Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j5vemo0 wrote

Obviously no sane person wants to shoot a home invader, but the point is that you have no idea what that person is intending to do, or what amount of force they are willing to use. Everyone has the constitutional right to life, and the right to protect themselves and their family. When you have an unknown intruder in your home at 2am in the dark, only an absolute idiot would recommend "running away" (how you would even do that, I have no idea), and this ignores the safety of others in the residence, including children (are they supposed to try to run too?).

This is coming from someone who does not even own a gun, and who favors waiting periods and other restrictions on instant or inappropriate access to weapons.

84

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5vlv7p wrote

I could be wrong, but the way the information above is being given, it does lead one to believe that the "duty to run away" applies to ones house at 2AM. Not sure that's true though. I think bullet three would only apply to confrontations outside ones home, otherwise the information above would contradict itself. The second bullet point circumscribes but still recongizes the justifiable use of force in ones own home.

21

MisterOrganDoner t1_j5wgutv wrote

The above looks like a screenshot from an already interpreted source of the proposed legislation. Can anyone identify the source or fidelity with the proposed legislation?

15

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j5vmoiv wrote

I read it more carefully and I agree that it seems to apply to confrontations outside one's home, but I would argue this also assumes a grossly oversimplified circumstance of home invasion. More detail would be necessary to protect people's rights adjacent to their home, defense against someone brandishing a weapon elsewhere on the premises etc. These situations are never clear cut and simple, and lawmakers should never fall into the trap of assuming that they are.

10

plowfaster t1_j5vn43d wrote

This in general. Even in a parking lot, what if I’m eg old/fat/carrying a baby/disabled? And where will I run, because I don’t know if my attacker is working in a group. Vermont is very rural, I could literally have to run miles before I found someone in many cases

14

anusty t1_j62m8yz wrote

Shoot first, ask questions later. Alternative, get shot first. IMPORTANT: always know what you’re aiming at prior to pulling trigger. Not being able to defend yourself is among the dumbest laws humans have devised…yes, please, watch your daughters be raped and when you’ve had enough, flee, don’t fight for their lives or you’ll go to jail, you will not pass go and will not collect $200 and there’s no get out of jail free cards. For the sake of family and friends still there, hoping Lamont fails in this.

7

Clever_Clever t1_j5urlhd wrote

Is it overreact to every single bit of proposed legislation season again already?

37

Galadrond t1_j679qd3 wrote

I can hear all the Hard Right whackos crying already.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j5whvp3 wrote

S31 can duck right off. I don’t carry a gun in public but there is zero data to support banning it in VT.

36

GuardBusy9030 t1_j5x9uqm wrote

I really disagree what is being proposed here, what is the best way to combat this situation?

33

Northwoods01 OP t1_j5yz0iv wrote

I'd say firstly, share this with as many people as possible. Secondly, the people who proposed this should never hold office again. I know many locals are in despair with state politics and no longer participate. That must change. The legislators who sponsored this bill obviously have a god complex, but Vermonters need to control our own destiny.

3

Northwoods01 OP t1_j5z745v wrote

Contact all sponsors respectfully and tell them, "You and your families will no longer be voting for them." Also, 3 local legislators may have sponsored this, but 5 out of the 8 sponsors are people who moved here and ran for office. We need to consider increased residency limitations before you can run for office and the increasingly popular idea of a state electoral college so Chittenden County alone won't make rules for a widely diverse state.

3

bizarre_pencil t1_j5uwokw wrote

“Hate motivated crimes” is going to be a nightmare for courts to sort out. How can a court or jury confidently identify if a crime is hate motivated? Same problem with hate speech.

This is a ridiculous package of anti-common sense laws that do nothing but inconvenience, harass, and possibly endanger law abiding gun owners. Hopefully this is just political posturing on a bill that won’t actually go anywhere, especially since the legislature has a veto-proof majority.

29

GrubSprings t1_j5v8irw wrote

Hate-crime statutes have been on the books for years and are routinely enforced by the courts. In many cases the perpetrators of hate crimes are very open about their motivations for shooting up a synagogue or posting flaming crosses in peoples' yards. Some racists are weird like that.

10

bizarre_pencil t1_j5vbrds wrote

That’s not what they’re referring to here, or else they would have just said hate crimes. “Hate motivated” opens a Pandora’s box of overzealous prosecutors who will try to pin down anything under the sun as “hate motivated”. Also, we’re not in the same universe now with such a quick trigger to label things hate speech/hate motivated crimes

7

HeadPen5724 t1_j6eab8g wrote

Maybe Sarah George will actually start prosecuting…

1

Galadrond t1_j679iuy wrote

Ever heard of the Civil Rights Act? Establishing hate as the motivation of a crime is fairly straightforward, especially in the age of social media. Bigots tend to leave a trail of such vitriol that is relatively easy to find and trace.

1

bizarre_pencil t1_j68qi2p wrote

You missed the point, and I’m sick of explaining this. Read my other comments

0

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5vnczn wrote

//How can a court or jury confidently identify if a crime is hate motivated?//

Establishing motive is part and parcel of any number of criminal prosecutions. This isn't some insoluble mystery that nobody has ever dealt with before.

//This is a ridiculous package of anti-common sense laws...//

Requiring owners of deadly weaponry to handle them in a well-regulated way is common sense and the language of the 2nd Amendment.

0

bizarre_pencil t1_j5vvjf6 wrote

I beg to differ - this wouldn’t be a case of “the defendant had significant wealth to be gained from the murder of Jane doe” because hate isn’t a rational motivation it can’t be explained or determined rationally. It’s just begging to be abused by those seeking to strip guns from people.

Also, in context an honest reading of the 2nd amendment intends “well regulated” to mean strong functioning, well maintained. Why would they write an amendment saying the right to own guns will not be infringed, but then give govt tons of power to regulate? Doesn’t make logical sense especially given the context of the time.

8

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5yuh74 wrote

Motive is motive. Courts deal with it every day.

Second, the bill doesn't infringe on your right to procure or own guns in any way. It proposers that gun owners store their weapons responsibly. If you want to whine about that, then whine, but it's no different than any other government safety requirements. Get over it.

0

bizarre_pencil t1_j5yybm0 wrote

Again, anti common sense. One of the main reasons to have a gun is for home defense. If an intruder breaks in, I’m supposed to have to basically unlock and re-assemble my gun and then go to the separate place the ammo is kept? Absolute foolishness.

4

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5z3ch9 wrote

Where does the bill say you can't keep a handgun under your pillow? The actual language of the bill is:

" when a firearm is not in a person’s immediate possession or control, the firearm must be properly secured in such a way to render it inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user and stored separately from ammunition..."

"Immediate control" means you can still keep your firearm under your mattress or pillow.

