A modest [gun] proposal

04/17/2013 09:55

by Staff


Some years back a local Vermont state representative by the name of Fred Maslack had the right idea about gun ownership, proposing a bill to require all citizens to purchase a firearm for personal protection or pay a fine. Although no longer a member of the Vermont legislature, his idea of personal gun ownership was nonetheless ahead of its time. To borrow a phrase from Jonathan Swift, his 'modest proposal' is 'timeless' despite the usual mindless pratter and twitting of the critics.

The typical anti-gun approach is to discredit the idea or argument based on a technicality rather than to deal with the merit of the suggestion itself.  It's what makes them feel superior to everyone else. For example, Matt Sutkoski writes in Dec 2012:: "The blog Gunowners of America bills itself as “The only no-compromise pro-gun blog on the Web.” It reported the Maslack story, complete with a tweet about it, over the weekend. The Houstonian online published a column about the Maslack proposal, as if it were new, on Dec. 4".  And, here it is again in 2013 sent to us by one of our contributors.

Matt and others of his ilk can't seem to grasp the basic concept that good ideas, like values, simply never go out of style. Merit is funny that way, it just keeps rising to the top like oil separating from water.  Most of today's journalists are incapable of recognizing either quality or truth and so they satisfy their ego by dissing others ideas. Just because something is old doesn't mean it isn't any good.  Readers should decide for themselves whether Maslack's proposal is worthwhile, they don't need to be given their opinions by a drive by news media. Here is Maslack's idea as is circulating the Internet:


"Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 YEARLY 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 ay 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. 

Maslack's idea is supported by at least two Supreme Court decisions, one clarifying that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is not relegated to members of the militia only and the other permitting the use of force to resist unlawful arrest. I don't hear the media complaining about paying a tax (or fine) for not having medical insurance so why should gun ownership be any different? After all, Justice Robert's swing vote affirmed Obamacare in finding that Congress had the right to tax without specifying on what basis.

After all, it isn't a problem when Government kills its citizens because of a 'compelling interest' in promothing its antithetical ideology as during the murders of women and children at WACO and students at Kent state. Restricting gun ownership only encourages further abuses in the name of 'social justice' and reduces the citizen to slave status. 


Required gun ownership keeps government honest and guarantees freedom.