|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Michael Bielawski
Both candidates for the office of Lieutenant Governor, Republican John Rodgers and Progressive/Democrat David Zuckerman, appear to support a ban on ‘assault weapons,’ according to statements in an October 9 Vermont Public (former VPR) debate.
When answering the question “Do you support an assault weapons ban?” at the 45:44 mark, Rodgers – a former Democrat chosen by Republicans over the other primary candidate, Greg Thayer – said, “I don’t think anybody needs automatic weapons.”
VDC has emailed Rodgers and campaign advisor Casey Toof for more information and clarification. The response will be published as soon as received.
There are two kinds of automatic weapons, semi-automatic (pull the trigger for each shot) and fully automatic (hold the trigger for rapid fire). The former is the most common type of gun owned by civilians and the latter is illegal and only found in the military.
Second Amendment advocates have noted the term is dubious and often used interchangeably for both types of automatics. Merriam-Webster’s definition doesn’t narrow the field, stating they are “any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms.”
Gun control advocates often use ‘assault weapon’ as a reference to the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle with a military-style look. Zuckerman compares these guns to those used in the military. The AR-15 is extremely popular among gun owners, in Vermont and nationwide.
“I just, it’s, it’s ridiculous to me that weapons that are designed for military warfare are sold out there when folks can still get the weapons they need for hunting or self-protection,” he said.
Zuckerman targets AR-15
Zuckerman specifically calls out the AR-15 as a gun he would like to see restricted.
“And yeah, the expansion in that regard would be the AR-15s. And I appreciate the idea around the searchable database. That’s a great idea.”
A report by Reason highlights the common-use argument by Second Amendment supporters. It notes the SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned a local handgun ban in Washington DC in 2008. They write that this case establishes that firearms “in common use” for “lawful purposes like self-defense” shall remain unrestricted.
The AR-15 is widely considered a common-use rifle. A report by Statista.com indicates that nearly a quarter of all U.S. guns manufactured in the U.S. as of 2020 were AR-15s.
Zuckerman is generally in favor of more gun restrictions.
“So I have supported all of the different gun laws that have moved through the state in these last few years to try to move towards sensible gun policy,” he said.
Rodgers voted for red flag laws
Rodgers said he has supported red-flag laws, which are laws intended to disarm an individual deemed at high risk for a shooting crime.
“Number one, we have to do a better job getting rid of drug dealers and drug traffickers, where the majority of the violence, shootouts and illegal guns are coming from. I did support red ag laws, even though there are some constitutional rights issues, they are one of the things that I advocated for, which, again, it goes to national politics.”
Rodgers emphasized the importance of knowing who is already not allowed to have a gun.
“The database for people who are not supposed to have firearms should be publicly searchable that way,” he said. “People, if they saw somebody you know and they thought they had a firearm, they could actually look at that and call law enforcement and let them know that these people that were not supposed to have them had them, because that is one of the problems with a lot of the drug dealers and drug traffickers.”
Candidates debate education, drug policies, the economy, and more
The whole debate can be listened to and read via the transcript at VPR’s site. The candidates differ on matters such as overdose prevention sites, how to approach the housing crisis, how to tax Vermonters, and more.
The author is a reporter for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Gunrights
C’mon John. Please educate yourself on semi auto vs. automatic firearms. If you were to go to a gun store and ask for an “Assault Rifle”, you’d either be laughed at or asked to leave. You don’t have to be fully right wing on everything, but it would be nice if you would dig a bit deeper on the true meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment.
Rodgers just lost my vote
I smell Chicanery. The GOP picked this DEMOCRAT to run as a republican? I did not. He is still a democrat, no matter who wins, it will be a democrat as lt.Gov.. Write in Greg Thayer on principle, it is a lost vote anyway.
This headline is very misleading. Rodgers does not support citizens owning military grade, fully automatic weapons, which is already illegal. He absolutely positively does NOT support a ban on semi-automatic sporting rifles. In the cited exchange, Lee, Rodgers was actually doing what you are doing here: trying to explain the difference between a military “assault rifle” and a semi-auto sporting rifle (and also the fact that there’s no material difference between an AR-15 and a deer rifle. I don’t think there is a politician on either side of the aisle who is more pro 2A rights than John Rodgers.
During the debate, John Rogers sure didn’t give the impression, let alone say outright, that he was pro 2nd Amendment. If anything, his (almost whispered) remark about ‘automatic’ weapons seemed to this listener to be intentionally misleading. And he followed the remark by saying he hasn’t changed his policy choices since changing his stripes from Democrat to Republican.
Does this mean Zuckerman is a better choice. No! Of course not. But don’t kid yourselves. Rogers is a moderate Democrat who believes in more government, not less. And his understanding of free market principles is also vague… at best.
And given conflicted Phil Scott’s recent supportive epiphany on Rep. Hooper, who knows what Scott will do in a pinch.
Unfortunately, our choices are between bad and really bad. If only these candidates would speak for themselves, rendering the sentiments of their designated influencers here on VDC irrelevant.