0

bizarre_pencil t1_j5z4ap9 wrote

The vague language means you’re inferring that, and not everyone will share that interpretation. Also it’s just absurd levels of micro managing the populace. So under a pillow is ok, what about on/in a bedside table? How is any of this preventing gun violence?

2

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5z5vvl wrote

FYI, this is in relation to an "arrestee", but the takeaway is that "immediate control" refers to the area "within an individual's reach" : "In criminal law, immediate control refers to an area within an arrestee’s reach. A police officer may conduct a warrant less search of the area to ensure the safety of the officer and also to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence. The term also includes the arrestee’s person and the area from within which s/he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. [United States v. Beltran-Palafox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54541 (D. Kan. June 3, 2010)]."

2

Generic_Commenter-X t1_j5z56s4 wrote

If you look up the meaning of "immediate control", in its legal sense, it means pillows and bedside tables are okay. Objecting to the Bill because you think it's "micromanaging" is legitimate, but objecting because you think it means nobody can have a gun for self-protection is just a straw man fever dream. I doubt it would survive the second amendment were that the intent. If that is the intent, then the law should be struck down.

1

bizarre_pencil t1_j5ztjb9 wrote

That’s all well and good for clarifying the language, but that doesn’t answer how any of these rules are going to reduce gun violence.

3

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j61j9ui wrote

I never understand the storing ammo separately. An unloaded gun is a pretty useless tool and defeats the whole point of having a gun to start with.

2

Cobdain t1_j5v8yns wrote

I carry a pistol with me wherever I go. I can understand why people disagree with my choice. Fortunately it’s my choice to do so. I would fully support a longer waiting period and heck I’d support a psych evaluation before being allowed to own a gun. But if someone wants to tell me I can’t carry a gun when I’m out with my family, thus taking away my ability to defend them in a worst case scenario. Well that’s good and fine, but I highly doubt that’s going to fly. Also any civilized rational person doesn’t walk around with a gun hanging off their belt. They conceal carry and never flash it or show people it. The only time it would ever come out would be in lethal defense of their own life/family member/loved ones life.

26

SueRice2 t1_j5voh5o wrote

Well some “irrational people” have openly carried Ar-15 style rifles even while Campaigning for Gov of this state. And other offices. (Not Phil Scott). So Vt

−11

somedudevt t1_j5wm82k wrote

Lots of dumb people do stupid shit to make a point. But objectively gun crime in VT will not be impacted by these changes. They are just an inconvenience to law abiding people like the dumb ones who open carry an AR in public. Ultimately it’s not that person committing crime, AND the person committing crime isn’t gonna follow the rule. All this does is makes scared liberals (said by a person who strongly supports Bernie and is on the antifa side of the equation) feel good.

4

Cobdain t1_j5w2l2x wrote

I agree, that’s crazy stuff to be doing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to say everyone should have a military style rifle. But I’ll be damned if they try and stop me from trying to carry my pistol 😠

−1

TheTowerBard t1_j5vpypz wrote

We live in a very very safe society despite what the angry man on tv tells you. If you think you can’t leave your home without a gun in VT, you are exactly the wrong kind of person to be out and about while armed. I’d recommend addressing paranoia with a therapist.

−27

joeydokes t1_j5vu9vs wrote

> We live in a very very safe society ...

Pretty much says is all. A Constitutional Carry State in which gun violence is a rounding error. And, FWIW, you have no clue as to how many VT'ers are concealed carrying (or have vehicle guns) because nobody advertises it. Its a lot more than you would think, specially in rural parts.

Just because you may not agree is not cause for your judging others POV WRT exercising a constitutional right.

25

TheTowerBard t1_j5vuwh0 wrote

Joseph… I’m from here. I’m very aware there are far too many of you out there overcompensating for things in life and/or living in a constant state of fear making you feel like you need a gun at all times. You don’t have to be so scared all the time big fella.

−30

Cobdain t1_j5vz322 wrote

Yeah, so you have clearly demonstrated your level of restraint towards people of differing views. I’m going to remain civil, not because you deserve it or anything. You are trying to put all gun owners in this box of paranoid, scared, “compensating” which is closed minded nonsense. I drive a Honda mini van and drink fiddlehead and listen to classical music 😂 I am happy I have never had to use my weapon, I’m not chomping at the bit like you make me out to be. Your virulent attack on my opinion is welcome… but that’s just your opinion man. You are entitled to it, as I’m sure you let everyone in your life know on a far too regular basis 🖖🏻Bards gonna sing tho, even if nobody cares to listen to them

24

TheTowerBard t1_j5w0ls5 wrote

Your original comment displays a lot paranoia. If you genuinely feel you need to have a gun everywhere you go, you need actual help. Therapy. Sorry if saying that is mean, but my gods man, you don’t need a gun to go grocery shopping. That’s deranged. You are literally creating a less safe environment for your own community with that mentality.

−9

Cobdain t1_j5w20kl wrote

Like I said earlier, you are entitled to your opinion. It’s not paranoia when people are getting shot in grocery stores, concerts, schools, and really almost anywhere. It’s not like I expect someone to attack me everywhere I go 🤪 your incessant comments on therapy are funny though. Clearly you see one, and clearly you don’t see one enough, you fly off the chain at Reddit opinion discussions. You are one of the main reasons why this country is so messed up. We got you on the left, and nutcases like MTG on the right. People have traipsed these lines for decades and gotten along with others of differing views. When you go all fire and brimstone because someone disagrees with you it shows how weak you are. Sorry buddy, you should probably go have that snickers now. Or, better yet Kendall can hand you a Pepsi 😜. Your level of toxic reaction is just as useful as that commercial was

18

TheTowerBard t1_j5wn9sd wrote

Imagine being so deranged you’d compare folks who want people to have access to health care with psychopaths that blow up hybrid vehicles in tv ads when they’re not plotting to overthrow our government. But yeah, it’s them lefties who try to encourage you to be less afraid of the boogie man that are the issue.

You live in a very safe community. I’m sorry you live in constant fear.

1

Cobdain t1_j5wrv7w wrote

I’m sorry you are so angry, I’m done going on about this with you. You are here to try and assert your opinion on people that won’t give you the rise you seek. Go back to playing your video games bud 🖖🏻

11

joeydokes t1_j5vwqp2 wrote

Your choice of words, "far too many of you", "overcompensating", "living in a constant state of fear" ... clearly illustrates your opinion on firearms and those who own and use them. Your ignorance is showing through your condescension.

I, personally, don't make a habit of carrying; concealed or otherwise. But I do on occasion, and I also don't judge those who do; specially if I don't know their circumstances. Maybe it's a victim of DV, maybe a cop or security person, maybe .... WTF knows...

What I do know is that, like me, they likely take firearms as serious as cancer, train very regularly, follow the 4 rules like gospel, and will be the first to say "I'm retreating so I don't have to shoot and kill you" in the event of a confrontation.

