Vermont has some of the weakest gun laws in the country. After the school shooting in Florida last week, Republican Governor Phil Scott initially vowed that those laws would remain the same. But he changed his mind just one day later.
www.sevendaysvt.com
Nothing divides voters like owning a gun
In every state but Vermont – perhaps the most liberal state in the country, but one where many, including Bernie Sanders, support gun rights – voters who reported living in a gun-owning household overwhelmingly backed Donald J. Trump.
www.nytimes.com
Can Miss Crabtree pack heat? These 18 states allow K-12 teachers to carry
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Colion Noir - a lawyer and gun rights activist
Whatever way the wind blows...........
ReplyDeleteAll we need is a law that says the first purchaser of a gun will be responsible for its use for its entire existence. It will filter out the yahoos who don't realize how potent a weapon a gun is and leave them lying around to be stolen. People will pay attention to the gun they buy after the first grandmother goes to jail because the latest mass shooting was done with the rifle she bought and gave as a gift twenty years earlier.
ReplyDeleteThe same for a hammer, a car, etc...
DeleteThey design and build hammers and cars to kill things? Welcome to Planet Earth, where things are different than on your home planet....
DeleteChuck, Just b/c something is designed to do one thing does not mean, "someone" will not use it in a way that was unintended. It is the deterioration of our families, and moral character which has led us down this path. Kids killing kids, mental health issues abound, law makers lining there own pocket, pharmalogical drug pushers. It is time the tree was refreshed. "Metaphorically!"
Delete1/13: About as many people buy a car to kill someone as there are people who buy a gun simply to gaze at lovingly every day. America's problem is that way too many gun owners don't treat their weapon with the respect it deserves.
DeleteAre they idiots who are just ruining it for all the responsible owners? Are they educable? Do they need to be trained how to be responsible gun owners? Their attitude toward their weapon(s) is clearly dangerous to everybody else.
I am living and have lived for 60 years without a fire arm in my house. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE?
ReplyDeleteExactly!!! While Christmas shopping at Hubert's my wife and I and many others abruptly left when two obese goons came in proudly displaying their open carry gun. I think they truly believed they were the "good guys" with a gun protecting us. Their rusted truck with bald tires was plastered Trump and NRA stickers.
DeleteNO THANKS
Obese goons? Sounds like you are labeling people. Oh... that's what liberals do....
DeleteI have seen hand gun wielding men in Walmart two times. Once in Market Basket. I wanted to ask them "Why". Maybe someone can tell us. One condition I know of is they my be prison guards.
Delete7:26,i'll tell ya why,because we can,it's the law
DeleteLiberals label people, but conservatives don't? Let's see; Moochers, Parasites, Rapists, Thugs, Deadbeats, Scumbags, the list goes on, and on. To say nothing about "Lyin' Ted," "Little Marco," etc., etc. As far as the description of the Walmart gun-toters, I AGREE 1000%! I'm a law abiding gun owner, and it makes me sick to see these buffoons strolling around armed, for no other reason than to try to scare people! Can you say Domestic Terrorism? I DON'T WANT TO LOSE MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE OF A BUNCH OF STUPID REDNECKS! And speaking of rednecks, I saw a photo of the most recent school shooter wearing a MAGA hat. Is mass murder what you consider "Greatness?" This country doesn't have a gun problem, it has a rednecks-with-guns problem! Liberals have their faults, but gunning down school children isn't one of them!
Delete8:16 AND 8:18, U sacred of something. PS I don't have a problem with your rifle in back window of your rust pickup truck during DEER hunting season. You want to tote a hand gun around Walmart? You should visit the pharmacy for some anti depressant pills.
DeleteI'm sacred of nothing,i have a right to carry a gun and protect my family,which i will do til the day i die,problem with people like you is,you expect people to that care of you,when you need help you call people that carry a gun,the police,hopefully they will be there in time for you when you need them,by the way have have as much training if not more the must LEO do in handling firearms, i don't agree with people open carrying,but i do believe if you are a law abiding person,you do have the right to carry a gun.
DeleteWhy is it that most of the pro-gun responents don't sound very smart or educated? It's a bit troubling.
DeleteThe liberal way is always to attack someone's intelligence. Yet they have no clue they are being manipulated by their Democratic leaders.
DeleteChuck - time to take your meds and go to bed...