Don’t forget, Rodgers almost ran against Scott for gov over Scott’s support for anti 2A legislation:
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/04/10/pro-gun-vermont-sen-john-rodgers-considers-run-for-governor
And when all the David Hogg wannabe high-school kids showed up at the state house to call for bans on this and that, Rodgers put forward his own bill to ban their cell phones just to make a point.
https://nhsportpress.com/3463/showcase/vermont-state-senator-proposes-cell-phone-ban-to-make-a-point/
Yes, he is very much pro second amendment. And willing to fight for those rights.
Robert Roper, I heard it, the question was “do you support an assault weapons ban?” His answer “I don’t think anybody needs automatic weapons”. He evaded the correct answer thus lending the appearance of his support of firearm regulation to the many clueless people listening ESPECIALLY the average vpr listener.
Often times the non-military American people designed the weapons, and the military later adopted the ones that fit their use case. If we want advancements in weapons technologies to better our defense capabilities, the people will design and adopt the best options, then the military will learn from our experiences, and adopt them after we have already proven them in the field.
“Military Grade” is generally much less quality than what someone who is a serious sports shooter will own. Full-Auto is really only beneficial if bad guys are driving at you in a vehicle, otherwise there isn’t much self-defense benefit from wasting the ammo, however should be legal as long as the machinery is reasonably safe to fire. NFA is illegal.
“Regulate” in the constitution means the government is only allowed to make laws which make them more abundant or more common amongst the people. Any laws that promote a less abundant and common use of any arm, is illegal and subject to Title 18 punishment of fines, and imprisonment or worse.
Nothing will change until we have AGs that prioritize imprisoning state servant constitutional law violators. haha, will never happen – government doesn’t have to follow the law. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
Clearly IT WAS A STUPID QUESTION FOLKS!!! The assumption (again and again) is that “assault weapons” are an identifiable and statistically significant “gun of choice” for depraved and dangerous beasts of all types. Wrong.
Rodgers gave the correct answer as he knew the idiots at VPR/Vermont Public also believe the assault weapons category is “automatic” and somehow more dangerous…
He called them out on their presupposition and ideological blinders by answering the question that was implied.
JOHN RODGERS DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE OR PISTOL BAN PROPOSALS. REPEAT HE DOES NOT SUPPORT TAKING ANY 2A RIGHTS OFF THE TABLE.
I believe I speak for John when I say; Vermont has more than enough “gun laws” and some that will eventually be scrapped under the current Bruens Decision Doctrine. Pointedly, the ones most likely to be overturned are ALSO LAWS then Senator John Rodgers worked AND VOTED AGAINST!!
I should know as I was the VT Traditions Coalition’s Firearms Policy Analyst for the entirety of his tenure in the Senate. He never ever failed to oppose bans like these, including the notorious Mag Ban. His Vote as Lieutenant Governor will enhance balance and a strong Veto threat against extremists on all issues important to Patriots and other “deplorables” like US!!!
wmoore57b283d2fb:
Isn’t it time John Rogers spoke for himself? He was asked a direct question during the debate. His answer was unequivocal.
While I appreciate your wanting to speak on John Rogers’ behalf, and claim that you have the credentials to do so – why hasn’t Mr. Rogers addressed the issue himself, here on VDC, where the only substantially conservative commentary in Vermont resides?
Most of these con jobs vote for laws they know are not constitutional. Listen to what they say and watch what they do. You will spend years and a lot of money fighting the actions of these fools.
Because they are morons.
John Rogers will never take your AR-15 away. He does know the difference. I’m almost positive he owns one. Zuck will take your ar-15 if allowed to. No questions or second thoughts. To zuckerman and AR-15 is an automatic which is absolute crap. I have personally heard him say that. And lieutenant governor’s zuckerman knows he has said it.
Red law works. I hated the idea of a red law. I think there are problems with the law as it’s written now. But I’ve also taking part of working with people were in such acute mental health crisis they should not have guns at that time. Hell they shouldn’t even have an ax. We are one mass shooting away from having the most proactive gun laws in the nation with current supermajority status in Vermont. I Am pro gun all the way. I’m also not going to shoot myself in the foot, excuse the pun, simply for my own selfish reasons however they may be granted to me by the Vermont and US Constitution.
Jeremy, re:
“I’m also not going to shoot myself in the foot, excuse the pun, simply for my own selfish reasons however they may be granted to me by the Vermont and US Constitution.”
I think it’s important to point out that our rights are NOT granted by any constitution, merely acknowledged as existing and are endowed to us by our Creator, thus they are self existent and as a result guaranteed, period end of story. My two cents!
You are NOT “pro gun”. If you support ILLEGAL Red Flag laws, you also support innocent people being killed from them documented by GOA, you support the precedent of subverting the constitutional protections which will further kill innocent people in the future, and you support mentally deranged people killing others with infinite other ways of killing, so long as it isn’t the guns that were confiscated illegally.
I’m not saying this is you directly, but for anyone who supports these laws, you are a bad and violent lawless person, please acknowledge this and get better. If you cannot be trusted with a firearm, you cannot be trusted to be in society unsupervised, period.
Nobody is going to take my AR15 away because I will not give it to them under any circumstances
If Zuckerman’s lips are moving he’s lying.
He’s a carpet-bagging fake-farmer import from Massachusetts who has admitted to stealing taxpayer money for his personal “expense account.”