Everyone I know who CC's is like that; very comfortable around firearms for the tool it is. I'm sure there are exceptions who match your bias but rare (or gangsta).

Because .... its Vermont (or NH, or ME); gun laws are loose because most all people are sensible. The statistics confirm that even if it has your panties all in a bunch.

19

TheTowerBard t1_j5w04d9 wrote

If you are who you say you are then the suggested policies above should be no issue. You’re already doing all of those things if you’re a responsible gun owner. I am very specifically addressing the idiots that make it a part of their identity and/or actually feel afraid to leave the house without a gun. That’s deranged in modern society no matter where you live in this country. This basically boils down to “don’t be an idiot and try to avoid killing people if you can.”

−3

joeydokes t1_j5w2cnz wrote

Its not my concern whether to justify to you as responsible or not and its not your place to judge who are idiots, not.

Your attitude speaks volumes to your being very opinionated while understanding very little. "Deranged", "afraid" ... guns to not make up my identity; its just a small part of my everyday life.

I will not surrender a (legal) given right based on your perception of me, firearms in general, or whether society is more or less deranged than times past.

Deal with it; fix the societal issues that are causing the violence. Maybe learn more about guns; lots of people who otherwise would never own them are (r/liberalgunowners r/pinkpistols )

10

TheTowerBard t1_j5wnjdm wrote

No one is asking you to surrender anything. Again, paranoia. This is where you guys always go with this stuff. Take some deep breaths and acknowledge life has a lot of nuance. A discussion about how we might make things safer does not equate to anyone taking your precious little guns from you. Sheesh.

1

joeydokes t1_j5wp9h9 wrote

Your 2mo old, 0 karma account and your condescension aside, your ignorance is astonishing. Gun control laws on the table in other (liberal) States combined with the current ATF ruling on braces that's clear as mud is a clear indicator of how wrong you are. Sadly so.

Millions of people who legally and rightfully purchased firearms and who are abiding and no contributing factor to GV are, in fact, at risk of having to surrender them. You cannot overlook that truth, even if you want to preach public safety being the 'greater good'. Which in and of itself is debatable.

Go Sheesh youself.

6

[deleted] t1_j5w896q wrote

[deleted]

−1

joeydokes t1_j5wflef wrote

> Things change. Deal with it.

There a 100m gun legal gun owners. They passed BG checks and they abide. Some hunt, some target shoot, some need them on their job, some are vets.... whatever. For decades now, they've been told "we're not coming for your guns". Yet, here we are; IL and similar are trying to pass some of the most restrictive gun laws that make owning a modern firearm (and obtaining the permits where obliged) nearly impossible. Like banning semi-automatic guns, cosmetics like their furniture ... ; despite the overwhelming evidence that it has no bearing on GV. Are firearms (part of) the problem? Sure, illegal guns, some loopholes in need of fixing maybe. But THE problem? Far from it.

Fix the income disparity, fix healthcare, fix the social safety net, then let's talk guns. One fact is indisputable: police and law enforcement will not protect you; they 'solve' crime not prevent it. Your safety is your responsibility; period.

Your feeling that 2A is outdated, that it costs you YOUR freedom, only shows your displaced trust in our broken systems; all its corruption notwithstanding.

We are a violent people, as a nation; what we do best are guns and drugs. Except up until recently they been generally aimed at points outside our borders (since we basically exterminated the natives). Trying to remove peoples' rightfully obtained guns is not the answer. Specially when those advocating controls have no interest in knowing the subject matter enough to discuss it.

More like (billionaire) Bloomberg funding Mom's demand.... as a front for disarming the public.

Just like coke flooding into LA ghettos (Iran-Contra), for one example, GV today is the crows coming home to roost. It's how the filthy rich keep people divided and down. No-knock warrants, Eminent Domain, Civil asset forfeiture, de-facto slavery alive and doing well in private prisons....

Something's gotta give. Disarming the public is where it usually starts.

Show me on the doll where the police beat you senseless

3

1DollarOr1Million t1_j5vwc20 wrote

That’s not the point at all. It’s the fact that even in very safe places anything can happen. Mass shootings aren’t just in the major cities like the one in Orlando or Las Vegas. Aurora CO is a good example. None of you had ever heard of that town before or since. Unfortunately our little state could have a mass shooting at any time, in any place. The fact that it’s a safe place allows people to let down their guard and this makes it a bigger target. And I’ll be damned if I’m gonna be the dude that goes down with a fight or watches their loved ones die to some psycho just because “it’s a safe place we don’t need guns”. Fuck all that. I might even be the dude that saves your soft liberal ass as well. So I hope it never happens. I hope I never have to use a firearm against another human for any reason. But if it’s me or my loved ones, or other innocent folks, or some asshole that wants to murder innocent people, I’m pulling my firearm from my waist and emptying the fuckin clip.

10

TheTowerBard t1_j5vxb8y wrote

Hey, remember that hero in Colorado who killed a mass shooter and then the cops showed up and killed the hero? Hey, remember the unarmed hero who disarmed the guy in CA last weekend and lived to tell the news about it and become a national hero?

The point is, the hero fantasy you guys have doesn’t always play out the way you expect. You literally just sent a long explanation showing you are paranoid and again, paranoid people should not be out and about with guns 🤷‍♂️

Not to mention the statistics that show that you and your family are far more likely to be accidentally injured or killed by your own guns than you are likely to ever use them for self-defense.

Guns don’t make us safer. They don’t make your family safer. Sorry if that hurts your fee fees.

−1

1DollarOr1Million t1_j5vz50m wrote

I understand that things don’t always go the way you want. You just have no way of knowing the exact situation you will be in. But I’d rather have a gun for another guy with a gun, than attempting to engage him by hand instead of (potentially) at range and from behind cover. The guy in LA got lucky, and the other guy had the misfortune of being in a town with shit cops. But also, if he hadn’t gotten shot by the cops he woulda been shot by the shooter anyway so it’s actually moot as regards your argument. Congrats, you played yourself.

10

somedudevt t1_j5wox72 wrote

My man, I’d like to offer you the opportunity to try guns out. The thing about anti-gun people is they lack experience. I too was very anti-gun in my teens and early 20s. I was raised by a hunter, and tried it as a kid and it was not for me. I got to high-school right as Michael Moores movie was coming out, and I became opposed to guns as bad things bad people had. An interesting thing happened to me in my early 20s, I was given a shotgun that had belonged to my grandfather and father. I didn’t have a ton of interest in it, but since both had been dead since I was a little kid, I thought I would try to experience it as a way of connecting. So I went to a range and with a buddy we shot some clays.