ReplyDeleteAllowing the Mentally Ill to control the United States of America, I never read that part of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we control the Mentally Ill and allow the normal people to live and abide by the Constitution.
Sounds like a call for impeachment, Roger! I thoroughly agree!
DeleteRoger, your sentence structure is fragmented and incomplete. It is hard to understand your point.
DeleteSounds like you're twisting my words. Donald Trump is the most level headed President we have had in many years, at least since 1989, if there were not so many apposed to his strength we could get something done and get this country back on track.
ReplyDeleteAre you mentally ill or do you just have a lack of education? Perhaps you and Chuck Shannon are brothers... that would also explain it.
DeleteThe Tide Pod eater is attacking someone's education. Classic.
DeleteThat comes from the uneducated attacking people WITH an education as somehow unknowing; that good-old-fashioned redneck populism. Just because some greazy TV preacher or right-wing politician tells you you're smart doesn't make it so. I think it has something to do with them stroking your over-inflated egos to get your money and votes, SUCKERS. But hey, I only have a college degree; I couldn't POSSIBLY know anything!
DeleteThere are a fair number of people here who'd get a lot of education about local life if they'd read "Deer Hunting with Jesus."
Delete2:24 here; been there, did that. I spent my twenties drunk and stoned off my a** at an outlaw biker bar. (Just ask my old friends Greazy and Eagle Steve, if they're still alive!) High school dropout, never held a job for longer than six months, blamed "the system" for everything, was thrown in jail by every town I lived in. I guess the only thing that separated me from the guys with "White Pride" tatooed on their arms was that I was NEVER dumb enough to vote Republican. One day I realized that I was the problem, got clean and sober, and walked away. I graduated from college at 38 years old. Was it easy? HELL NO! But it sure beats being a whining, ignorant, lazy, right-wing drunk! MAGA? Kiss my a**!
DeleteTrump says he is going to ban bump stocks. Guess that is one stock he and his buddies won't purchase.
ReplyDeleteIf the law says you have the right to carry a hand gun, then why aren't there many many people doing so. It does not seem to be the norm. Useless law.
ReplyDeletethere is a lot more people carrying guns then you know of,most of them keep them out of sight of others
DeleteI think most people who do carry exercise a little common sense, and either conceal the guns on their person or keep them in their cars. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you HAVE to! I once lived in Illinois, where you could get 10 years in prison just for having a loaded magazine in the trunk of your car, even without the gun! It's nice not to have to worry about that! I don't carry as a practice here, as it is USUALLY not necessary. The crime rate here IS pretty low; Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and has more gun deaths per capita. I understand people's need to feel safe (why I own a gun) but more laws will not stop the violence. We have to address the underlying social causes. There have ALWAYS been guns in America, the mass shootings are a more recent phenomenae. I blame the radicalization of our politics, and those political actors on both the Left AND Right who continuously expand the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Both sides are equally responsible!
DeleteHow come there haven't always been guns in the European countries???? They don't have guns, and they don't have the gun crime rates we do.
ReplyDeleteChuck, you're one of the radicals that I hold responsible. In typical fashion, you ignore the underlying causes of violence, and use every incident to push your agenda. Just as the Right uses you to push this country further rightward, you use the Right as an excuse to push the country further leftward. These mass incidents are just a symptom of a larger illness; the social deterioration of America caused by rabid ideologues battling each other for control. The "Culture War" is now a shooting war. I hope you're both proud of yourselves.
Delete9:59, the US averages about one shooting a week by a toddler. There is no day in which somebody has not injured or killed himself (it's almost always a male) or somebody else by accidentally discharging a weapon, and the same can be said for the rate of incidents in which somebody accidentally fires a bullet into somebody else's house or car.
ReplyDeleteThe average cost of a bullet wound is over $500,000, if I recall correctly.
Now, I know this is not going to convince you that there are too many guns, but you'll have to accept there are WAY too many people who do not treat their gun as a potent weapon. They treat it like another *(&^(#$# household appliance, and other people pay for it.
So, what we need is for gun owners to accept that the possession of a gun makes them responsible for it. If their teenager kills somebody showing how to twirl a revolver, they get prosecuted for manslaughter. If the gun they sold five years ago (disrespecting its power by letting it fall into less worthy hands) is used in a robbery, THEY get charged.
