Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some GunOwner)   Vermont bill is proposing that the state not only register non-gun owners but also charge them for not having a gun   (gunowners.wordpress.com) divider line 294
    More: Ironic, gun owners, Kennesaw, rules for radicals, Time in the United States, brady bunch, Tony Oliva, Alinsky, guns  
•       •       •

3641 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2012 at 1:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



294 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-10 01:22:01 AM  
This guy has been pitching this bill since since 2001, at least. Link
 
2012-12-10 01:37:19 AM  
Should try it in Texas, would probably pass with flying colours.
 
2012-12-10 01:58:30 AM  
about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.
 
2012-12-10 02:01:58 AM  

giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.


Oh christ. Get over it.
 
2012-12-10 02:03:26 AM  

giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.


SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine
 
2012-12-10 02:11:58 AM  
There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine


And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.
 
2012-12-10 02:32:09 AM  

GAT_00: There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine

And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.


Agreed that it's not getting anywhere, but gun ownership can also be argued to be a public good. I would argue that increased gun ownership decreases crime rates, saving government money on police deployment, as well as reducing the effects of crime on the community and saving the American populace money - both arguments used for Obamacare.
 
2012-12-10 03:23:37 AM  

GAT_00: There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine

And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.


the constitution would disagree with you.
 
2012-12-10 03:56:07 AM  

giftedmadness: GAT_00: There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine

And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.

the constitution would disagree with you.


But would it act butt hurt?
 
2012-12-10 04:20:49 AM  
Kinda silly. There are a few people who I'm glad choose not to participate in that constitutional right. It's an opt in, not an inescapable opt out. Gun ownership brings with it a responsibility that nobody should be forced to undertake, unless they want it.
 
2012-12-10 07:14:32 AM  

ArkAngel: GAT_00: There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine

And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.

Agreed that it's not getting anywhere, but gun ownership can also be argued to be a public good. I would argue that increased gun ownership decreases crime rates, saving government money on police deployment, as well as reducing the effects of crime on the community and saving the American populace money - both arguments used for Obamacare.


How many times in your life have you used your gun in a way that alleviates a burden on taxpayers? How many times your health insurance?
 
2012-12-10 08:30:58 AM  

giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.


Dragging health insurance debate into gun rights debate = Maximum trolling!
 
2012-12-10 09:00:54 AM  

giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.


Funny you should mention that....
 
2012-12-10 09:21:19 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ArkAngel: GAT_00: There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine

And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.

Agreed that it's not getting anywhere, but gun ownership can also be argued to be a public good. I would argue that increased gun ownership decreases crime rates, saving government money on police deployment, as well as reducing the effects of crime on the community and saving the American populace money - both arguments used for Obamacare.

How many times in your life have you used your gun in a way that alleviates a burden on taxpayers? How many times your health insurance?


I don't own a gun, but if I were to shoot an intruder in my home or a rapist on the street, I certainly would save the police time in catching him and investigating the crime. If he died, I would save the state the money that would be spent to imprison him. Even if I just used it to scare him away, I would save myself the money spent on replacing stolen goods or repairing whatever damage they may have done.
 
2012-12-10 09:28:46 AM  

ArkAngel: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ArkAngel: GAT_00: There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine

And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.

Agreed that it's not getting anywhere, but gun ownership can also be argued to be a public good. I would argue that increased gun ownership decreases crime rates, saving government money on police deployment, as well as reducing the effects of crime on the community and saving the American populace money - both arguments used for Obamacare.

How many times in your life have you used your gun in a way that alleviates a burden on taxpayers? How many times your health insurance?

I don't own a gun, but if I were to shoot an intruder in my home or a rapist on the street, I certainly would save the police time in catching him and investigating the crime. If he died, I would save the state the money that would be spent to imprison him. Even if I just used it to scare him away, I would save myself the money spent on replacing stolen goods or repairing whatever damage they may have done.


How many people have to do that in their lifetime? In contrast, how many wind up needing medical care that can't afford out of pocket?
 
2012-12-10 09:57:03 AM  
Plus just think of the money the state would save if you could just shoot anyone playing their stereo louder than local noise ordnances.
 
2012-12-10 09:59:00 AM  
Sounds like a government regulation that would most cost the middle and lower classes.
 
2012-12-10 10:26:38 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ArkAngel: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: ArkAngel: GAT_00: There's a town in Georgia that does that IIRC, and I don't think I ever heard about a court striking it down either.