He’s lied about the governor’s education secretary.
He also made fun of women’s menstrual cycles.
The guy is scary.
We could easily drop our health care costs by 50%
and feel better. Vermont could lead something useful and different; it fits with farm to table.
https://choiceclips.whatfinger.com/2024/10/10/joe-rogan-episode-that-everyone-needs-to-see-asap/
Instead, we get these sock puppets for the NWO……I saw the debate, it was extremely depressing. He felt so great in getting John Rodgers to condemn publicly Donald Trump, you could see the glee, like he just pulled one over on him.
Well, they have. For some reason our genius governor and the geniuses at the VTGOP think, if we elect more democrats, we’ll get rid of the democratic super majority and make change for Vermont.
Like what change has Scott truly asked for? Spending a little bit less money. Just a little, so as not to offend anyone.
If you look at any large group of Vermonter, self-included, you’ll see physically we are all in terrible shape, that vast majority. The same goes for our mental health. The same goes for our spiritual health.
Are we happy and blessed, of sound mind?
It’s a simple change of direction to cure our physical, mental and spiritual selves. Not easy but simple.
We can do better in Vermont, much better.
TGBTG
Bans on Modern Sporting Rifles like the AR-15 will be found to be unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment, as there can be no denying that they are in common use by millions of Americans for lawful purposes.
On October 23rd, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will be hearing oral arguments on Bianchi/Snope v. Brown – which is a case out of Maryland that challenged the constitutionality of an AWB along with a ban on regular-capacity magazines over 10 rounds (for a long gun).
With 29 states petitioning SCOTUS to take this case up and resolve the issue once and for all, SCOTUS will be hard pressed NOT to grant Certiorari (SCOTUS review of the case), at which point everything they have said in Heller, Caetano, MacDonald and Bruen will be brought to bear.
Our founders were fully aware of the existence of firearms that could fire more than one shot without reloading, and there is simply no historical analogue that supports a ban on such firearms.
Chris: let me offer a slight and friendly suggested modification of your argument. Too often gun opponents use the statement: “Our ancestors could never have foreseen the weapons in use today.” I submit it is not the best argument to engage in because you are always on the defensive. Most people won’t get beyond emotion when trying to argue that Jefferson/Madison/Adams & Co. could have foreseen AR-15’s.
But as this article notes, AR-15’s are one of the most common guns in the United States, meaning they are also carried by bad actors.
So instead, let me suggest you respond with: “Our ancestors could never have foreseen the weapons somebody breaking into my house is carrying today. My constitutional “right” is not to carry a specific gun; my constitutional “right” empowers me to defend myself against an aggressor. If I am prevented from using a defensive weapon that matches the one I’m confronting, my constitutional self-defense “right” is meaningless.”
Just a thought, for what it is worth.
Exactly. SCOTUS needs to clarify 2A beyond a shadow of doubt, and hold those creating unconstitutional laws accountable.
Name any other Constitutional right that changes at state lines. 🤔
Respectfully Joe, they don’t care. I’ve been the state house listened to some of the most reasonable, seasoned and constitutional arguments from the public with regard to guns, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because they have a plan, and they are working towards it. To suggest they might change their stance because of a more seasoned or sophisticated argument is suggesting they are open to change.
As very clearly articulated there are about 10 people and lobbyists making all the plans for Vermont, none of them have concern for the Vermont Constitution, or a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials to defend it.
No, they are about power, money, prestige they are so full of pride they couldn’t possibly be wrong. They don’t have an original idea amoung the whole of them, they are following orders from top down.
Vermont is now the first colony of the United Nations.
We have been completely subverted.
We have many useful idiots and some others who know well what is going on.
Chris Bradley is one of the more honorable men, that I’ve met, that is a big problem in Vermont politics.
Only room and money for the lobbyists and those who do their bidding.
You know how the people that want to take our guns away are always making the argument that the 2nd Amendment only pertains to the arms being used at the time like muskets because the founders couldn’t have foreseen the development of modern weapons.
The Puckle Machine Gun was created in 1718, seventy-three years before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment which renders the argument that the founders couldn’t foresee firearms other than muskets invalid.
1934 – The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress. President: Franklin D. Roosevelt – Democrat was passed to curb the gang violence in Chicago with gangsters using the Thompson sub-machine gun. So, machine guns were around for 216 years before this law was passed.
568 people were killed in Chicago in 2023 mostly from gang violence using firearms. The Thompson Machine Guns are gone. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people no matter what weapon is used.
To further expand on Mr. Benning’s point there are two types of criminals. There are the garden variety robbers, rapists, thieves, murderers, embezzlers, etc. And then there are the political criminals like Phil Scott and the legislators who violate their oath of office that pass and sign unconstitutional laws that subvert our Constitution. Yes, violating the Constitution is a crime and these people are in charge of our military and police forces throughout the country. The 2nd Amendment was written for these criminals also because if taken from us you might as well throw out the rest of the Bill of Rights with it. When we allow only government entities to have certain weapons that we are not allowed to have those same weapons we have no defense against a tyrannical government. This is why they want a so-called assault weapons ban.