I'm not saying take guns away. I'm saying we should expect much, much more from people who buy them. It's a matter of personal responsibility.
Chuck, you're nuts! You prove my point about pushing an agenda so well, I'm going to leave it at that!
DeleteThat's not answering my argument, 5:15. Sorry that you can't carry it farther. I do wonder why you can't.
DeleteIdiots, I have 3 indecents to mention, when I was in grade school the neighbors had a "sitter" for the evening and the kids decided to show "him" their fathers shot gun. BANG. Hole in the wall. 2: Teenagers farting around with father's deer rifle. BANG right t hru neighbors house. 3: Last year, now 50 years latter, we have some mass holes come over to the neighbors across the street, they decided to shoot every sort of gun known, when the high powered rifles started shooting 20 feet from the road, 40 feet from our door, into ledge, I called the state police. They came and did not give a sh $×. Said tough sh $×. I LOVE VT GUN LAWS.
DeleteChuck, there's nowhere else for this argument to go! You lost five posts ago and just can't take it! The only reason I'm still responding to you is there's nothing good on TV! Get a grip, dude!
DeleteChuck, doesn't your idea make the manufacturers responsible for everything?
ReplyDeletePhilip, no it doesn't. As a matter of fact, gun manufacturers would like it, because if everybody destroyed their unwanted weapon rather than re-selling it, it would increase the demand for new firearms. Gun dealers would be under the same regulations as are in place now, so gun shows wouldn't be affected.
ReplyDeleteI find it strange that not one of my fellow gun owners has weighed in on how he/she would be affected by it.
8:02, you ought to get in touch with GunSense Vermont. You could help them do a lot of good.
So, Chuck, only the first purchaser would be responsible, and that apparently to the nth degree, but not the seller(s) or other purchasers? I'm trying to find some logic there. Or practicality. I'd prefer limiting certain kinds of gun ownership rather than increasing the number of armed environments, but whatever is attempted should stand some chance of improving things in the real world. Deterring all gun resales, which you seem to be suggesting, sounds unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly right, Philip. The Second Amendment might guarantee the right to buy arms, but the NRA cannot use it to as a defense against forbidding the re-sale of arms. So, here are the outcomes:
ReplyDelete1) The buyer has to consider how many weapons he can reasonably keep control of.
2) There will be an increase in the sale of gun safes and a decrease in the use of pillow storage for firearms; hence, fewer four-year-old shooters.
3) As guns are destroyed rather than re-sold, there will be a large increase in the manufacture and sale of more guns. What's not to like for the NRA about this?
4) The buyer will make the purchase in the knowledge that to be perfectly sure he never goes to jail he will destroy the weapon rather than rid himself of it some other way.
5) It is perfectly legal for him to sell it under the laws that already cover gun sales, but he's putting himself at high risk if it ever falls into unworthy hands.
6) There will be a marked decrease in straw purchases and the transfer of guns from low-regulation states to high-crime cities like Boston or New Haven.
7) Gun buyers will recognize that they are a cut above the ordinary, very much a King Arthur obligated to respect the power of their weapon and never let it out of their possession.
7) The person who buys a gun from the first buyer is under no such obligation. He can store it in his baby's crib, sell it to someone he just met on the street (whether legally or illegally), etc. As long as he isn't the one using it to commit a crime, he's in the clear (unless his sale breaks a law, but that is different from using the weapon). But if the gun is at any time used in a crime, the original buyer-- and none of the subsequent owners-- will be an accomplice and liable to the full weight of the law.
In other words, the buyer of a gun will be charged with personal responsibility for the safe use of the weapon during its lifetime. If he is unworthy of meeting that responsibility, he will pay the price.
This will do a lot to improve the nature of gun ownership in America. There will be no need to remove a gun from someone's cold dead hands if it's been glued there all his life.
Your thoughts?
Obviously the lunatic raving screed of a madman not unlike Ted Kaczynski.
DeleteRE: I find it strange that not one of my fellow gun owners has weighed in on how he/she would be affected by it.
ReplyDeleteChuck, the short answer is, most people don't care what you think. We value the wisdom of those whose superior judgement has yielded achievement and great success. That's why we elected our president.
I like Chuck, Dump Trump.
DeleteDarn kids trying to mess with the NRA.