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine

And therefore hard to argue that this isn't legal. The best argument is probably that health care is a public good whereas ownership of a weapon is not, so the same standing doesn't apply. I doubt it would get anywhere though.

Agreed that it's not getting anywhere, but gun ownership can also be argued to be a public good. I would argue that increased gun ownership decreases crime rates, saving government money on police deployment, as well as reducing the effects of crime on the community and saving the American populace money - both arguments used for Obamacare.

How many times in your life have you used your gun in a way that alleviates a burden on taxpayers? How many times your health insurance?

I don't own a gun, but if I were to shoot an intruder in my home or a rapist on the street, I certainly would save the police time in catching him and investigating the crime. If he died, I would save the state the money that would be spent to imprison him. Even if I just used it to scare him away, I would save myself the money spent on replacing stolen goods or repairing whatever damage they may have done.

How many people have to do that in their lifetime? In contrast, how many wind up needing medical care that can't afford out of pocket?



It's a bad argument for sure. Better - Increased gun ownership would decrease the overall squirrel population which would have an impact on secondary squirrel related costs. That's a much greater benefit than crime reduction.
 
2012-12-10 10:39:11 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Nun gun-owners are fined?
 
2012-12-10 11:04:06 AM  
Is the government going to provide the guns, or is this some kind of mandate that will force individuals to purchase guns from private sellers?
 
2012-12-10 11:07:11 AM  
Can we set up some sort of proxy gun exchange, where I technically "own" a weapon that I've never fired or even touched, but I "lease" it to some anonymous drug dealer in another state? I could make some money off of this.
 
2012-12-10 11:16:38 AM  

Jackson Herring: Plus just think of the money the state would save if you could just shoot anyone playing their stereo louder than local noise ordnances.


You're thinking small, Mr. Herring.

Think of how much money we could save by killing poors and darks before they even cost us money. Now that's opportunity.
 
2012-12-10 11:26:10 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Jackson Herring: Plus just think of the money the state would save if you could just shoot anyone playing their stereo louder than local noise ordnances.

You're thinking small, Mr. Herring.

Think of how much money we could save by killing poors and darks before they even cost us money. Now that's opportunity.


that's exactly what I said though
 
2012-12-10 11:28:56 AM  
Usually, I have been against the government ruling anything has to be mandatory. But given the fact that Obamacare not only passed but was affirmed by the Supreme Court, I guess the new law of the land allows the government to force people to buy things.

I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves.

If, as a healthy person, I have to foot the bill for the chain smoking, burger inhaling, cardio hating, Fatty McFattensteins of America, why shouldn't someone who wants to pass the responsibility of their own protection onto the cops pay for that privilege?


he's got a point.
 
2012-12-10 11:49:18 AM  

giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.


Why, so the rest of the taxpayers can pay for it anyway?
 
2012-12-10 12:06:53 PM  

SlothB77: Usually, I have been against the government ruling anything has to be mandatory. But given the fact that Obamacare not only passed but was affirmed by the Supreme Court, I guess the new law of the land allows the government to force people to buy things.

I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves.

If, as a healthy person, I have to foot the bill for the chain smoking, burger inhaling, cardio hating, Fatty McFattensteins of America, why shouldn't someone who wants to pass the responsibility of their own protection onto the cops pay for that privilege?

he's got a point.


By logical extension then, why aren't you in the Army? Why are you a worthless bum who relies on other people to protect you? And for that matter, why do we spend a dime on the military when we can all just defend ourselves?

I suspect you'll suddenly have a problem with your strawman.
 
2012-12-10 12:17:51 PM  

serial_crusher: Is the government going to provide the guns, or is this some kind of mandate that will force individuals to purchase guns from private sellers?


If you can't afford a gun one will be issued to you and you will be fined.
 
2012-12-10 12:33:28 PM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2012-12-10 01:00:37 PM  
Crime will drop due to mutually assured destruction. Sounds great...
 
2012-12-10 01:01:49 PM  

violentsalvation: Kinda silly. There are a few people who I'm glad choose not to participate in that constitutional right. It's an opt in, not an inescapable opt out. Gun ownership brings with it a responsibility that nobody should be forced to undertake, unless they want it.


I'm gonna 'this' this comment.

If any post in this thread should be read and understood, it should be one from somebody who lives within 50 miles of the US Mexico border in Arizona.
 
2012-12-10 01:34:03 PM  
And to think, retards like this one can get a fun without a problem.
 
2012-12-10 01:36:00 PM  
Sure thing, but you have to call it a tax. Good luck.
 