There is something strange that you feel when you are at a shooting range, it’s that adrenaline, but in a controlled and safe environment. From that point I started collecting guns, at one point even getting a FFL. Over time I’ve stopped shooting due to cost and other priorities, but I still go 1-2 times a year, and every time I feel the joy. I have what I would assume is a fairly average collection of guns by gun owner standards with 8 assorted guns (plinked, duck gun, grandpas gun, hunting rifle I bought when I thought maybe adult me likes hunting NOPE, couple handguns, and then some international guns from Nam and ww2.)

I don’t actively carry out of fear or for any real tangible reason, but there is usually a pistol locked up in the truck, that depending on the day I may carry with me. It’s not really for any reason other than to be prepared. I’m not afraid in Vermont, though I have had a gun pulled on me by a drug dealer at a bar when I was younger. I carry, when I carry, because I have the right to carry.

I think that if you got some experience with firearms at a range trying out different ones you would change your tune on them. Not everyone is a nut job who carries. In fact I’d bet that of the Vermonters who carry the most common use of their carry firearm is to dispatch a wounded animal that’s been hit by a car after contacting a warden or state police barracks, which is the only time I know of any of my friends using theirs outside of range days.

5

TheTowerBard t1_j5wv77a wrote

My dude, I grew up in VT. I have plenty of experience with guns, unfortunately.

Listen, I know my experience is anecdotal, but I lost two friends to accidental discharges before I was old enough to drive (no, I was not present for either). Both families were very responsible gun owners. Hunting families. Again, this was in VT. I promise nothing will sway my opinion of guns.

And yes, I grew up in a house with a gun. One. A shotgun supposedly for defense or to scare of a bear or something. The only time it ever got used was for skeet shooting. Then eventually my dad sold it. Never told me why and I didn’t ask. It only came up because I had kids of my own and didn’t want them snooping through grandpa’s closet and finding it.

Now, I do have a pretty gnarly sword collection though that was passed down to me from MY grandfather. He never touched a gun after WWII, but somehow collected about 20 swords in his travels during the war and kept collecting after.

Also my dude, the thing you like is adrenaline, not guns. Try some sword training if you want a good time in that department. Shooting a gun is too easy. You got to mix that adrenaline with some action and a pinch of pain for the best high.

3

somedudevt t1_j5wvtln wrote

I can tell you for free that a sword isn’t gonna stop the fascists when they knock on the door. I’d rather defend my castle from them with my collection of Russian nazi killers, complete with baynets for your sword stuff haha.

2

TheTowerBard t1_j5ww6u4 wrote

I got a couple bayonets if you need to borrow one.

Anyway, that’s not gonna happen and again, your comment returns us to the issue of paranoia…

2

somedudevt t1_j5wx4dt wrote

Were you under a rock on January 6th? Have you not met any of the fine folks who serve in our armed forces and police forces (many are great, but there are a LOT of well trained whack jobs with heavy artillery.)

I hope to fuck that shit doesn’t hit the fan. But as a person who plays the markets a lot, call owning guns and learning to use them a hedge. My main line of betting is that it won’t happen, so I spend most of my time and resources on fun stuff. But if I see a deal on ammo for a gun I own I grab a case. If I see a good deal on a gun I think would complement the collection I grab it. I take each to the range 2 times a year to practice, and I have them strategically around my residence.

Call it paranoid, I call it prepared and a hedge on my bet that the world is roses and sunshine. A cheap hedge at that. Costs me under $500 a year, and what I own is worth more than I’ve paid for it.

1

somedudevt t1_j5wx1r0 wrote

Were you under a rock on January 6th? Have you not met any of the fine folks who serve in our armed forces and police forces (many are great, but there are a LOT of well trained whack jobs with heavy artillery.

I hope to fuck that shit doesn’t hit the fan. But as a person who plays the markets a lot, call owning guns and learning to use them a hedge. My main line of betting is that it won’t happen, so I spend most of my time and resources on fun stuff. But if I see a deal on ammo for a gun I own I grab a case. If I see a good deal on a gun I think would complement the collection I grab it. I take each to the range 2 times a year to practice, and I have them strategically around my residence.

Call it paranoid, I call it prepared and a hedge on my bet that the world is roses and sunshine. A cheap hedge at that. Costs me under $500 a year, and what I own is worth more than I’ve paid for it.

0

TheTowerBard t1_j5wzghk wrote

Ah, I read you wrong. Apologies. You’re one of the rare ones whose concerns are actually somewhat grounded in reality. I salute you.

The issue is, we will never see a modern civil war or major conflict here between citizens. No one is coming to your door. What is happening, and what will continue to happen, are isolated domestic terrorist incidents.

And when it comes to defending ourselves from our local military forces… er, uh… police, it’s just not going to happen. That’s why we need to completely rework our approach to policing (which isn’t happening).

The issue I see, and a big part of the reason I feel the way I do about guns is because of the cycle of violence we are stuck in. My sword may not do much against your gun, but your gun isn’t going to do much against a police force, which isn’t going to much against… It’s just ever escalating violence.

We need nonviolent solutions to our problems. Solving them with violence only creates new issues.

1

somedudevt t1_j5x0x9t wrote

To say that there won’t be some sort of event in our lifetimes is hopeful. But I’d guess that in 1910 most people in Europe didn’t expect the next 35 years to go the way they did. I’d bet in 1830 people weren’t thinking to themselves “gah lee it’d be nice to shoot eachother in 30 years”

The military industrial complex is a thing, it is an issue, no refuting that. On the hole the world needs less violence. It needs more peace. I don’t disagree.

But my location on the spectrum of peace is if the asshole down the road with a trump flag and a confederate flag has a gun, I’m not gonna hope he misses. I have no plan to ever use a gun on a person. Or really anything other than some clays. But if there is even an infinitesimal chance that the fascists will feel froggy. I want to be ready to hit them in their leap.

And in the mean time the guns are fun as fuck to shoot, they are better than real estate for value growth, and they have no upkeep cost. It just seems like a no brainer to be prepared as a just in case.

1

TheTowerBard t1_j5x2yyp wrote

I didn’t say there wouldn’t be an event, but there will not be a war on American soil. War is only really profitable if we do it somewhere else. There will be MANY isolated events though, unfortunately. It’s very unlikely any of them will be in VT as well.

Please keep in mind that even though those chuds are dumb and violent, they are an extreme minority of our population. The extreme majority of us just want to maintain the status quo (unfortunately, imo). They like to pound their chest and act tough, but they’re not. They are VERY outnumbered and they know it. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that most people are distracted and nonviolent. The only reason that element has so much pull in politics is because our capitalist society keeps everyone too busy to pay attention to what’s going on. We can’t catch up on the news on the weekends either navies sportball is happening. The majority of Americans do not agree with the things the far right believes, but they just aren’t paying attention. It’s appalling how few people actually vote.

And yeah, I hear you. Dude not far from me has a “spay and neuter all liberals” banner on his house. Not sure how calling for genocide isn’t hate speech but here we are. That said, there’s about 20 BLM and Pride flags for every Trump flag in my neighborhood. Those chuds ain’t doing shit.