The Weimar Republic after WWI passed gun registration laws that Hitler used to disarm the German people. I saw the movie where only the police and military were allowed to have guns. It was called Schindler’s List.
Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So, let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country”. (On November 11th, 1938, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews’ Weapon Possession. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews the right to possess firearms or other weapons.)
Heinrich Himmler: “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or SA, ordinary citizens do not need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state”.
The AR15 assault weapon fallacy that these weapons should be banned is the exact reason we citizens should have them. The political criminals know what we know that no war was ever won without the common foot soldier. Whether it be the Hoplite with his shield, sword and spear or the GI with his MS Carbine. This is the reason the political criminal wants to ban them. If we are an equal footing with the forces, they control we are a threat to their power.
The 3% Solution. Only three percent of the colonial population amounted to the forces in the field that defeated the British in the Revolutionary War. Now there are over 450 million firearms in the United States. They did the math, and that potential army is too big a threat to their power.
In 1837 Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out by the Supreme Court. In 1927 – Congress passes a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons and in 1934 – The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt was the camel’s nose under the tent. Give a progressive an inch they take five miles. 1938 – The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited. Also signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So, when does it stop? The Constitution is clear, it is the law of the land. The only way to change the Constitution is Article 5. A proposed amendment or a constitutional convention. If the Constitution is not changed, then any violation of it is a crime.
Antonin Scalia: “The Constitution is not a living organism, it’s a legal document, and it says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say”.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant us any right, it prohibits the government from infringing on the right we already have.
Antonin Scalia: “The very text of the 2nd Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and only declares it shall not be infringed”.
Ronald Reagan: “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary”.
When a person seeking power speaks about our rights under the Constitution beware of phrases like, “I don’t think anyone needs automatic weapons.” It would be akin to saying, “I don’t think anyone has a right to publicly articulate disagreement with the climate change orthodoxy narrative.” Who says the test of a constitutional right is whether our leaders think a particular weapon or word is necessary or appropriate?
That said, as voters we oftentimes need to choose the less bad of two bad candidates so we might be better off with Rogers over Zuckerman. Anyway, I might add, regarding the Second Amendment, those in power or seeking power should know it was not crafted to protect the rights of sportsmen or for self-defense of person or property from fellow citizens. I believe the amendment was born of the view that government could not be trusted, and an armed population was an important check on government power. Check out John Zmirak’s book, “No Second Amendment, No First.” As Zmirak notes at page 249-50, the Father of the Constitution, James Madison wrote that “even if Americans one day faced a tyrannical standing army that served at the behest of the federal government, that army would need to confront ‘a militia amounting to a near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen among themselves, fighting for their common liberties.’ . . . By contrast, European governments were ‘afraid to trust their people with arms,’ Madison wrote.”
Rob Roper, you said, “Rodgers does not support citizens owning military grade, fully automatic weapons, which is already illegal.”
There are two things to pay close attention to here:
1.) It IS legal for citizens to own military grade, fully automatic weapons. Or, said another way, it is NOT illegal for citizens to own military grade fully automatic weapons.
It is important and essential that John Rodgers knows the law instead of saying things about which he is uneducated.
The distinction and exception that must be made, however, in order to clarify what Rodgers believes, is that citizens may purchase and own these weapons provided they pass a background check and are issued a federal tax stamp to legally own and possess those weapons.
2.) It would be helpful if those who either speak or write about citizen ownership of military grade, fully automatic weapons take the time to point out the distinction that it is NOT “already illegal” to own them, any more than it IS already illegal for certain persons to own or possess other types firearms which are not military grade or fully automatic.
In other words, if you talk about certain types of weapons being illegal to own, you must also include the legality of said weapons with mentioning the manner by which a citizen (or non-citizen) is regarded by the laws determined by federal law and enforced by the BATF.
For example, it is “already illegal” for an illegal user of controlled substances, or a fugitive from justice, or anyone who is under indictment in any court for a felony, or anyone who has renounced his US citizenship, and so forth and so on to purchase or own firearms.
Most folks who can pass the FBI background check and truthfully answer the questions on Form 4473 required to have a firearm transferred to them could probably legally own and possess a military grade machine gun if they can:
A.) Afford to purchase the machine gun.
B.) Pass the specific BATF background check
C.) Properly complete and submit the BATF tax stamp form.
D.) Receive the federally issued tax stamp.
It is then perfectly legal to own, possess, and enjoy shooting their military grade fully automatic weapon.
One other point to be made: Whether someone thinks another person “needs” a certain type of firearm is completely irrelevant to having a firearm transferred to him/her. In the United States, we get to own firearms because we WANT to, and some uneducated politician who’s afraid of the way a certain firearm looks, doesn’t get to tell me whether I “need” it or not. There is no question or distinction made on Form 4473 of whether I “need” it or not. We must not let those who would seek to control us and take our guns from us dictate this conversation with their silly semantics.
Very disappointing. I would have thought John would know that he has stepped onto a vile, anti-Constitutional slope of tyranny. Maybe just to win, I pray. My “semi-automatic weapons” that I don’t need to hunt include a lovely woodgrain Ruger Mini-14. I guess John and Dave both want to take that — and 100s of other “not military-style” semis away from us so we can’t defend ourselves in the looming chaos seeded (deliberately) by Dems at our borders, in our pro-crim and anti-police laws, in fractious identity divisions, and in destroying our currency and economy.
