moral. Let's fight fire with fire. __________________ Shoot straight, stay safe, and have a blessed day. Regards, Richard Freedom is a consequence of the exercising of rights.

January 7, 2001, 04:05 PM	#19
mussi Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2000 Location: Berne, Switzerland Posts: 757	Please explain... Vermont is AFAIK a democrat state. Yet they have the most liberal gun laws in the US, especially for carrying guns. How comes THIS?

January 7, 2001, 04:55 PM	#20
sw627pc Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 2000 Posts: 453	Mussi, You have to understand the overall local picture. I suspect that Vermont is much like Indiana. A democrat in Indiana would be a republican in NY. A republican in Indiana would be unthinkable in NY. All a matter of perspective. __________________ Bob C. NRA Patron USN (Ret)

January 7, 2001, 05:30 PM	#21
powderific Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2000 Location: South Dakota Posts: 137	I've got a question, the law says that you may not posses a firearm if you are under 16 without a parents consent, does that mean that if i lived in vermont, and i had my parents permission,i could carry a concealed handgun?(im 15)

January 8, 2001, 06:55 AM	#22
Bullpup Member Join Date: December 14, 2000 Posts: 34	Your right blues man, police are more of a mop up crew and it would be a reverse registration which is just as bad. We as firearms owners do do all these good things such as defending our country and such, but we do this of our own and because we are good people ,not because we are hired to do so like the police are (not that police aren't good people, but they are hired by the public to perform these duties). Lets say someone in front of your house in the street is fighting with someone else. The neighbor next store sees this and goes out there and stops the fight (his trusty side by side convincing the two to stop )Now the other neighbor does nothing(partially because he's not home) Now should he be forced to pay the Government more money because he wasn't there to do any thing about the situation in front of your house?? He didn't take any direct action to stop it did he? We can't start doing things like this. Just beacause you didn't take direct action to stop a crime doesn't mean your automatically responsible for it. Are you responsible for the fire that destroyed your neighbors house since you didn't take any direct action (risk your life) to stop it? It's the criminals that commited the crimes who are responsible for them. They are the ones who are putting the pressure on the system. Jimpeel,non gunnies do pay for it,like you and I through their taxes and for them the life or property of theirs they just lost because they weren't properly prepared. It is not for person B to fine person A for not taking care of his own life. Person A suffers the consequence of not being armed by losing his life or his property. Why should we register people who haven't even committed a crime? What if this list was found by the criminals? What if they went to each and every house of the persons on the list and raided it and maybe killed the people inside? Sure it would be poetic justice , but I as a person don't exist to make life miserable for those around me wether they own guns or not. I as a person have the right to own guns or not to own guns. I think my owning of guns gives me an extra leval of protection against those who might wish to hurt me, but that's my decision to make ,not the governments. Even if you own guns it's not a guarentee that you will prevent crime. Lets say you do own a gun and you see that theres a cop and a bad guy dueling it out. You pull out your gun and start firing at the bad guy. You miss with the first two shots but your next two get him between the eyes, to late the cop's already dead , but if your marksmanship had been better you probably would have gotten him with the first shot and not missed thereby preventing the bad guy from killing the cop. Are you resposible for the cops death? You did take direct action, but what the hell does that matter as the cop's dead. I know that I may be taking this to the extreme but that's were this could take us. Another looonnng post, Ide better ice my typing finger before it swells up

January 8, 2001, 02:28 PM	#24
IZZY Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Florida Posts: 938	How to Enforce it...ha,ha.. Just like in old times there must be a muster day for the militia, where every man shows up with their rifle.. It was quite extravagent in virginia, people showed up in all sorts of wild costoumes.. besides that the law would set a general tone..most law abider would want to "do no wrong" and the rest can live in fear of being busted,...just like they put me or you in fear of every-one in N.Y... P.S. Can any one answer Powderrific? All I know is check the law with the state police (tell them its about a "friend" and call from a pay phone just in case) Plus there is a fedral law mandating majority age (18) for Ownership to keep in mind...Any one from Vermont??????

January 8, 2001, 02:44 PM	#25
IZZY Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Florida Posts: 938	Bullpup And blues Man, Dudes dont forget we already register non-crimminals for the sake of defense...Its called "Selective Service" THE DRAFT it is still law and any one till the age of 26 must register or face a possible penilty of ( o.k. let break out the draft card " YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION MAY VIOLATE THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT. CONVICTION OF SUCH VIOLATION MAY RESULT IN IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN 250,000 u.s.d. OR BOTH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE". Now I hope that if we get our state muster bills passed ( one of these days) it will only be made a misdomenor so we don't cage men like animals and strip liberty vs. defend it. I dont like "selective" service. But you bet I am registered!!! (ssn# and current adress...) The state roll in Vermont could be used to see which citizens of the state are worthy to be cast to the feds in time of war...Scince they do no one any good they could be the first to serve our greater Imperium...