2

Belastin t1_j5vosoa wrote

It’s not like we have castle doctrine in this state.. anytime you shoot someone you will be showing up in court and will have defend your reasoning for using lethal force. (source) I fail to see how any of the laws being added do anything to address our current issues with guns.

Also a duty to flee sounds like a nightmare, I live in a 1 bed room apartment. Where am I going? Out the third floor window? What if someone is being sexually assaulted or cannot flee? Is someone with a firearm obligated to flee even though they could intervene and prevent further injury?

Imo this reeks of gun grabbing and government overstep. most guns used in crimes are stolen or illegally obtained. so I fail to see how this will do anything other empower a state/law enforcement that has shown repeatedly they would rather see your kids shot, your property stolen, and criminals on the street than uphold their civic duties. (Goodluck with your 40 minute response times in some areas)

As for storage, am I now obligated to have a gun used for home defense locked in a safe disassembled? compared to a location where it can be reasonably deployed for self protection? What about ammo the way this law was written indicates that they have to be stored separately. Do I now have to own several safes for my individual magazines, ammo, and firearms?

In conclusion Rep. Mary Howard, Email: MHoward@leg.state.vt.us Phone: (802) 828-2228 Address: P.O. Box 6592, Rutland, VT 05702 You’re the epitome of a statist and are the type of neoliberal the has pushed a party agenda over policy that would benefit the majority of people.

23

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j5x08ao wrote

Just sent her an email. Thanks for the contact info

6

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j5x0beb wrote

"Rep. Mary Howard,

I am writing to you in response to the proposed legislation concerning gun control, namely bills S.31 and H.98. As a resident of Vermont, I am appalled by the attempts these bills make at applying undue restrictions on Vermonters concerning their ability to exercise their constitutional right to defend life and property against potential aggressors. It feels quite inappropriate to introduce these restrictions and expand the legal protections of suspected criminals during a time in which many areas of the state are seeing an increase in violent crime. Although gun violence is a tragic theme that repeats itself much too frequently in our country, taking aim at residents rights to defend themselves, their children, and loved ones is surely of no avail to alleviate the threat of violence against victims. In fact, it seems surely to do the opposite by enabling the perpetrators (who will undoubtedly carry their own firearms, regardless of the law) to have greater confidence in violating the physical safety of others.

Please carefully consider the goal of greater firearms restrictions, that is, to prevent more violence against innocent people from occuring, not to simply attack the weapon itself."

10

username802 t1_j5yco63 wrote

If they did just the transfer waiting period and the ban for hate crime perps, this would seem more sensible. Making it harder for people to legally defend themselves seems weird given the recent increase in violence. I don’t even own a gun and I don’t like this.

22

71802VT t1_j5uvy29 wrote

It would be great to verify this with a link. If it's real proposed legislation, why not link it directly from https://legislature.vermont.gov/ because if this is real, I think it's a bit much. To me, it reads like it was written by someone who is not a gun owner and has no association with guns at all. It's weird, some non-gun owners seem so mystified by guns having all sorts of Boogie Man associations with them. And then, when they go shooting for the first time, it all changes and they see that guns can be both a utilitarian tool and a part of a super fun sport. All that being said, I'm not some Wack-A-Do gun nut. Those people are out there, I know that. They get all tribal about gun ownership and throw reason out the window. I'm not one of them and I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a massive gun violence problem for sure. But like I said, if this is real proposed legislation, I think it goes Wack-A-Do too far.

20

somedudevt t1_j5wp2zg wrote

Have you heard of Phil Baruth? He is pretty much the worst human on earth, and well…

3

Northwoods01 OP t1_j5wr7u6 wrote

What's his deal anyway? Power mad and or Bloomberg money?

5

somedudevt t1_j5wrjqh wrote

I don’t fucking know. He’s not from vermont and while I love me some Bernie, the base of our issues is we don’t elect Vermonters to legislate in Vermont.

12

Unfiltered_ID t1_j64ljmr wrote

When 10000 west coast libs come into Vermont, it starts to become a west-coast-ish state.

2

hotseltzer t1_j5vvo56 wrote

Generally the tactic in negotiations (politics or otherwise) is to ask for way more than you'd be happy with, knowing things will get cut back. Then in the end, you end up closer to where you actually want to be.

−1

71802VT t1_j604jwo wrote

Yeah, good point. Pun intended but, I wonder if the author of the proposed legislation is shooting themselves in the foot with such a Draconian proposal. I mean, if your first pass at it is so far fetched, some folks might not even take you seriously and you end up doing yourself a disservice. Like if someone suggested making you dissemble the key fob to your car every time you got home in an effort to curb drunk driving wouldn't you be like 'yeah right, gimmie a break dude'.

5

grnmtnboy0 t1_j5v1ezt wrote

What worries me is whoever's pushing this is ignoring the surge in gun violence in the places with the strictest gun control laws - Chicago and California come to mind

17

Macbookaroniandchez t1_j5v8ub7 wrote

just gonna note that Chicago and California both have significantly more gang violence than Vermont ever will...that's what drives the gun violence in both of those places.

But the idea of moving away Castle Doctrine to Duty to Retreat - is VT looking to compete with MA for strictest gun control laws?

Last point - laws are just words on a piece of paper, especially when a CRIMINAL is invading my home or threatening my family.

21

AniM97 t1_j5w58gi wrote

MA doesn’t even have a duty to retreat from the home.

6

kleptopaul t1_j5wi9zv wrote

It’s incredibly unlikely your home will be invaded in Vermont.

−3

historycat95 t1_j5vukl3 wrote

Indiana has more gun violence than Illinois per 100k population.

Cherry picking stats leads to faulty conclusions.

Guns travel, but there's a general correlation between gun violence and lax gun laws if you look at state wide trends.

−1

_foxmotron_ t1_j5v3xyn wrote

Places with more lenient gun laws have more gun violence.

−6

joeydokes t1_j5vy26t wrote

VT,NH,ME all are as lenient as you can get; being Constitutional Carry States. The amount of GV in Northern NE is minimal at best.

CA has the tightest restrictions in the nation regarding permits and types of firearms allowed; which didn't prevent a GD thing insofar as recent headlines. Same can be said for NY as well.

Go figure. Maybe its less the guns and more the social fabric that binds us.

14

_foxmotron_ t1_j5vysf8 wrote

California has 20 times the population of the three states you listed.

−10

joeydokes t1_j5w42uc wrote

which makes my point. Both that rural States don't need the same laws as populous ones and that even still, those stricter laws don't prevent GV.

10

_foxmotron_ t1_j5w7h96 wrote

It doesn’t prove anything? California has the strictest restrictions, and their rates of gun violence are among the lowest in the country. Rural Wyoming has the third highest.