I had put out a letter supporting John this morning in which I claimed he would support our Second Amendment rights, so now I am personally discredited by this betrayal. I guess the LG race is a tweedle dum, tweedle dee affair after all, and Phil has recruited another mini-RINO.
I will keep my God-given, inalienable rights to all of my “assault weapons,” thank you very much — I call them “defense weapons,” and they are no risk to anyone except those who would harm my family. My wife has one too — it is her right to choose to defend her own life, not just kill another with government help.
I say to John and Dave both: Come take my rights and my guns, gentlemen — do it yourselves though, not using MY police. Come right over to my house, Dave and John, and try to take my defenses from me. You will be assaulting me at the core, and I will employ my defensive armaments against you — though I can take either of you out in a flash with my fist “assault weapons,” which so far as I am aware you have not yet banned. Molon Labe!
John is still the better choice over Dave. I don’t think any gun bills will be in Vermont’s leg as the economy crumbles next year, but John has stood against the fuel and other taxes destroying us and used to pollute our ecosystem with “renewable” manufacturing — now THAT should be banned. So I still vote, nose plugged, for Rodgers.
John, re:
“”My “semi-automatic weapons” that I don’t need to hunt include a lovely woodgrain Ruger Mini-14.”” Exactly! And I told him something very similar in my email to him following the “debate” (softball debate, I would add). I said that the AR-15 was the commonly visualized weapon when the term “assault weapon” is used because it’s “black and scary” while the Mini 14 is brown and made of wood with no “scary” stock modifications. I’m afraid I’ve gone past the lessor of two evils mindset and now often find myself voting for someone who in all likelihood won’t win, but at least I can walk out of the polls without feeling shame…just sayin’
Amen, John K, worded just perfectly here!!
John, they prevented you from brining any new ideas, and new blood and new power in the VTGOP….Do you think they will be different with John Rodgers? Surely you jest. He’s carrying water for them, that is why he has an open lane.
Plain and simple, both of these men are not their own, they are owned by the Vermont Political Machine, the Montpelier swamp.
Before that they wouldn’t even introduce Keith Stern at a GOP meeting? Seriously, what makes you think they have changed one smidgen? What evidence and actions do you see that suggest change is afoot?
The FBI, ATF, DEA, DHS, IRS, EPA, Dept. of Labor, Postal Service, Bureau of Land Management and other government agencies all use the AR-15. In those agencies hands they are called PDWs or Personal Defense Weapons. They call our AR-15s Assault Weapons and Weapons of War. Only good for killing as many people as possible. And yes, the Vermont State Police. Got it yet?
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/03/13/vermont-state-police-adopts-sig-sauer-m400-pro-rifles-as-patrol-rifle/
What a lot of people do not know is Sen. Dick Mazza was Phil Scott’s mentor. He was a Kennedy Democrat and trained Scott well in the ways of how Montpelier works and Scott’s true colors are coming out. Phil Scott recently endorsed Rodgers for LT Gov. and mark my words Phil Scott WILL sign any gun legislation the supermajority passes.
I will not vote for any candidate that does not support Trump and the prosperity and peace he will bring. DUH!!
Neither candidate will be much help to Vermont. Both want to restrict citizens’ Second Amendment rights and both hate Trump. Not much to choose between the two. I did note Rodger’s somewhat ironic assertion: “Number one, we have to do a better job getting rid of drug dealers and drug traffickers…”
Then they are both unqualified to hold public office.
Oh look, the Jewish guy wants to give porn to kids and take guns from parents. Weird combo no?
Before you call me anti-Semitic I worship a Jewish carpenter and read an exclusively Jewish written book for life instruction.
Pornhub is now owned by a rabbi and the most outspoken anti-gun activists are David Hogg, Howard Stern & Chuck Schumer, all from the same tribe.
I’m starting to think not all Jews are cut from the same cloth.
Reminds me of 1920s Austria. How progressive.
It’s your responsibility as a parent to filter internet content. Don’t put the burden on a website owner. We don’t need more government databases. Government isn’t going to save your children from porn. STOP worshiping government. STOP begging for government to solve every little problem. If your child is watching porn on the internet against your wishes YOU ARE AT FAULT, not a website owner!
What this mentality is going to turn into will be government takeover of the internet, internet ID and social credit scores forced ministry of truth. Get ready. You will be to blame 100% by your ignorance.
Well, their ignorance about firearms tells me all I need to know.
As Suzanna Hupp once said, “How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”
Look her up.
I heard the tale end of the interview, as I often tune into vpr to check in on the latest propaganda. I couldn’t believe Rodgers response regarding “assault weapons” (so called). I went to his website and wrote him regarding his response, and said that it was either disingenuous and/or evasive. He obviously should know the difference between auto & semi-auto, and that the term “assault weapon” is a meaningless term. This was the entirety of his response and nothing more since:
“Jonathan —
Thank you for your feedback.
