Senator McCormack has taken the time to reply to his constituents and to me personally, for that, I applaud him. As far as our Windsor County State Senators go, he’s the only one.
I understand that after the recent event in Florida there has been great deal of emotion. His inbox was full, I’m certain.
No legislation should be pushed on the pulse of emotion, tragedy or a feel good law. I see that he has mentioned threats of political consequences and there are. When a legislator is sworn to office they agree, under the penalties of perjury, to uphold the United States and Vermont Constitutions.
This gets complicated when it is thought that the “Constitutions are open to interpretation” comes into play. I personally feel the Constitutions are easy to read, in layman’s terms, and understandable.
Let’s use the Second Amendment as an example. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I get the argument all the time that as a gun owner I’m not part of a regulated militia. Forty-two percent of Americans are gun owners. If the “you know what” hit the fan and our government became tyrannical, those Americans would become a well-regulated militia. It’s necessary to a free state.
The next argument, “They didn’t mean military type weapons.” Ok, I don’t see that stated in the Second Amendment. “It is outdated and irrelevant, they didn’t comprehend the types of weapons we would have today.” Let us keep in mind, when the constitution was written, there were cannons and muskets and the puckle gun, all of these were military weapons. It was not stated in the Second Amendment, you could not have one of these. It is nonspecific.
Let’s focus hard on the last section, The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINDGED. I see the right of the people (not the militia) shall not be infringed. Definition of infringed is “act so as to limit or undermine, encroach on.” It seems like a clear and easy interpretation.
Vermont’s Article 16 is much clearer: “That THE PEOPLE have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state and as standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
Pretty clear and no interpretation needed for me.
Dick, you were wise when you chose your former position. Please note Vermont is still a rural culture, and one of the safest in the nation.
For those of you who don’t know, background checks are already required. Do I have to give my son or granddaughter a background check before I hand them down a gun? Absolutely not. My rights, my offspring’s rights, are not to be infringed.
The saddest part of this entire situation is that some are looking for an easy fix. If we limit these types of guns, all crime will end. I have heard little to no discussion about mental illness. It has been proven that most of these gunners were mentally ill, and many knew prior to the events, that they were. I feel it has been looked over because it is not an easy fix and will take work.
If you outlaw bump stocks, 30 round clips, Armalite-15’s, what will you accomplish besides taking away the rights of the good, law-abiding citizenry. Do you really think the outlaws or those determined to kill will give up their guns, bump stocks (which are useless, in my opinion), and extra capacity clips?
Keep in mind, Timothy McVeigh was the creator of America’s most devastating mass murder. He didn’t have a gun; he had fertilizer and diesel fuel. Let us not forget the Boston Marathon massacre; the Tsarnov brothers used pressure cookers. Evil will find a way. Evil can use any tool they want.
N. Springfield, Vt.