The point we should be looking at is why are we even debating gun laws at a state level? They’re meaningless.

−8

joeydokes t1_j5wlfwr wrote

> California has the strictest restrictions, and their rates of gun violence are among the lowest in the country.

Yet said restrictions failed to prevent those shootings that are the rally cry for more gun control

> Rural Wyoming has the third highest.

Likely due to the influx of CA re-locates to WY :) Or maybe cowboys just like plinking at flatlanders! Oh noes, could happen here! /s

5

_foxmotron_ t1_j5wnsia wrote

Or, y’know, gun control at a state level is pointless? What’s the purpose of strict gun control in California if you can just go to Nevada and easily get guns?

Or whatever point you were attempting to make I guess

2

joeydokes t1_j5wwwtg wrote

Yes, my point is both; that more gun control is pointless, both in State and between States. That facts do not align with feels, and that the fundamental issue is not guns at all, which are the symptom of the disease, not the cause.

Legalizing drugs would be a start, universal health care too. But the elephant in the room is wealth disparity. If you live in the US and are in the lower 20% income bracket you do not even register on the distribution map, thanks to the 1%.

And, even if you're lucky to be in the 40-60% income bracket, even if you have (employer) health insurance, you're likely 1 medical emergency away from bankruptcy!

https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

So, why so many guns? Well, the billionaires are building their bunkers, the filthy rich are building their fortresses, while the rest of us, we proles, visit r/preppers (don't visit r/collapse) because it doesn't take tea leaves to know somethings amiss in River City.

1

Gubru t1_j5v5dlf wrote

You're confusing cause and effect.

6

_foxmotron_ t1_j5v66ey wrote

I’m Not saying there’s a correlation. I’m responding to someone who is implying a correlation between stricter gun laws and gun violence.

2

bkirchhoff t1_j5vh70x wrote

You’re confusing “correlation” and “causation” in your explanation. There may be correlation, but there is no evidence of causation.

2

Gubru t1_j5vcnz1 wrote

I misread your comment, my bad

1

kleptopaul t1_j5wif7d wrote

Most the guns in Chicago come from Indiana, which has lax gun laws.

−2

SkettiStay t1_j5wzvqy wrote

Not true. Most come from Illinois, by far.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-crime-shooting-guns-illinois-gun-laws/11937013/

>ATF Trace data shows the top five states where guns recovered in Illinois were originally purchased from are Illinois (49.8%), Indiana (16.7%), Missouri (5.4%), Wisconsin (3.9%) and Kentucky (2.6%). Federal agents at the ATF identified the source state of 11,708 traced firearms in 2020.

Edit: That's for guns recovered in Illinois, not Chicago - it was a big story a couple of years ago. If you have different numbers for Chicago, I'd be interested.

5

kleptopaul t1_j5yenfn wrote

I was referencing this story from a few years back( albeit hyperbolically): https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/27/chicago-sues-gun-store-tied-850-guns-recovered-crime-scenes/4854619001/

People illegally selling guns from Indiana in Chicago is a big thing.

0

SkettiStay t1_j5z1he8 wrote

Thank you.

It definitely sounds like they have a case against that gun shop.

2

Ruggerio5 t1_j5ur1bh wrote

Does this mean if I have a gun in my bedside table, I have to store it disassembled?

15

Northwoods01 OP t1_j5urqho wrote

I would think so. People need to really push back against this as fast as possible.

7

happyonthehill802 t1_j5uuu75 wrote

Guess the vt sub hates guns...it'll be an interesting conversation when they actually meet the locals. Vt has more guns than any of the surrounding states, and virtually no gun violence. This is not what we need to be worried about. How about some housing?

27

Northwoods01 OP t1_j5ux5mb wrote

My guess is that most of these people moved here and are affiliated with anti gun or anti hunting groups. They absolutely do not care what the locals think.

19

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j5v1g3n wrote

It's not a "pure Vermonter" VS "Flatlander" situation. Most of our legislature is homegrown. Don't miss a chance to get a dig at transplants though right?

0

SkettiStay t1_j5vh00p wrote

Most of legislature may be homegrown, but not most of the sponsors of the bill.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2024/S.31

I count 3 from VT, 3 from NY, 1 ea from CA and CO. I don't know if it matters, but it seems just as relevant as most of the legislature being homegrown.

12

Ruggerio5 t1_j60m5ar wrote

I'm sure if a bunch of conservatives from MS moved in, suddenly "home grown" would matter more.

2

ThePecanRolls5225 t1_j5v862q wrote

Born and raised in rural Vermont. I’m strongly in favor of gun control.

−14

doctorchivago t1_j5wn0cd wrote

This will do fucking absolutely nothing that curb crime in Vermont. NOTHING. Stupid liberal bullshit.

15

Responsible_Heart365 t1_j5wrs7s wrote

I used to live in Vermont. I am liberal. I carried concealed everywhere. I find this an overreaction. Did I mention I am liberal? Vermont’s gun problems are minor compared to red states’.

15

Northwoods01 OP t1_j5wva6u wrote

I'm also a life-long leftist. I think many of these folks think that giving the state and 1% a monopoly on force is somehow progressive. Or they have the misconception that disarming everyone but the cops will somehow "hurt the conservatives." Identity politics is poison.

15

Ok-Address-1768 t1_j602lkp wrote

if you're a leftist you should know the law. These proposals will fail under the Vermont constitution AND under the US constitution. The most recent court decision regarding 2nd amd was NY Rifle and Pistol ASSO where the court held that you have a constitutional right to carry out of the home. As such these proposals will have to fail. No different from passing trigger laws about abortion. They can be passed and enrolled on the books but not enforced, or worse if the states stupid enough to enforce them it'll get held illegal.

2

ceiffhikare t1_j5v6yvq wrote

What a wonderful choice the next election season will be presenting Vermonters. Now we dont have to worry about all those pesky issues that affect Main Street VT. I for one look forward to deciding if i want to vote in the party that has been shifting towards both theocracy and facism or the party that wants to leave me defenseless against both a broken LE/Criminal Justice system combination.

It is Past Time That Vermonters write and repeal their own GD laws!

12

joeydokes t1_j5wo5ay wrote

lower in this thread are comments on drug use, addiction, legalizing drugs....

This is so relevant to GV that few seem to grok. Broken systems, corruption in our kakistocracy, and lack of health care aside; people are hurting. They are on prescription drugs, street drugs; anything to lessen their pains.

The 'working class' has been in a downward spiral since Regan. Play "follow the $" and realize hard drugs will never be legalized (cuz 'just say no'!) Let billionaires decide our future and realize universal health care will likely never happen (no job - no care, little worker bee). Most people are one serious health emergency away from bankruptcy.