Rodgers for Lieutenant Governor”
These two idiots talk through their butts. They obviously don’t even understand the current gun laws on the books. What a shame, and both candidates, if you want to call them that have swallowed the proverbial Democratic pill. Why can’t these people recognize the failure of revolving catch and release programs where bad people just are recycled right back into the midst of society. How many murders have we had in the last month in Vermont with people that never should have been back on the streets after their previous significant encounter with law enforcement. One now in custody had 155 encounters with police, but was back out looking for his next victim, and he found him, and murdered him. Guns are not the problem! It is people and refusal by liberals to demand a pound of flesh when you cross that line. Get off the “ban gun” sickness!!
When was the last time you saw a weapon jump off the table and assault any one???? Now it is time to end the word games. These crooks sold out all Vermonters with the COVID SCAM DEMIC and nobody has gone to jail. Remember, they all got paid when every one else went broke.
Well to all the Vermont gun owners, pay attention to this article, as this is the first, volley from the newly ordained Republican Rodgers, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing,
and now you know why Scott likes him…………………….
He may say he’s a Republican ” this year ” and he’ll flip-flop quicker than Scott, I’ve had it with the VT-GOP and its feckless attempt to stay relevant.
I’m a ” No” vote for Scott, and I’m writing in Gregory Thayer for Lt. Gov, as you see Rodgers is just a liberal, as he knew he couldn’t make it in his DNC party against Zuckerman, and VT-GOP allowed, even though legal, they pushed him and now you know why !!
I’m a seventy-three-year-old Conservative Vermonter, but I’ve had enough, the state is deep blue and it will stay that way with these kinds of candidates in the GOP.
Our problem is that I am 77 and so I, like you, can remember when Vermont was the greatest of the states and democrats were so rare as to be non existent. Then that Playboy article alerted all the near do well democrats, they could ruin paradise by importing their liberal policies. They have truly been a blight on Vermont.
The Playboy article exists????? My father used to rant about it all the time when I was a kid, but he was a story teller. Do you remember when by any chance so I can look for it?
Chris,
Google is your friend sometimes.
https://www.playboy.com/magazine/articles/1972/04/taking-over-vermont/?srsltid=AfmBOooqEDYE5hlFOYDeH_kWNoBzQ8lNq_i6AA14PeykqTE_YZYPFnv_
Full text linked in this VDC commentary by Gerald Malloy
https://vermontdailychronicle.com/malloy-re-reading-the-1972-article-about-taking-over-vermont/
Automatic weapons are highly regulated but those manufactured before 1986 are not necessarily illegal or only used by the military. Individuals who complete the lengthy FBI background check and ATF application process plus pay the transfer tax fees can own a machine gun.
Ban assault politicians! Put them in the database! Lock them up and throw away the key!
Looks like I’m moving to New Hampshire soon. It was nice while it lasted.
Why do people that are in and those running to get in have such real dumb mentality? OH—such guns look so bad, they must be killers all by themselves. Lock up the mental cases and dump anyone connected in gov that doesn’t have a cclue what a weapon is and use terms like “assault weapon”. People do the assaulting, not firearm. If I had a loaded, cocked revolver laying on a table for 100 years without touching it, it wouldn’t kill no one. Get real idiots, how can you have trust in these mentally deprived people?
Now let me see if I understand — we have two fellas running for office in favor of intruding into an extremely persona arena, our constitutional rights. They actually have the effrontery to think that they can make laws managing our constitutional rights. Us constituents are supposed to hold still for this creepy personal invasion. What would happen if we had proposed laws/regulations concerning how to managed our sex lives…only on odd numbered days…must where a mask…you get the picture What about hygiene? …bath only in the mornings on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays…change your socks every 3rd day, no red socks. Can you see the blooming of RULER delusions here? They are trashing our founding ideals. The Constitution aims to protected us from such government intrusion…a proposition foreign to these fellas. For us to continue electing such clowns is folly.
The only assault weapon that should be banned in Vermont is Zuckerman, especially since he’s not from Vermont.
Is a carpet bagging fraud from Massachusetts who pretends to be a farmer for the sake of appearances.
He has stolen taxpayer money by claiming expenses that he didn’t incur and recently was forced to apologize for a lying about the governor’s secretary of education.
He also poked fun recently at women’s menstruation cycles.
The guy is radioactive and is absolutely no right being in public office.
The clear choice in this lieutenant governor election is Rodgers but Vermonters may be too stupid to realize it.
The only assault weapon that should be banned in Vermont is Zuckerman, especially since he’s not from Vermont.
He is a carpet-bagging fraud from Massachusetts who pretends to be a farmer for the sake of appearances.
He has:
✔️ Stolen taxpayer money by claiming expenses that he didn’t incur.
✔️ Been forced to apologize for a lying about the governor’s secretary of education.
✔️ Poked fun at women’s menstruation cycles.
The guy is radioactive and has absolutely no right being in public office.
The clear choice in this lieutenant governor election is Rodgers but Vermonters may be too stupid to realize it.
