i think this is off topic, got it in my email

[corey012778]

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!

[50calty]

Thats Good! It makes sense too. Somehow I doubt that It would work out. It will be interesting what happens in the future with guns. I'm waiting on the day when you have to fill out a ffl for a muzzleloader. Especially for the inlines. Most inlines have the same power as a 45-70 or .450 marlin. Can't believe no one has proposed a bill for that. I guess I better keep quiet or someone will read this and do it.

[Gotbuck]

Wow that is an interesting take on things. It is somewhat comical that they would tax those who do not own guns but then again look at what we have to go through to own them (centerfires, pistols, etc..) Use that tax base for the folks who do not own guns to pay for the taxes that gun owners pay. (Possibly a tax deduction for gun owners come April)

[quake]

Corey, i am new to this forum and haven't "officially" introduced myself but felt compelled to reply to your post. Perhaps it is time to turn the spotlight on the non-gun owners instead of the light always shining on the law-abiding gun owners, although this will be extremely difficult to do. The notion that Anti-Gun Politicians can attempt to infringe on the Bill of Rights by making people "jump thru hoops and over hurdles" to excercise their 2nd Amendment rights is not only insane but borders on a criminal act against the people of the United States. It was the "nature and spirit" of the Second Amendment that founded this country and it has been the Second Amendment that has helped defend, protect, and preserve this country since its adoption into the Bill of Rights in 1791. Thanks for posting. Good read!!!! -Q