Whether the issue is suicide/despair, or gang shootings (over drugs), GV is a symptom of our problems, not the cause. The cause(s) are escalating in a nation founded on violence. Police will not protect you and are barely able to solve crimes after the fact. That reality setting in is what's driving people to take responsibility for their own safety whether their perceived risk is real or not.

12

19Vinny_The_Vet92 t1_j5usoxr wrote

“Duty to run away”? So when you run from the shooter you can get tackled by the police and charged with Evading?

6

NowIAmThatGuy t1_j5yeodw wrote

Just to clarify is the duty to run away for the home owner or the intruder? Genuinely asking. My thought, and I’m originally from Texas, was the duty to run away is for the intruder. That you the homeowner must give the intruder an opportunity to run away. Even in Texas it’s generally frowned upon to shoot someone in the back/running away.

6

Northwoods01 OP t1_j60wgxn wrote

The duty to run away would fall on the home owner during a break-in.

2

CowHuman7223 t1_j5yfjec wrote

Pass all the laws you want. We simply will not comply.

5

HardTacoKit t1_j5upzn2 wrote

More like “Common Sense Being Considered in Vermont”

Thank God we are addressing gun control issues that the rest of the Country is ignoring. It’s sad and sickening to the victims of the (seemingly) weekly mass shootings that we aren’t doing more.

4

happyonthehill802 t1_j5uu5kp wrote

Not common sense at all. We have very little gun violence. Open carry is silly to remove when we have constitutional carry, the only people walking around with rifles are hunters during hunting season...guess i cant walk along the side of the road after finishing up in the woods now?

10 day waiting period is fine, the rest are obsurd.

30

[deleted] t1_j5uwzjb wrote

[deleted]

−4

happyonthehill802 t1_j5vjpvd wrote

Listen, if people want to kill themselves, as tragic as it is, theyre going to do it. Id rather a clean bullet to the head, than forcing some poor volunteer to carry my body out of the quechee gorge...

As far as self defense, generally not needed in my neck of the woods...nope. my rifles are locked in a safe waiting for hunting season. However as a child free, responsible gun owner, i see no reason that someone can dictate where my guns live...the rifle that used to sit next to my bed at my old house, never committed any crimes, or made its way into the wrong hands...

Furthermore, vermont has been historically very lax on guns, if you dont want to live in a state like that, my personal advice would be to move to Massachusetts or ny.

21

syphax t1_j5x6foz wrote

>Listen, if people want to kill themselves, as tragic as it is, theyre going to do it. Id rather a clean bullet to the head, than forcing some poor volunteer to carry my body out of the quechee gorge...

This is not a true statement. Some suicide is pre-meditated, but *a lot* is not- look at people who attempted suicide once and then did not repeat. It is generally not a methodical and rationale act.

And your second sentence contradicts your first; you basically admit that guns lower the threshold and make it easier to commit suicide.

−3

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j5urrid wrote

Yeah, cause mass shooters follow laws. smh

15

[deleted] t1_j5us084 wrote

Take the murder laws off the books then. Only criminals follow them after all

11

TheJesterScript t1_j65zhlm wrote

How is that a logical response to that statement?

I get tired explaining this. His point is more laws restricting/banning firearms won't stop it.

−1

[deleted] t1_j66ek24 wrote

You don’t know what logic means, do you?

0

_foxmotron_ t1_j5v49kn wrote

So we should legalize all drugs then?

0

Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_j5v88ie wrote

I think you're starting to get it. If heroin were legal tomorrow, would you start shooting up?

Who won the war on drugs? The US, or drugs?

21

Belastin t1_j5ve4o6 wrote

Honestly yes?

Treat it like it is, a health problem. If you’re an addict why not just give them the real deal. All they’re going to do is find an alternative that is 90% more harmful to their health.

11

joeydokes t1_j5wk6np wrote

Man, I so wish people in charge would get that message!

Legalize all drugs, eliminate the criminality from the addiction and treat it as the health problem it is.

Make opium (smoke it) and coca (chew it) available at medicinal/rec head shops and track it like pot.

Pay off-duty cops to deliver heroin to serious junkies; free and conditional to getting weekly counseling.

Sounds crazy, I know; but anything that breaks the cycle of addiction->crime and lightens the burden on the courts/police has to stop making too much sense!

(Or, ... follow the $)

8

_foxmotron_ t1_j5vek53 wrote

whispers I agree, but I like to see the mental gymnastics people put themselves through to explain why it’s different.

3

joeydokes t1_j5wkgmf wrote

Yes. Sadly there's too much ill gotten gain at stake for that to ever happen.

Money is what's preventing it more than it being a bad idea.

3

HardTacoKit t1_j5uv4h3 wrote

OK, well I’m sure your “thoughts and prayers” will work soon. Let’s do nothing and hope they do (While every other fucking country in the world doesn’t have this problem because of their effective gun control laws).

−5

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j5v6gjc wrote

Please list the gun laws that criminals are currently following. I’ll wait.

15

Belastin t1_j5vdwd2 wrote

You’re right let’s ban guns and get all 800 million off the streets. Seems like a totally reasonable and doable undertaking.

Also since I put up my no trespassing and no stealing signs on my property all crime has magically stopped! I’m so glad the goverment made stealing illegal, now there will be no more theft ever

15

joeydokes t1_j5wja49 wrote

Those countries w/out GV, or much violence in general, have much stronger social safety nets. Our country was F'in built on guns and violence (and drugs). The same "I come first" attitude that permits billionaires to decide our future.

Inner city GV (+addictions) is a reflection of 100yrs of repression that's only recently (40yrs) spread into burbs and hinterland. A "War on Guns" is going to resemble our "War on Drugs"; reinforcing and militarizing the police State.

6

Consistent-Raccoon42 t1_j5uyuo5 wrote

I wouldn't say every country. I mean there's Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yema just to name a few.

I'm all for a longer waiting period. However, the idea that taking away guns from everyone will not help us.

2

anusty t1_j62lwg7 wrote

What happened to the VT I grew up in? Hunters are going to love this. Like VT had a huge gun violence problem. When I was growing up, I didn’t know anyone without a gun. Kids even hunted, in season, on way to and from school and firearms were locked up in the office…bagging a deer was a legit excused absence. No one ever got hurt and everyone knew someone’s dad would kick their ass if they did anything unsafe and there were no cops or judges who would listen to the kid whine, if they did.

4

vtmtct t1_j5y2h1k wrote

I understand that many VT gun owners consider themselves left of center, maybe classically liberal like I do, but you have to be honest with yourselves how far to the left the mainstream ideas of leftist politicians have shifted. The legislative assault against the ability to defend ourselves are core motivations for democrats and progressives. Increasingly I feel as though the political middle ground is shifting to the left beneath my feet. Vote for principles not parties.

3

Left-Link5070 t1_j5vrd4c wrote

Just claim insanity. Not like they’re going to prosecute you.