“I don’t think anybody needs automatic weapons.” Well, I don’t think you need my vote or support to be Lt. Governor or even dog catcher. The political pawns sing and dance like monkeys for their Master. Only CIA assets, IRS agents, local/State police, FEMA goons, and illegals are allowed to point weapons of all types in our faces. Not what our founders envisioned either – yet here we are – under belligerent occupation by tyrannical despots. Be aware a leopard doesn’t change it’s spots – it just rearranges them for self-gratification and profiteering. Vermont is a wasteland of grifters and controlled operatives, aka captured territory. This is 2024 – can you begin to imagine what the enemy has in store for 2028? No wonder the suicide rate is off the charts in this country. It is the plan – depopulation, wealth transfer, global reset.
The 2nd Amendment
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA,
When the 2nd Amendment was written regulated at that period of time ment running well (or organized) like a clock as many clocks had the word Regulator on them not regulated by any government entity. The Militia is made up of the citizens of the United States of each state. “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”. – George Mason
NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,
The states are sovereign entities. God created the people. The people created the states. The states created the federal government.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,
Our rights are given by God and Nature’s Law. The 2nd Amendment does not say which arms we can bear or not bear or gives us any right.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
To commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress. The 2nd Amendment forbids the government to infringe on the right we are already born with.
“The very text of the 2nd Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and only declares it shall not be infringed”. – Antonin Scalia
“The Constitution is not a living organism, it’s a legal document, and it says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say”. – Antonin Scalia
ALL GUN CONTROL UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL. IT IS AN INFRIGEMENT ON OUR RIGHTS.
The 2nd Amendment was enumerated in our Bill of Rights by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to give “We the People” the means to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from those who would take them from us. You can’t take away someone’s right to free speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion without first taking away their ability to resist. THE 2nd AMENDMENT DOES NOT GRANT US THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE 2nd AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS – PERIOD! Government does not give us our rights. Our rights are not given to us by the Constitution. Our rights are given to us by God and are inherent to us as human beings and by the Laws of Nature. These rights that we are born with are affirmed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution and specify what the government can and cannot do to us as citizens of the United States. Government’s only power is the power which is enumerated to it by the Constitution. The federal government, a state, county or town cannot pass a law contrary to the Constitution. Article 6 the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. Under our Constitution the government is not delegated the authority to legislate, enforce, or adjudicate laws pertaining to the exercise of our rights under the Constitution. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to require the government’s permission to exercise any right affirmed to us under the Constitution. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to compel us to waive our guaranteed 4th Amendment right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation, search, or seizure in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct. Or compel us to waive our guaranteed 5th Amendment right to due process as a precondition to being allowed (or denied) the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. This violation of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights happens every time that we are interrogated under penalty of perjury without probable cause that a crime has been committed when we fill out B.A.T.F.E form 4473 to purchase a firearm. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to compel us to waive our 10th Amendment right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution, and State governments are prohibited the exercise of any power prohibited to the States by the United States Constitution.
The government is not delegated the authority under the 14th Amendment to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Government is not delegated by our Constitution the authority to license firearm dealers or operate or fund the most powerful anti-rights government agency on the planet called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Since no Amendment in the Bill of Rights has been repealed thru Article V or by a National Convention of States, the only legal way to change the Constitution, all existing gun control laws presently violate five Amendments of the Bill of Rights and goes against the settled law of two Supreme Court decisions, Heller vs the District of Columbia 2008 and McDonald vs Chicago 2010. Both decisions affirm that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that citizens are allowed firearms in common use, those small arms or those that operate like them and are issued to our National Guard which comprises of citizen soldiers. In the Second Militia Act of 1792 Congress specified the arms militia members were to have. It was incumbent on militia members to report to training and duty with their own arms and ammo. So, one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking away guns from the people who constituted the militia.
The purpose of compelled background checks as a precondition to allowing or denying the transfer of a firearm is to deceive firearm owners and prospective owners into unknowingly waiving their rights guaranteed by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10thand 14th Amendments so they will have no rights left to claim when the government decides to register and confiscate our firearms. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not a privilege to keep and bear arms. Our rights are beyond the reach of the government and no citizen has to ask government permission to exercise a right. Government has no authority delegated to it by the Constitution to deceive its citizens into waiving their rights or acquiescing to the loss of their rights by subterfuge, scam, fraud, or force. DO NOT VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS!
WE DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
Supreme Court Decision – Norton v Shelby County 1886
6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The US. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The Supreme Court’s decision is as follows; “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”. Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”.
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Thomas Jefferson: “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are authoritative, void and of no force”.
Alexander Hamilton explains unconstitutional law in Federalist No.76; “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”.
The best books I ever read on the 2nd Amendment.
First Freedom by David Harsanyi
The Founders 2nd Amendment by Stephen P. Halbrook
John Rodgers was set to run against Phil Scott over the latter’s support for restrictive gun laws. The 2018 headline in Seven Days at the time: “Pro-Gun Vermont Senator John Rodgers Considers Run for Governor.”
“At a Statehouse press conference held with other lawmakers Tuesday, Rodgers reiterated his opposition to S.55, a bill that would mandate universal background checks, raise the purchasing age for guns from 18 to 21, limit high-capacity magazines and ban bump stocks.”
And when the VT high school David Hogg wannabes showed up in Montpelier to tell the legislature to ban “assault weapons”, John Rodgers sponsored a bill to take away their cell phones just to make a point. It made national news. From CNN:
“His constituents rely on their firearms to keep themselves safe if they live in areas too remote for police to quickly reach, he said. ““People in rural areas are largely independent, and we take it upon ourselves to stay safe,” he said. “Without the Second Amendment, we couldn’t do that.””
