Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

pete84964 wrote:Is it just me or have the have the gun lobby in the US just missed the point on their thread about gun laws in the wake of the Newtown massacre?

I'm trying to find the nicest way to say this.....but mind your own business.

We enshrined the right to own guns because of the tyranny of England so we're not going to heed a lecture from the English now. Most of us would rather live in a place where free people might go crazy, than a land where tyranny has free reign over defenseless citizens.

By the way, Vermont (next to Connecticut) has the most liberal laws for gun ownership in the USA and the 3rd lowest crime rate in the nation. The highest crime rates in America are in the cities with the most strict gun control. If common sense were applied, we'd be calling for MORE gun ownership, like they are doing in Vermont.



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.

It sounds like a bad idea to most but areas where most people carry are said to have a lower crime rate. (since they are all afraid of getting shot)
I don't know for real though, that's just rumor as far as I know.

(I know I'd feel better packing a gun, but I don't think the rest of you would feel better if I was packing.) LOL

"Always a pro and a con to everything"....

I wish all these daft yanks who support the USA GUN LAWS would just shoot themslves in the foot preferably both and get the message that guns and the agenda of gun control should now be put into the hands of all local authoritys to vote on the people passing a possible local gun ban ruling and if it is passed they should be locally banned but only if deemed so by the people who live under that authority for that area or state.Then if you disagree go live somewhere else.However that would only put the cat amongst the pigeons i know but if it certainly will hopefully saves lives then go for it because it it the law that runs the show not the gun.Also i don,t see Obama getting support from the fat cats in the senate so call their bluff and lets say ie the melody not the chords should be playing the tune in this case if the people are the melody and the big money backed politicians are the chords then put it to the vote by the people.Most polly ticians {gun favour supporting nuts} are now only serving to line their own pockets by favouring the law as it stand regarding the present mood forgun control.

I might also add that if any Tom Dick or Harry can be entitled to have a firearm in the USA i don,t ever want to visit there.

Steve and wrote:I might also add that if any Tom Dick or Harry can be entitled to have a firearm in the USA i don,t ever want to visit there.

Dirty Harry went senile, talking to empty chairs.

First and foremost, if you don't like the current convention whatever you are trying to visit, "don't go there".

It's nice to go to an area that has no guns.

But then the tables can turn, as some still do have guns in an atmosphere where are even less than normal and then it can become quite critical.

I'd rather have one nearby where I know in an emergency I could use it in a defensive stance than not have any at all nowhere near as in miles and miles away...

I still cannot fathom what part of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " is so difficult to comprehend.

Steve and wrote:I wish all these daft yanks who support the USA GUN LAWS would just shoot themslves in the foot preferably both and get the message

And I wish idiots would shut up...especially those who live outside our borders.

gun control should now be put into the hands of all local authoritys to vote on the people passing a possible local gun ban ruling and if it is passed they should be locally banned but only if deemed so by the people who live under that authority for that area or state.Then if you disagree go live somewhere else..

Agreed, but you are behind the times. We did that in 1776 already.

Steve and wrote:I might also add that if any Tom Dick or Harry can be entitled to have a firearm in the USA i don,t ever want to visit there.

Thanks!


Like I said earlier, the original point was to defend ourselves from the English, who have historically been more brutal to the defenseless than almost anyone

We stopped that.



.

yod wrote:

pete84964 wrote:Is it just me or have the have the gun lobby in the US just missed the point on their thread about gun laws in the wake of the Newtown massacre?

I'm trying to find the nicest way to say this.....but mind your own business.

We enshrined the right to own guns because of the tyranny of England so we're not going to heed a lecture from the English now. Most of us would rather live in a place where free people might go crazy, than a land where tyranny has free reign over defenseless citizens.

By the way, Vermont (next to Connecticut) has the most liberal laws for gun ownership in the USA and the 3rd lowest crime rate in the nation. The highest crime rates in America are in the cities with the most strict gun control. If common sense were applied, we'd be calling for MORE gun ownership, like they are doing in Vermont.



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.

It wont be much longer befor Vermont is free of all wildlife and such. WHen that goes, THey'll invade Connecticut.

Steve and wrote:I wish all these daft yanks who support the USA GUN LAWS would just shoot themslves in the foot preferably both and get the message that guns and the agenda of gun control should now be put into the hands of all local authoritys to vote on the people passing a possible local gun ban ruling and if it is passed they should be locally banned but only if deemed so by the people who live under that authority for that area or state.Then if you disagree go live somewhere else.However that would only put the cat amongst the pigeons i know but if it certainly will hopefully saves lives then go for it because it it the law that runs the show not the gun.Also i don,t see Obama getting support from the fat cats in the senate so call their bluff and lets say ie the melody not the chords should be playing the tune in this case if the people are the melody and the big money backed politicians are the chords then put it to the vote by the people.Most polly ticians {gun favour supporting nuts} are now only serving to line their own pockets by favouring the law as it stand regarding the present mood forgun control.

We are diametrically opposed on this issue. While you might contend the benefit of letting authority decide whats best for the citizens, you are also implying that the citizens are too goofy (or daft) to handle their own affairs and decisions surrounding personal safety. This, of course, is the core and essential implication, that drove yanks to create the United States.

In London, Bobby's carry sticks. In New York, Policeman carry handguns. In London, a fella might be subject to enduring steadfast protocols of propriety..maybe even catch a cup of tea, before getting robbed or mugged. In New York, a fella can devour his attacker, with incredible combat tactics, one of which include the use of a personal fire-arm, all while guzzling a beer in the other hand.

You have to ask yourself, which team would be better to protect your family and your queen? A properly dressed guvnah, or an American Yank, who wears bad fishing hats..?

So desperate for company in tyranny are you, to wish harm to your fellow men?

Be still childish one.