Interesting day. I do not think I shall ever comprehend the mind of a liberal. I must say that I was “called out” on one of Texas’ quotes; to be exact it was this one: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
So I got spanked by a lib who told me the quote was actually this: “A free people ought not only be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.”
Because I prefer to give the spankings, I told him that the same message applies as what was stated. I will highlight this for your viewing pleasure: “A free people ought not only be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.”
Regarding this subject, I read a great comment from Dusty. It very much deserves its own post:
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!
And there you have it. Hopefully, I shall now receive the latest pics that he has been promising…. Uh-huh…..C’mon, Dusty!