I challenge the critics here to name one legislator on either side of the aisle who has fought more aggressively for 2A rights than John Rodgers.
Robert, I totally understand your point and agree with your assertion that he has been a champion of gun rights in the past and perhaps still is. My point is that his answer of the “assault weapons” question was either disingenuous or evasive, in either case: unacceptable. Part of his answer regarding gun regulation in general, he stated “I did support red flag laws even though there are some constitutional rights issues”. His words not mine! I find that also unacceptable. It’s not unlike saying I don’t want to rip a giant hole in your roof, I just want to make some punctures here and there, so you’ll stay mostly dry, but you may get a bit wet. Where does it end once you start? Scott certainly started it when for whatever reason he signed that disastrous bill in his first term…guaranteeing that he would never get my vote again, and he hasn’t. Rodgers needs to explain and/or retract his statement and he also needs to retract his support for red flag laws and pledge to reversing them, which is likely impossible at this point. I’m tired of the lessor of two evils philosophy, evil is still evil! If that means I continually vote for candidates that likely have no chance of winning, so be it…it’s not my fault, I’ve not missed voting once since I began in 1979.
If people in rural areas own guns to “stay safe” (wordcraft witchcraft,) the people living in the cities own guns for what purpose? Here’s a question no one will answer – why do criminals have so much access and possess so many guns? Particulary in gun-free zones? The only weapon cache the government is worried about is the ones owned by law-abiding citizens. The veil has lifted. Done with any fake authority mandating laws to remove God given rights – the right to defend property and life. Taking that away means capitulation and it won’t stop until all rights are surrended by lawfare warfare. See Austrailia and UK for more details.
In light of piles of bricks layed out for civil disobedience by spook assets and caches of weapons delivered to sleeper cells looking to take us all out – as reported by the FBI – there is no question Americans know being armed is the only means of defending against the enemies – of which there are too many to count these days.
Two points, Jonathan. 1) I don’t think John Rodgers is a lesser of two evils. He’s quite solid on 2A rights as his track record shows. 2) You may not like voting for what you perceive as the lesser of two evils, but elections and this election are binary choices. So, you can undermine a truly solid 2A supporter in Rodgers because you want nit-pick his phrasing of an issue in a timed debate and open the door for a lunatic who will openly state — and will certainly act on if given power — his intention to confiscated your semi-automatic firearms. Or not. One of these choices seems infinitely smarter to me, but you’re free to be you.
@Roper His track record shows he’s a criminal! He conspired to violate our rights by voting in ILLEGAL red flag laws that have documented innocent people being killed over, and he openly admits there are “constitutional issues”, so he is not only a criminal, but he is knowingly committing crimes, of which, are the highest of crimes possible to commit.
Government’s failure to rid society of known dangerous people is no excuse to take shortcuts and violate the law. The law is not optional. Our rights are not optional.
No compromise. They are all a bad “choice”! But sure hold your nose and pick the lesser of 2 criminals if you must.
Wow, a republican wants to ban “assault rifles”. But then again, this is Vermont. AR-15 platform rifles are the most popular long guns in America. Their versatility in customization and caliber selection far out weigh the potential misuse. It’s way past the point where Constitution loving Americans will dutifully turn in or fall for a “buy back” program. This whole issue of banning certain firearms is nothing but verbal diarrhea.
Steve, this article is extremely misleading. John Rodgers does not want to ban AR-15s. I’m pretty sure he owns one. He is probably the most 2A friendly elected official to serve in Montpelier. You want to see where he’s fought for 2A rights, check out this article in 7 Days from 2018. https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/04/10/pro-gun-vermont-sen-john-rodgers-considers-run-for-governor
I’m sure an unconstitutional move like this could be worded to include semiautomatic pistols as well (the gun grabber’s ultimate goal). The AR-15 is not sold to non-military purchasers in the “fully automatic version”. Then they’ll set their sights on the revolvers too. The only armed people in Vermont might end up to be the drug dealers the politicians enable to work their trade.
Yes, the bill Baruth pushed last session did indeed include semi-auto pistols. Zuckerman will back that bill. So do your research into what the two candidates’ actual records are on 2A issues. You will find they have nothing in common.
John: Disinformation seems alive and well. I became aware of John Rogers many years ago, and did find the gist of the article surprising. You all have an up hill battle before you.
There is no such thing as an “assault weapon!” People do the assaulting not the weapon or gun. What’s next knives, hammers, our hands.
It would be good to see John Rogers offer his own clarification of his positions here. He was obviously misled into making a semantic mistake. The word “automatic” is often used mistakenly as a verbal contraction, as in “.45 Auto”, which obviously refers to a semi-automatic handgun. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are used sloppily to refer to whatever the user wants it to refer to and have no real definition.
I googled automatic weapons. Vermont is not on the Federal listing to allow automatic weapon sales. The site lists the States that are Federally licensed. Any Vermont politician that discusses banning automatic weapons is either ignorant of the current Federal law or just using the tactic to further ban semiautomatic weapons.