1

dronesforproles t1_j5yvqqs wrote

Yet police can now use lethal force through robots and the amount of money being spent on domestic military (police should be viewed as nothing but this) continues to skyrocket. Example: https://stopcop.city/

From a high level, it seems we're in decline and authoritarianism must rise to meet growing unrest. More and more workers are losing their jobs to automation, climate change is impacting food production and exacerbating the refugee crisis, while establishment politicians perturb the global economy and threaten nuclear holocaust in their effort maintain western hegemony.

Revolution must happen soon or it will be too late.

1

Ok-Address-1768 t1_j60215a wrote

wtf none of those things go together and thinking they do is unhinged. Also I want our politicians to do everything in their power to maintain western hegemony, anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Do you want China running the global order? You talk like you love democracy but also talk like defending it is wrong... highly likely this is a rutland area take

1

Unfiltered_ID t1_j64ld6q wrote

Is this the result of the mass influx of west coasters?

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j5z6pd2 wrote

I don't see self defense being banned. I see weak people being deprived of a way to feel powerful. If you're too scared to go out without a gun, just stay home and maybe try online therapy to quit being such a wuss.

−1

Ok-Address-1768 t1_j601i4k wrote

Most of these proposals will fail constitutional muster. Gun nuts need to simmer down same as gun nut haters. This is a completely for show proposal that -even if it passes- will fail in the courts. The only possible enduring change this proposal advances is the duty to retreat which isn't AT ALL different from our current system of tort self defense except for you'll probably have to take a few steps back while saying 'hey stop ima shoot you idiot'.

Everyone settle down and stop acting stupid. You'd think fellow gun lovers would understand the law but i guess not. Which ngl makes me less inclined to let them be gun owners but thats not my decision.

−1

jsudarskyvt t1_j5vj5mk wrote

Let's actually see what is in the bill before claiming it is denying self defense in ones own home. So far this post is hearsay and innuendo.

−11

TheTowerBard t1_j5vqj0j wrote

I know it’s so upsetting that they want to encourage folks to not kill other folks if it can be avoided. I hope you will get through this difficult time.

−13

Beardly_Smith t1_j5wbzlm wrote

Have fun running away from your problems

6

TheTowerBard t1_j5wnryc wrote

Have fun living in constant fear of the boogie man because the man on tv said angry words.

−5

Beardly_Smith t1_j5xf2j7 wrote

Sounds to me like your in constant fear of guns

5

TheTowerBard t1_j5xfgoa wrote

The person choosing to be unarmed in a heavily armed society is the one in fear? Ok.

−2

VermontRox t1_j5w85xy wrote

Fucking grow up, chickenshit. You don't need a gun.

−18

joeydokes t1_j5wlrax wrote

Welp, ya convinced me! Thanks for that adult POV kimosabe :)

7

somedudevt t1_j5wpjjl wrote

Till the day the alt right fucks show up with theirs and only a few of us liberals are ready to fight back. Have fun living in a handmaids tale.

3

BangstaFunk t1_j5vmjdq wrote

I support these changes.

−20

ThePecanRolls5225 t1_j5v8f5q wrote

Finally! To many guns in this state

−24

Beardly_Smith t1_j5wbtdp wrote

Feel free to leave

17

ThePecanRolls5225 t1_j5whfla wrote

Couldn’t pay me enough to. I love this state more than enough to put in the effort to fix it

−13

somedudevt t1_j5ww7ea wrote

Not from Vermont are you? The only people trying to “fix” it are the assfucks who come here from away thinking it’s utopia and discover it’s full of odd people who respect eachother and protect individual liberty and freedom.

2

[deleted] t1_j5wh969 wrote

[deleted]

−14

somedudevt t1_j5wr0re wrote

Guns are a part of Vermont. They have been since before any of us. They are in the VT constitution MUCH more clearly than the US. The majority of Vermonters and Vermont families have guns. The people who don’t are not from vermont and are trying to change Vermont. It’s that simple, if you don’t like where you moved (or assume ur parents moved since most of the anti gun posts are 15 year olds) then probably go somewhere that is more in line with that.

Can’t we just let people do what the fuck they want like we have for 260 years successfully?

Gay marriage? Go for it Change genders? Do it up Abort a fetus? Have at it Pray to some fucked up god and start your own religion? We wrote the manual on it Never talk to a person again and be a hermit? Why not Walk around naked? Don’t forget to carry a sweater for when you get cold Carry an AR at the store? Sure Ride a bike in January? Could do it

The point is NH says live free or die, WE FUCKING LIVE IT! Stop trying to change that it fucking works!

6

[deleted] t1_j5ws0bh wrote

[deleted]

−4

somedudevt t1_j5wtap5 wrote

Right but free is free. All of those things were expanded freedom. You are revoking freedom. And I’ll pose it to you. Who is going to protect you when the massive arms stockpile on the right and the militias they are forming comes to the door? I don’t want to have guns for that, but I can tell you that 3 weeks before 2020 I bought 3 guns and a bunch of ammo, and I can tell you I was armed during that period of unrest. While I know that from your standpoint more guns isn’t the solution, in the end it is most of the time. The cats out of the bag. You can’t round up all the guns in the state let alone the country. There are a billion in the country and over a million in the state. The only thing we as individuals can do to be safer is to not be an easy target. Learn to shoot. Get a defense gun for the home. You don’t have to open carry, and you don’t have to be afraid. But you have to at least accept that the world is unpredictable and being ready is a good thing.

2

[deleted] t1_j5us5ob wrote

Where do i sign up to be the person who physically takes OP's guns.

​

Edit to the 3 beta males who've downvoted me: stay scared pussies. I'll enjoy taking your guns!

−31

lilwoody802 t1_j5wwnml wrote

Calm down hitler

7

[deleted] t1_j5yoxfp wrote

I will take your gun first

−4

lilwoody802 t1_j5ysnhx wrote

Hope yo come prepared

5

[deleted] t1_j5ytgc5 wrote

I'm a minority so you will probably have a heart attack as soon as you see me

−2

lilwoody802 t1_j5yuu8q wrote

Sounds like you’re also a moron. ✌️

4

[deleted] t1_j5yvyl2 wrote

You sound like a guy about to own zero guns!

−3

somedudevt t1_j5ws9xi wrote

One question for you:

When the fascists come, who is protecting you? Did 1/6 not tell you anything about the state of affairs in this country? Ammo has been being produced at record speed for the last 7 years and you can’t buy it because people like Daniel Banyai are buying it all for reserves. We as the other side need to learn, respect, and be comfortable with guns. It may never happen that shit hosts the fan, but I can tell you that 1933 Jews were probably not expecting what happened to them either. You can’t be the sheep when the wolf comes around.

3

[deleted] t1_j5ypddk wrote

Lmao how much weed do you smoke every day

3