• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
93,446
Reaction score
68,133
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d7b_1256904760]LiveLeak.com - Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?[/ame]

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 More..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 affirming 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

Hahah. Of course, I don't really agree with databasing and registering...well most anyone. So I really wouldn't support something like this. But I like the idea of it, makes me laugh. Why should the gun owners be the one's to register, we're just exercising a right. It's much better to register non-gun owners as they're the one's refusing to do their duty to the Republic and will be useless in a zombie fight.

Umm...I also don't know why there's a video with that link, there's other links

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/a-novel-idea-register-nongun
 
That is fricken hilarious. I love it!

I especially love this:

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.
 
Last edited:
That is fricken hilarious. I love it!

I especially love this:

Yeah...could also be that Vermont is one large suburb and there is not really 'any' crime to commit. You'd have to be seriously desperate to A) make the necessary drive to rob anything of value in Vermont or B) just plain dumb. It's kind of like how Nebraska isn't exactly known for murders. There's really nobody to kill.
 
Last edited:
Yeah...could also be that Vermont is one large suburb and there is not really 'any' crime to commit. You'd have to be seriously desperate to A) make the necessary drive to rob anything of value in Vermont or B) just plain dumb. It's kind of like how Nebraska isn't exactly known for murders. There's really nobody to kill.
ya think? ;-)
 
Well Vermont is sounding better and better than. Register non-gun owners and low crime!
 
Why should the gun owners be the one's to register, we're just exercising a right. It's much better to register non-gun owners as they're the one's refusing to do their duty to the Republic and will be useless in a zombie fight.

What would be the purpose in registering non-gun owners? So that when your non-gun isn't found at the scene of the crime, the cops will know you're innocent? :confused:
 
What would be the purpose in registering non-gun owners? So that when your non-gun isn't found at the scene of the crime, the cops will know you're innocent? :confused:

Nope, so you know who not to go to for help.
 
For the state militia.

Is participation compulsory? If not, why does it matter who currently owns a gun...especially when anyone on the list could go out and buy a gun if they wanted to join? And if it is, then the point is moot, as everyone will have a gun anyway.
 
Is participation compulsory? If not, why does it matter who currently owns a gun...especially when anyone on the list could go out and buy a gun if they wanted to join? And if it is, then the point is moot, as everyone will have a gun anyway.

That's what the bill proposes. That because the person has the duty to State militia to ensure that the federal government does not maintain a monopoly on force; that people must own guns so that they can participate in the militia should the need arise. Militia is called up, it's not like a voluntary standing army. When called up, all those of age go.
 
That's what the bill proposes. That because the person has the duty to State militia to ensure that the federal government does not maintain a monopoly on force; that people must own guns so that they can participate in the militia should the need arise. Militia is called up, it's not like a voluntary standing army. When called up, all those of age go.

So if it is compulsory (if needed), remind me again what purpose this registration will serve? :confused:
 
That's what the bill proposes. That because the person has the duty to State militia to ensure that the federal government does not maintain a monopoly on force; that people must own guns so that they can participate in the militia should the need arise. Militia is called up, it's not like a voluntary standing army. When called up, all those of age go.


It's the responsibility of the federal gov't to arm the Militia.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
 
So if it is compulsory (if needed), remind me again what purpose this registration will serve? :confused:

It prompts people to either perform their duty or charges them for a permit for the luxury to skip it. Those registered wouldn't be asked to join militia activities.
 
It's the responsibility of the federal gov't to arm the Militia.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

On a federal level. This is state level. The state militia, which is supposed to exist in contrast to the federal government so the federal government does not own monopoly on force.
 
On a federal level. This is state level. The state militia, which is supposed to exist in contrast to the federal government so the federal government does not own monopoly on force.


No. This is the state Militias, which is why the States have the responsibility and authority with respect to appointment of officers, training, etc. Further, no state is allowed to keep troops, except as consented to by Congress. The federal ones are the armies and navies, etc.


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
 
That the federal government, that's on a federal level. The State has differing criteria and necessities for its militia. The Federal govenrment could call up the State militia (one way by declaration of war). If the federal government calls it up, they must arm them. But the State has different requirements. The States don't keep troops, they don't have an army; they have a State militia.
 
Last edited:
That the federal government, that's on a federal level. The State has differing criteria and necessities for its militia. The Federal govenrment could call up the State militia (one way by declaration of war). If the federal government calls it up, they must arm them. But the State has different requirements. The States don't keep troops, they don't have an army; they have a State militia.


The militia in Article 1 and the militia in the Second Amendment are the same thing, and neither refer to federal troops. (Heller, p 23)


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . aNavy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given thepower to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and notto organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect ifthe militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize“the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid.,
cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definitionof the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool,Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8,1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothingmore than the imposition of proper discipline and training.See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule ormethod”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
24 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court
trained to arms”).
 
The militias are composed of the same people. But it's the State militia. The Federal government is able to call it up if necessary, they were given a method to do so. But the militia isn't generally owned or armed by the federal government. The federal government has responsibilities to the State militias should they call them up. The State's responsibilities for their militias are different than federal. In general on the State side you are responsible for owning your own gun(s).
 
The militias are composed of the same people. But it's the State militia. The Federal government is able to call it up if necessary, they were given a method to do so. But the militia isn't generally owned or armed by the federal government. The federal government has responsibilities to the State militias should they call them up. The State's responsibilities for their militias are different than federal. In general on the State side you are responsible for owning your own gun(s).

The State Militia is the one authorized by the Constitution. The states are specifically prohibited from maintaining troops, except as authorized by the consent of Congress.

Your argument that citizens have a duty to arm themselves in case they are called up is problem, because if they are called up, the federal government has the responsibility to arm them, per the Constitution.



That's what the bill proposes. That because the person has the duty to State militia to ensure that the federal government does not maintain a monopoly on force; that people must own guns so that they can participate in the militia should the need arise. Militia is called up, it's not like a voluntary standing army. When called up, all those of age go.
 
The State Militia is the one authorized by the Constitution. The states are specifically prohibited from maintaining troops, except as authorized by the consent of Congress.

Your argument that citizens have a duty to arm themselves in case they are called up is problem, because if they are called up, the federal government has the responsibility to arm them, per the Constitution.

Militia is not troops. The US Constitution authorizes the federal government to call up the State militia if needed. The State maintains a militia, which does not qualify as a standing army. If the Federal government calls up the State militia, the Federal government must arm them. But in general on the State side that is not true.

Listen, just stop. If you're not going to read, stop. No more. This is as clear as it gets, if you can't understand it then sorry. But it's time to stop.
 
It prompts people to either perform their duty or charges them for a permit for the luxury to skip it. Those registered wouldn't be asked to join militia activities.

So then...it's not compulsory. In which case, why not just have a militia registration instead of a non-gun owner registration?
 
So then...it's not compulsory. In which case, why not just have a militia registration instead of a non-gun owner registration?

Because you're assumed to be in the militia less you decline your duty and obligation.
 
Back
Top Bottom