2012-12-10 01:36:05 PM  
I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves. Why not let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Isn't that reasonable? Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense.

Wow, the fail in that paragraph is overwhelming. Actually, this paragraph is a good argument against mandatory gun ownership, because it is a bad idea to require stupid people to have guns.
 
2012-12-10 01:37:41 PM  
What a whiny, butthurt, trollish reaction to Obamacare may look like.
 
2012-12-10 01:38:12 PM  
looks like someone needs some nicoleswwequotes.angelfire.com
 
2012-12-10 01:38:34 PM  

Pincy: I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves. Why not let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Isn't that reasonable? Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense.

Wow, the fail in that paragraph is overwhelming. Actually, this paragraph is a good argument against mandatory gun ownership, because it is a bad idea to require stupid people to have guns.


What the hell is it that this guy thinks police do, exactly?
 
2012-12-10 01:38:51 PM  
curse you ... that was supposed to be ass cream

//i fail
 
2012-12-10 01:38:56 PM  
So then would felons be given a $500 check to cover the expense of not owning a gun that they are not allowed to own?
 
2012-12-10 01:41:26 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Your blog sucks.


Indeed. And whenever I see the words "Gotta love it" or the near equivalent I can rest easy knowing the person is a moron. (RE: Palin, Sarah)
 
2012-12-10 01:41:51 PM  

SlothB77: Usually, I have been against the government ruling anything has to be mandatory. But given the fact that Obamacare not only passed but was affirmed by the Supreme Court, I guess the new law of the land allows the government to force people to buy things.

I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves.

If, as a healthy person, I have to foot the bill for the chain smoking, burger inhaling, cardio hating, Fatty McFattensteins of America, why shouldn't someone who wants to pass the responsibility of their own protection onto the cops pay for that privilege?

he's got a point.


Not really. We already do pay the police for that privilege, with taxes.
 
2012-12-10 01:42:28 PM  
This wouldn't be the first time in America that such a law was passed. In Kennesaw, GA, gun ownership has been mandatory since 1982 with a fine of $100 being levied for violators.

What I have been told for years now by Republicans that something like this have never happened in the US and has always been considered unconstitutional.

I guess government mandating people to buy a product is ok when Republicans want it.
 
2012-12-10 01:44:50 PM  
Isn't the militia NECESSARY to a free state?

Shouldn't it be every citizens DUTY to carry and have an arsenal?

Or just the white ones?
 
2012-12-10 01:45:06 PM  

SlothB77: Usually, I have been against the government ruling anything has to be mandatory. But given the fact that Obamacare not only passed but was affirmed by the Supreme Court, I guess the new law of the land allows the government to force people to buy things.

I mean, there is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people who choose not to protect themselves.

If, as a healthy person, I have to foot the bill for the chain smoking, burger inhaling, cardio hating, Fatty McFattensteins of America, why shouldn't someone who wants to pass the responsibility of their own protection onto the cops pay for that privilege?

he's got a point.


Not until he can show some numbers for how much police "protection" actually costs. I've personally never had the police kill anyone for me, so I don't owe anything.
 
2012-12-10 01:45:20 PM  

notmtwain: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x262]

Nun gun-owners are fined?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-10 01:45:48 PM  

Electrify: Should try it in Texas, would probably pass with flying colours.


You sound Canadian.
 
2012-12-10 01:46:35 PM  

ArkAngel: giftedmadness: about the same logic as charging people for not buying health insurance.

SCOTUS says that's perfectly fine


They said it passed Constitutional muster, they didn't pass any judgement on the wisdom of it. That part they made that quite clear.

/Supports it
 
2012-12-10 01:47:27 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: Crime will drop due to mutually assured destruction. Sounds great...


Vermont already has a very low Brady Center "score", due to their alarmingly lax restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership; the state even allows residents to carry firearms, concealed, in public without so much as requiring a permit. As a consequence, the state's extremely high homicide rate of 1.3 incidents per 100,000 residents should be no surprise to anyone.
 
2012-12-10 01:47:50 PM  
And this is why a public option was the proper way to go.
 
2012-12-10 01:49:27 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Isn't the militia NECESSARY to a free state?

Shouldn't it be every citizens DUTY to carry and have an arsenal?

Or just the white ones?

No, it's not all citizens of the state:

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.
 
2012-12-10 01:49:50 PM  
The same conservative farkers are opposed to Obamacare because it is a mandate to purchase something.
 
Displayed 50 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report