ReplyDeleteHere is a great idea, though it is not mine, put military trained teachers in schools, and a greater military presence in the public. Hasn't history tried this ?
ReplyDeleteWhat if people were held responsible for their own actions, and not for the actions of people possessing items that they may have owned decades ago? It might piss off Chuck G, but it has become quite clear that he has lost all touch with reality.
DeleteYes 6:57, this has been tried before; Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and a few other places I wouldn't want to live in!
DeleteA number of people here are insulting gun owners by implying that they want to avoid being personally responsible in protecting the public from being harmed by a weapon they own that could pass into hands less worthy than theirs.
DeleteThey're also insulting those gun owners by saying they're a bunch of schlubs no better than the schlub who gets his hands on their weapon.
I think Vermont's gun owners are better than that.
If the pen is mightier than the sword, then what is mightier that the hand gun ?
DeleteThe typewriter?
DeleteChuck, you insult EVERYONE with your endless drivel. Do you really think we're all stupid enough to buy it? I'M NOT!
DeleteSo, 2:47, how would you feel if there were a law in place that says that you, as the first buyer of a gun, will be responsible for its use for its entire lifetime; that if you ever give it away, dispose of it through sale or pawn, let it escape from your control involuntarily or lend it, you will be held responsible for letting it pass into hands less worthy than yours?
DeleteSuch a law might go into effect in Vermont.
And again, you respond with THE SAME ENDLESS DRIVEL! Seek professional help, man!
Delete4:13, apparently you know what will happen if you reveal your feelings about such a law. It appears that you must feel ashamed about them.
DeleteChuck, it's unenforceable. In this society, you can't require people to destroy their property. You can't prevent them from selling it. You can't make them responsible for other people's unpredictable choices. It's not realistic; it won't work. There are problems with gun ownership in general, but your plan can't fix them.
DeleteWhen this thread dries up, Chuck G will just go back to endorsing the legal use of heroin. All in a days "work".....
DeleteChuck is conservative politics best motivator.
DeleteIf you think these chronic, irrational postings here are tiresome, search local, liberal sites. He displays many of the eccentric social traits of a mass shooter himself.
My shot gun and a supply of 00 buckshot are within easy reach to defend my home from invaders, day or night! When you hear footsteps downstairs, there's no time to waste.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with ALL of you? Seventeen people just died in a senseless slaughter and all any of you can do is post nonsense about liberals, conservatives, outrageous gun law suggestions (Chuck, yours would NEVER pass a constitutional test) and more.
ReplyDeletePoliticizing these tragedies without one mention of the victims has become the norm, not only on these pages but throughout America.
8:35, the Constitution does not protect anybody's right to SELL a weapon. It is claimed the Second Amendment protects their right to BUY a weapon. So, I don't see how it would "never pass a Constitutional test." And we have at least one law on the book that makes aircraft manufacturers responsible for planes they never built, so it is quite conceivable we could have a law that makes people think very carefully about voluntarily or involuntarily letting go of a death-dealing weapon.
ReplyDeleteThe Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush, protects firearms manufacturers and dealers (including private sellers) from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.
DeleteSellers may only be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to KNOW a gun is intended for use in a crime.
Here it is. The second amendment. Now where the heck does it say you can own a hand gun or ar15 and have a free for all???
ReplyDelete"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Funny that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom didn't say "to buy." They said "to keep and bear." That implies that they should be getting their guns through that "well regulated militia." And we already have a National Guard, sooooo. . .
DeleteAnd the NRA is just a bunch of sleezy bags convoluting this amendment to make certain people rich and lobbying Washington dc.
DeleteChuck if you do a little research and read the writings of the founding fathers you will find exactly what the words in the constution mean. Start with The Federalist Papers.
Deleteand, GT, you might start with research on the slave patrols, whose "well-regulated militias" were given the Second Amendment as a means of inducing the slave states to agree to the Constitution, and the state militias which generally were pretty hapless in their efforts to exterminate the Native Americans (e.g., the Battle of St. Mary's Lake). As we no longer have a problem with escaped slaves or tribes that are able to resist our seizures of their territory, I don't think we have to coddle the Southern states anymore.
DeleteChuck have read any of the writings? Do you support the constution?
DeleteSimple fix, any NRA member with an ar15, point it up
ReplyDelete