Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Scott backs gun reform efforts


Gov. Phil Scott reiterated his support for stricter gun control laws at the Annual Governor’s Luncheon in Springfield on Monday.


www.vnews.com



15 comments :

  1. George Trombly3/27/18, 10:56 AM

    Governor Scott does not represent the people that elected him. He ran as a person not supporting firearms control. Because of that stand he received the votes of those that otherwise most likely would not have supported him. It is sad that we have those running for office that will say what ever is required to get elected. Where are all the honest politicians?
    Springfield's representatives voted for the gun control legislation. I will remember this at the next election. The legislation was rammed though the house without testimony from those that support Article 16 of the Vermont constitution.
    I have been asking those in Montpelier the following question. Why are 18 year olds not mature enough to purchase a rifle? They can vote, drive, have cell phones, and join the military where they can be killed or kill others. I still have not received an answer to this question from those in Montpelier.

    ReplyDelete
  2. EEEK! The sky is falling! The Clintons are coming to get us! It's the Deep State! Scott has Communist flag in the back of his garage! AAAH! AAAH! AAAH! (And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. chuck gregory3/27/18, 12:43 PM

    The best minimum age for the purchase of a weapon is 27, when the brain has reached maximum development. For a lot of people (guys especially), the one-third of one's life between 18 and 27 is where the same famous last words are uttered, "Hey, watch this!" I suspect people of those years are the majority of the prison population. Eighteen-year-olds are given guns in the military because they are more easily trained to overcome their innate reluctance to kill. That's not a good recommendation for allowing them to buy weapons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Philip Caron3/27/18, 6:50 PM

      Chuck, in the past I've agreed with you on some things and disagreed on others. Sometimes you're way out in left field, and this is one of those times. Just for openers, the brain starts to deteriorate at age 40. If "max development" is the criterion, then you deny weapons for anyone middle aged or older. And "innate reluctance to kill" - LOL.

      Delete
  4. George Trombly3/27/18, 12:55 PM

    What makes an 18 year old developed enough to make decisions on voting if they cannot be trusted to own or purchase a firearm? Are you saying that decisions made during the voting process are not important? Why is someone 18 years old allowed to drive. Statistics show it is much more dangerous to operate an automobile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point regarding teenage drivers. I am assuming you are making the same correlation with teenagers and guns?

      Delete
    2. Quoted from the NRA:
      A new commentary video from the National Rifle Association admitted that the odds of needing to use a gun for self-defense are exceedingly small while still promoting the ownership of firearms for self-defense.
      This admission from an NRA media product is surprising, but also accurate. The odds of randomly laying out two decks of cards in the same order are infinitesimal.
      The odds of using a gun defensively are actually so low that it is difficult to accurately measure the number of defensive gun uses that occur each year.

      Quoted from the Californian:
      CDC statistics show there are far bigger risks in life for people who live outside the big city ghettos. Last year nearly 39,000 people died from accidental poisoning, 31,000 died from accidental falls and 34,000 were killed in vehicle accidents – over 13,000 involved drunk or distracted drivers. Nearly 4,000 people died from accidental drowning.
      So, other than being a white suburbanite, how do you improve your odds of survival? Stay off ladders, don’t overdose on prescription medicines, don’t drink alcohol or text while driving, don’t get suicidally depressed, do stay out of the water and do avoid neighborhoods prone to gun violence.

      Basically if you don't frequent areas like the bad parts of Chicago and the like, statistically, you don't need a hand gun.

      Delete
    3. I grew up in the Chicago area and I did, in fact, frequent the "bad parts," as that's where some of the better Blues clubs are. I never took a gun with me; at the time it would have cost me ten years in prison, if caught. There are "bad parts" all over America, and you don't always know you're in one, until it's too late. The two times I had to defend myself with a firearm were in "good parts;" once at my Florida condo, AND ONCE AT MY HOME HERE IN SPRINGFIELD! This town may LOOK worse than the South Side of Chicago, (and parts of it do) but it is indeed safer. Or is it? Funny, in all the years I spent "slumming" in Chi-town, I never needed a gun, but here I did! I guess you never can tell!

      Delete
    4. Thanks 4:13, what law did/do they have in Chi-town that gives you 10 years for carrying a hand? gun. Be interested to know.

      Delete
    5. In Illinois, back in the 90's, it was a felony to be in public with a gun magazine, with only one round in it, EVEN WITHOUT THE GUN. ANY firearm had to be empty, in a locked case, and in a locked compartment out of reach of the driver and passengers, just to be transported. There was no "carry" of any kind until recently. Again, it was a felony if you got caught. ANY crime, committed with ANY KIND of weapon is an automatic felony. Illinois had, and still has, the toughest gun laws in America. You have to apply for, and recieve, a Firearm Owners Identification permit (FOID) issued by the State Police, to even LOOK at a gun! Chicago had their own laws, which were even more restrictive. All of these laws didn't stop "gun violence." All they did is make honest, law abiding gun owners afraid of going to prison, for something as stupid as failure to empty a magazine at the range. From what I hear, gun related crimes have been on the decline, overall, for many years there. True, some years are worse than others, but much of what you hear is political hype, on BOTH SIDES!

      Delete
  5. All it takes to see that some people NEVER develop beyond adolescence is reading comments on this blog!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I feel betrayed by Gov. Scott. I voted for him because of his stance on gun control.
    How is it that Vermont has one of the lowest murders per capita in this country and the government thinks our laws need to change? Follow the money people! Vote them ALL out.
    I moved back home to Springfield after 8 years in the Navy because of Vermont's loose gun laws and the feeling of being "home" now I feel that as a resident I'm not being listened to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. chuck gregory3/27/18, 6:11 PM

    I wonder how many people without good health care coverage, without parental leave and family sick leave, without defined benefit pension plans and without adequate income for home heating voted for a candidate because of his/her stance on firearm ownership rather than on the issues which were gravely affecting them and their families?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably way too many. Then again, I wonder how many people voted for "gay marriage/abortion/gun control" candidates without considering anything else? PROBABLY WAY TOO MANY!

      Delete
    2. How many voted for Obama, simply because he was "black"

      Delete


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic. No profanity

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at ed44vt@gmail.com.

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here: ed44vt@gmail.com

Pageviews past week

---

Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts