|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Guy Page
VDC’s coverage of the VP lieutenant governor debate (“Both lieutenant governor candidates favor assault weapons ban,” October 10) stirred quite a bit of controversy among our readers, especially supporters of GOP candidate John Rodgers as Vermont’s next lieutenant governor.
At an October 9 Vermont Public debate, Rodgers was asked about whether he would support an assault weapons ban. He replied, “I don’t think anybody needs automatic weapons.”
VDC printed his remarks verbatim and led with the headline, ‘Both lieutenant governor candidates favor “assault weapons” ban.’
VDC asked the campaign for further comment the morning before the story ran, and did not receive a reply in the admittedly brief three-hour window. The following morning, Rodgers laid the issue to rest in an email: “Words matter. I said no one needs an automatic weapon. Currently in Vermont you cannot buy an automatic weapon legally. The answer is a troll on the question. They asked if we would ban assault weapons. In my mind an AR-15 semi automatic is not an assault weapon. I own several of them and would not support a ban on their sale.”
At our request, Rodgers called in to the Friday at Four podcast last week and clarified that he most emphatically does support the full right to own and use semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15, of which he owns several and uses as a deer hunting firearm of choice because of its ease of use.
In short, John Rodgers is firmly committed to the right to bear arms, he took pains to explain to our audience.
While VDC YouTube channel failed to load the podcast, the episode can be seen on our Facebook page.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Given the response to the previous “misunderstanding”, it is good to get this clarification from Mr. Rogers. Mixing up terms such as auto/semi-auto and assault weapon/assault rifle/assault-style weapon is commonplace either by ignorance, misunderstanding or an attempt at brevity. John Rogers is not ignorant about the issue. We can honestly believe that he actually owns firearms, knows how to use them, knows the laws and doesn’t just own them to score disingenuous political points like a certain presidential candidate. It is that candidate that has expressed in the past a desire to ban semi-automatic firearms, while recently admitting that she “owns a Glock”, a manufacturer that makes only semi-automatic firearms. Words and punctuation matter…for instance to distinguish between:
-let’s eat, kids
-lets eat kids
Rodgers did not mix up the difference between auto and semi-auto — the reporter for VDC did. That’s why the original story regarding Rodgers’ position was incorrect. The president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman, the former head of the Vermont Traditions Coalition, and the current 2A advocate/lobbyist for the VT Traditions Coalition have all backed Rodgers’ position and record on 2A, as well as the NRA. Seriously, what do you want?
Re: “Rodgers did not mix up the difference between auto and semi-auto — the reporter for VDC did.”
Not true, Rob. Rogers was asked a specific question “about whether he would support an assault weapons ban.” It was Rodgers’ answer that was ‘mixed up’ (i.e., misleading). Not the question.
None the less, thank goodness for VDC and its commenters sussing out the details. This is why VDC’s open forum is so important. At the very least, and while I may now be more inclined to vote for Rogers, it remains abundantly clear that we must carefully consider everything our politicians and their supporters say… word for word.
доверяй, но проверяй.
Trust, but verify.
The Lt Governor has the freedom to rebuild Vermont, to rebuild the VTGOP.
Yet nobody is talking about doing that! Oh no, not that.
Our governor has decided that having moderate democrats, who are pro second amendment, is the answer to a democratic super majority.
Our problem isn’t we have a spending problem. Perhaps the best interview ever, in a long time was of a democratic legislator on this site, who clear laid out, which many of knew,
Vermont has been taken over by lobbyists, non-profits and is run by 10 or fewer people. Those people are not working for the voters. So, who are they working for?
That is the white elephant in the room, nobody is willing to talk about, many in the VTGOP are unwilling to talk about. We think we lost with Take Back Vermont, well we lost a battle, but the war they were fighting was 100% correct. The reason we got shot at was because we were DIRECTLY OVER THE TARGET.
Be uncancellable, they we can take our state back. We need to stop carrying water for the marxist pimps of the United Nations.
Yes, Jay. The reporter apparently did not know that an AR-15, nor any semi-automatic firearm, is not an “assault weapon.” If he did, he never would have made the mistake of equating Rodgers’ and Zuckerman’s positions on the issue. The former does not favor banning semi-auto firearms of any kind and never has, and the latter favors banning semi-auto firearms of ALL kinds. Even a cursory look at Rodgers’ record on 2A should have made this error glaringly apparent.
What is an “Assault Weapon?”
Is a hammer an “Assault Weapon?”
Is a knife an “Assault Weapon?”
Is a baseball bat an “Assault Weapon?”
It takes a willing human being to use any “Assault Weapon.”
Sadly, many “Republicans” betrayed our best Candidate for Lt. Governor, Greg Thayer. Rodgers who has shown us how liberal he is by his past voting record, “suddenly” is no longer a Democrat and has declared himself a “Republican.”
Showing no Principles, many threw Greg to the curb and elevated Rodgers as some sort of hero for the Republican Party. How do some so easily and conveniently forget Rodgers past record? Is it that easy to become a Vermont Republican?
Why are we ignoring that Rodgers chooses to be a Marijuana Farmer? Is that a right and honorable occupation? That alone should show how un-Principled he is. Just because some in Vermont have made Marijuana legal, doesn’t change how damaging it is to the human brain; especially young developing human brains.
They, the uniparty in Montpelier are looking to conservative vermonters a false hope of picking a leader who will represent them and defend the constitution. They have us fighting over John Rogers, all the while knowing it will make no difference if he wins or loses, because nothing will change in Montpelier.
This is the classic skit of Charlie Brown, running to kick the ball, thinking Lucy will not take it away this time. And we fall for it again.
As clearly articulated, by an insider. Vermont is run by a group of 10 or less, along with lobbyists and nonprofits. They are not working for we the people nor defending our constitution.
Until we admit, realize and internalize this truth, we can’t change, because we don’t’ know the problem.
Nobody but one democratic legislator has even spoken about this problem. Certainly not in any debate or forum. It’s a really big problem.
I detest being lied to. Rogers clearly knows little about firearms. Particularly collector status of highly regulated, class 3/NFA examples. He’s lost my on-going, financial support.
Big Deal. A guy running for Lt. Governor is or isn’t against an assault weapons ban. If he isn’t the governor and the legislature passes one the only thing, he can do is avise Scott whether to sign it or not. If Scott signs it, it will be for the Commiecrat progressives that put him in office. If he vetos it, it will be overridden by the same Commiecrat progressives that put him in office. As VTbeliver questioned, “What is an “Assault Weapon”? It’s a matter of who is classifying what. What happens after they get their “assault weapon” ban? Will they then classify bolt action rifles with a scope a “sniper rifle”? See how this works.
Robert A. Heinlein: “There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men”.
David Zuckerman thanks you for your support. You have one of two candidates who supports the 2nd amendment and Vermont constitution, but you would rather lose to the other one who is moving toward a run for governor as soon as Scott bows out and who will be the poster boy for gun control in Vermont. There is no common sense left on the republican side of the isle. Rogers has no say in federal firearms law, but he does have here. I’m sure he understands that anyone can own a fully automatic firearm in America and that they are strictly controlled by the ATF and are prohibitively cost expensive for most people to buy. However, criminals could care less and can own them from the black market. Zuckerman has been waiting for his chance to run for governor and you two will assist him because as much as i like Greg Thayer, he is not going to win because a few of you wrote his name in. So, being stubborn will hurt Rogers and will help Zuckerman. Do you realize what you are doing? I don’t think you do!
Three reasons make the Lt. Governor a big deal, when needed.
1- Tie-vote breaker in Senate
2- Member of Committee on Committees
3- Fills Governor’s position when Governor unavailable- and succeeds Governor in event of death/incapacitation. Remember howard dean?
The Committee on Committees is the group that decides some very important issues. John Rogers might just be more representative of your views than zuckerman. Yes, it matters. If you are a one-issue voter- and gun control/2A rights is your issue- Rogers clearly is the only choice. He might just be the one that quashes a veto override attempt.
This will all be a moot point when the Supreme Court finds the Maryland “assault weapons” ban unconstitutional again as it did in the McDonald decision. Mc Donald is settled law.
McDonald v Chicago 2010 is a landmark Supreme Court case that is important to understand. In its most basic form, the decision dismisses the proposition that a State (e.g., NY, IL, CT) or lower government (e.g., Chicago) can supersede or ignore the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment.
“None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”
This ruling clarifies the principle that Americans can keep and bear arms that are equivalent to those in common use by the National Guard, which the court considers an example of a “well-regulated militia.” We have a RIGHT to the SAME arms and accessories issued to the National Guard that they use in defense of the United States.
The National Guard’s rifle of issue (and rifle in common use) is the 5.56×45mm (.223) M16A2 a lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed, shoulder or hip-fired weapon designed for either automatic fire (3-round bursts) or semiautomatic fire (single shot) through the use of a selector lever and has a magazine capacity of 30 rounds. Civilians can only own (except with the purchase of a special tax stamp from BATFE) the semiautomatic version called the M15 or AR15 not the M16 military rifle version. The present pistol of issue to the U.S. Army is the Sig Sauer P320- M17 or Sig Sauer P320-M18 in 9mm with a 17 Round magazine. The Vermont National Guard uses the Sig Sauer P320- M17
Donald L. Cline: A free citizenry does not ask its governments’ permission to exercise a right. It does not register its exercise of a right. It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, or the right to due process, or the right to be secure from being compelled to waive a right in order to exercise a right, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms which government does not have the authority to issue or deny in the first place. It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed. It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary. In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government receives its Consent to Govern. A free citizenry respects, honors, and protects the lawful rights of others, by force of arms, if necessary, else liberty cannot be preserved for anyone.
Donald L. Cline: A State government that exercises any power prohibited to it by the Constitution of the United States as amended is by definition a rogue occupation government and criminal regime. Its authority is null and void and no one is bound by any rule of law to obey its prohibited color of law.
Sure, we are in agreement that unconstitutional laws are a violation of our civil rights. But try to explain all that to a judge in Boston or New York and see how that works out as they arrest you as a felon for crossing the state line with a firearm that is legal for you to have in Vermont but not in NY or Mass. Offer the judge a few quotes, see if that helps. The reality isn’t what you present and all the bravado on the keyboard doesn’t change a thing. You wrote in Greg Thayer who I have also voted for in the past, but he will not win. You just helped Zuckerman. This is exactly why change doesn’t happen in Vermont. The pure conservative you are seeking will not win here so keep on losing elections. Like someone else said, half of a republican is better than a full progressive.
It’s a false choice.
They are both uniparty.
Nobody is talking about rebuilding Vermont, so it won’t happen, it can’t, it’s not even in the vocabulary for God’s sake.
And most certainly nobody is talking about rebuilding the VTGOP, shudder the thought, so that won’t happen either.
If you think John Rodgers, one man, is going to change Vermont politics you are smoking too much of his product.
Arguing about it shows everyone you don’t have a grasp of the real problem. It show the uniparty has already won. No change for Vermont in 2024, wanna take that bet?
Yeah, thought so.
I will vote my morals. will not vote for anyone that does on espouse 100% conservative constitutional values. I am a 3% Oath Keeper. If Zuckerman gets in by one vote because I wrote in Greg Thayer so, be it. I will not comprise my values to vote for someone that has no regard for my values. This is how Phil Scott gets elected, because he’s slightly better than who he’s running against and then sells us out. I know what Zuckerman and all the commiecrat progressives are and what their agenda is about. I would rather be shot in the front than be stabbed in the back. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better. Case in point, the nation is waking up because things got so bad in the United States under Biden. Trump may not win Vermont, but he will win in an electoral landslide and things will get better. The same for Vermont.
It isn’t a surprise when you are stabbed in the back. The surprise come when you turn around and see who is holding the knife. I’m thru with voting for people who later stab me in the back.
“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.”
“Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any break of morality.”
Ayn Rand
I still stand by what I said the last time I replied to the article about Rodgers and guns last week.
First of all, Rodgers’ premise is faulty because “need” has zero to do with this discussion. We are free in Vermont and the US to purchase things—not because somebody is looking over our shoulder as the arbiter of what we need or don’t need—but because we want them. Who is John Rodgers to tell me what kind of gun I should need or want?
Secondly, he’s still wrong about the legality of purchasing/owning/and possessing automatic weapons n Vermont. They are as legal as purchasing other weapons, albeit there are a few different hoops to jump through and an extra $200 tax to Uncle Sam. Why does he say such things?
The article also says that “he most emphatically does support the full right to own and use semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15, of which he owns several and uses as a deer hunting firearm of choice because of its ease of use.“
Does the converse then apply in Rodgers’ thinking? Does he NOT emphatically support the right to own and use fully automatic weapons?
I want to believe the best about this candidate, but his lack of clarity, and perhaps ignorance, on this issue causes me to have some misgivings about what he would do down the road.
Remember, who in the world would have ever imagined Phil Scott would cave to the voices of fear and stupidity about firearms and various features and capacities pertaining to them?
Okay, do you understand Mr. David Zuckerman clarity on the gun issue? He is completely opposed to them. Do you have the clarity of every candidate running in this election? How does allowing Zuckerman to be elected help your position on firearms in Vermont? I can’t believe the people that will denigrate Rogers and allow the total opposite on guns to win when you know who he is and what he’s capable of if he gets to be governor. You have two choices, and you can throw your vote away on a write in that ill not win so you are helping the candidate that will do everything to ban your firearms, brilliant!
VIP1: We’re not questioning Zuckerman’s politics. We’re not debating whether or not we have two choices (although we do have more than two choices – but I digress). We’re discussing the clarity and specificity of John Rogers’ stated positions. I don’t care what Zuckerman says and does. His political horse left my barn years ago. While I appreciate this clarification from Mr. Rodgers, I remain concerned that he is as inarticulate as he has been. Hopefully, Mr. Rodgers will do better in the future.
BTW, regarding the whole “assault weapons” label, it should be noted that the phrase was originally popularized in 1988 by a hardcore gun ownership control advocate by the name of Josh Sugarmann. He is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center and believes in the full ban of handguns and semi-automatic rifles.
Besides running that highly skewed organization and writing a couple of pro-gun ownership control books, in 1988 he published an anti gun-oriented study where he kept referring to semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons.” The phrase caught on by the antis and used to try to destroy gun ownership in this country.
Maybe next time the fake “journalists” at VP ask Rodgers about “assault weapons” he will ask them for the definition before answering.
So, at VDC’s request, Rodgers called into the Friday at Four podcasts last week and clarified that he most ” emphatically supports” the full right to own and use semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15………. clarifying his response, but then again he is a politician, and I remember what Scott told me, and then what he did, that’s when he lost my respect. Is Rodgers going to do the same, or is he a man of his word?
So now this is my quandary, is it the Rodgers of last week, or the new Rodgers of this week ??
I have a few choices, as a long-life conservative, do I go with Rodgers ( R/D ) or the
Progressive, Zuckerman, ” who really hates firearms “, oh yeah, or a “NO ” vote, and let the Stupid Majority keep destroying the state from within !!
I want Vermont to get back on track, Rodgers may help with that, but Zuckerman will keep turning it into a cesspool
Rodgers is the real deal on 2A, IMHO.
The only appropriate response to the original question is there’s no such thing as an assault weapon. Any 2A person should know this. Any 2A person should also know that it is possible to own an automatic weapon with a tax stamp they’re just prohibitively expensive for most Vermonters.
I’ll agree that he’s better on gun rights than zuckerman, but in the end all we’re doing is hiring another Phil Scott. That just doesn’t make me happy, in fact I’m relatively sure that with this specific race I’ll feel dirty leaving the voting booth…
Guy I agree with you but…If we want to turn into one issue voters like the democrats then Rogers is your guy. The problem is it is just one issue, there are so many others we need to address and I do not believe he is up for voting straight ticket R, which is what we need not another Scott who votes with the wind. Again if Scott wants me to vote for he and Rogers he needs to come out and support Trump. But we all know that will not happen…..
Scott reiterated Monday that he would not vote for Trump. But when asked if he would vote for Harris, he declined to commit. I suspect John Rodgers takes the same position. These guys have a habit of equivocating. It’s the dark underbelly of most politicians. The question that must be asked now of Governor Scott and John Rodgers is; will they accept Trump as their President if Trump wins the election?
Responding to Jay,
I’m sure you realize that Trump is not going to win in Vermont. So, pledging allegiance to Trump as a politician is foolish and a danger to candidates because of those who won’t vote for the candidate for that reason alone. A vote is a private matter. I will not vote for Scott because of what he did to the people who supported him. However, Rogers has not betrayed me as a republican #1 and #2 my mission is to stop Zucherman from his quest for governor.
Rogers stepped away from the D party. I have friends that have done the same. All the gibberish about not voting for Trump in Vermont is a fools arrand. I really don’t care who Rogers votes for because Zuckerman will win if stubborn conservatives play the “he’s a RINO or a trojan horse” candidate. I trust Rogers to be a Vermont constitutional protector and a 2nd amendment supporter. Voting for a write in candidate is a vote for Zuckerman, a Massachusetts trust funder progressive who invites females into his office to hand out feminine products and hands out dirty carrots to kids at parades. He also supports pornographic books in school libraries and called it a book banning tour to promote those books in schools.
I was born in Vermont almost 75 years ago. I want to see these progressives beat at every election. They have destroyed Vermont. I will trust Rogers with Vermont. You need to realize that Trump is a dirty word in Vermont. I’m voting for Trump and I’m also voting for Rogers to stop Zuckerman’s quest to be Vermont’s governor. Rogers isn’t Phil Scott. You shouldn’t judge him on that basis.
I
VIP1: Not only are you missing my point, you’re doing your best to conceal it.
No one, certainly not I, ever said or ever implied that Trump would win the Vermont vote. No one, certainly not I, ever said voting wasn’t a private matter. And what John Rodgers means to you is also beside the point.
I want to know where John Rodgers stands on the issues. And it’s like pulling teeth to find out because Mr. Rodgers, and his supporters like you, continually obscure our questions by changing the subject (i.e., moving the goal posts). You are all consummate politicians. Equivocation seems inbred in almost every candidate, regardless of party. And THAT is the problem I have with ‘parties’ and with John Rodgers.
What does it mean to step away from the Democrat Party in a State like Vermont where 2/3rds of the voters are registered Democrats? Out of the pan and into the fire? I don’t care what his or your party affiliation is. I want to know what policies Rodgers supports. When Rodgers misled us (intentionally or by mistake) with his remark about ‘automatic weapons’, I became suspicious. I’m still suspicious. I think John Rodgers is a big government politician.
Does that mean I’m going to vote for Zuckerman? Hell no. And I find it insulting for people like you to accuse me of considering (or enabling) a vote for Zuckerman just because I want to know where John Rodgers really stands. After all, when asked by VT Digger last July:
Do you support imposing new taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters?
No answer
Do you support the establishment of overdose prevention centers?
No answer
Do you support a ban on flavored tobacco products?
No answer
What would you do to help grow Vermont’s economy?
No answer
What changes, if any, would you make to the way Vermont funds its schools?
No answer
Is Vermont doing enough, too much or not enough to address climate change? Please explain.
No answer
Is Vermont doing enough, too much or not enough to regulate gun ownership? Please explain.
No answer
What would you do to help ease Vermont’s housing crisis?
No answer
How would you address rising homelessness in Vermont?
No answer
What would you do to increase access to health care services for Vermonters?
No answer
https://vtdigger.org/profile/john-s-rodgers/
Go to Rodgers’ website and show me the answers to the above questions. I want to vote for Rodgers. Anyone but David Zuckerman. But I’m sorely disappointed by Rodgers’ lack of specificity. Go to his web site and show me the answers to the above questions. He sounds like Kamala Harris with her go to response that he grew up in a middle-class family.
When you and Rob Roper, Guy Page, and others, say John Rodgers is ‘the real deal’, it seems to me that you’re all ‘dealing’ from the bottom of the deck until proven otherwise. Prove me wrong.
Amazing, do we give him a prize?
Political and public opinion is irreverent. The right to bear arms is not something optional that can be decided or voted on one way or another. This is the law whether you like the law or not. – Should always be the response to this question.
Conspiring politicians that break the law need to be imprisoned. Just the same for politicians that vote in illegal gun confiscation schemes that have a history of killing innocent people and proven to be ineffective at protecting anyone.
Could we please get clarification on Rodgers support of S.3? I think I remember he had an emergency that day. I think I misread the Yea part thinking it was Yea for the actual bill. I’m surprised no one has corrected me.
Bill Question Vote Pass/Fail Details
S.3 Shall the bill pass? Absent Pass Details
S.3 Shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment? Yea Pass Details
I will vote for Rodgers, that’s fine. It’s not like I’m signing a prenuptial agreement or something.
“The Vermont lieutenant governor’s main responsibilities include acting as governor when the governor is out of state or incapacitated, presiding over the Vermont Senate, casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate when required, and acceding to the governorship in case of a vacancy.” -wiki
It is still amazing to me that a person who, quote, unquote, owns an AR-15 and espouses he is a hunter, gun owner etc., would make such a catastrophic Freudian slip of referring to an “automatic” weapon in relationship to a semi-auto AR-15. This was a lightning strike in the realm of firearms discussion. Comments about such an egregious error is common among antis, the uninformed and those with an obtuse political agenda.
To own a fully automatic firearm requires a ATF application, a $200 transfer fee, and a deep criminal background check. This has been the law in the U.S. for 90 years under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Once you successfully clear the background check, you get to attempt to locate a fully automatic firearm that meets the restrictions of the 1986 National Firearms Act. This act governs the taxes, and type of automatic firearm you are eligible to purchase/possess. Then, bring your hard-earned cash to the table at a Title III firearms dealer. The cost will range between a minimum of $6K and $40K+.
In that same article it seems that I remember reading where one of the candidates made the ridiculous comment that “we need to know who is purchasing guns”! Was that comment saying those druggies who buy them on the street need to identify themselves before buying a gun? You will never solve that problem until you enact a law specifying that anyone possessing such a gun (purchasing) and is caught with that gun will face a mandatory 10-year (or more) sentence with no possibility of early release, no exceptions. Of course, the legislature doesn’t have the stones to pass something like that! Our liberal prosecutors would find a way around it like their S.O.P. of catch and release gambit.
Obviously, another answer to knowing “who is buying a gun” shows the questioner has quickly forgotten recent Vermont legislation of “be all, end all” new laws that were going to solve all gun issues. Does that mean the new laws are not working as argued by the Dems/Progs and that these new laws are a small inconvenience needed to stop gun violence in Vermont. The new laws promised, (i.e., Universal Background Checks, a 72-hour waiting period, etc., red flag restrictions) provide little to no impact on illegal gun purchases, and possession period!
Bad guys are much smarter than our politicians. Criminals know to never expose themselves to such obvious restrictions. The benefits are not quantifiable and are ineffective and contradict the promises of our uninformed and rabid anti-gun legislators here in Vermont who think that Vermonters just need that “one more law” to make us all safe. For over the last 30 years we have been bamboozled with this malarkey! Enough!
Bottom line, if you don’t vote for Rogers, you get Mr. Trust funder, progressive from Massachusetts. All your words don’t matter. People who follow the subject already know all that. The point is, you know who Zuckerman is and what he stands for. Use some critical thinking. There’s only one candidate who will support our rights under the Vermont constitution and that’s not Zuckerman. If you do a write in candidate, you may as well for the progressive because that’s who will win.
Thank you for the important clarification.
John has my vote.
When I first saw the VDC’s story on the Lt. Gov.’s debate on the “assault weapons” question, I immediately contacted John, as I knew it was going to hurt his campaign. John told me that he was not referring to AR-15 type weapons and that he owned them himself and deer hunts with them. After a conversation on the issue with John, my confidence in his defense of the 2nd Amendment, the AR-15 issue, and his stand on our Vermont gun rights was still rock solid.
I am a lifelong conservative Vermonter who has owned guns for over 65 years and who also owns an AR-15. I am also well aware of the ability of law-abiding Vermont and American citizens to own a fully automatic weapon, pending all of the strict requirements that have to be met to obtain one. That said, to me the issue here, and with John and other political candidates, is not getting into all of the fine details of owning a fully automatic weapon. Most politicians and the public at large don’t know the details either.
The mistake that John made during the debate, and one that a prior VDC commenter also remarked on, is that John should have asked for clarification on just what they meant by an assault weapon. This would have eliminated John falling into the trap set for him, either on purpose or because of ignorance by the debate commentator. However, I am sure the pressure of being in the middle of a televised debate prevents even the most seasoned debater from being able to see all the pitfalls coming at them as questions are put to them. I am giving John a pass on this mistake.
Bottom line, if you believe in the 2nd Amendment, then you are willing to vote for that candidate who also does in hopes that they will be able to protect that right. However, if you are the type of person who gets all bent out of shape because John either didn’t know or didn’t fully explain all the details surrounding the issue, then you will either refuse to vote for them or not vote at all. Either way, you will be giving your vote to the candidate who will not protect your 2nd Amendment rights. The AR-15 issue goes hand in hand with our 2nd Amendment rights.
The other dangerous element that enters into this issue is the Trump factor. The Vermont GOP has gotten involved in the Trump fight to its detriment. Vermont will never give Trump or any Republican presidential candidate our 3 electoral votes. Ain’t happening and probably won’t happen…ever again! If Jesus Christ himself ran for president on the Republican ticket, Vermont would give our 3 electoral votes to a Democrat or a Progressive. We need to stop this infighting about Trump. Vote for him if you want, but vote for a Vermont Republican candidate, regardless of whether or not he or she says they are not voting for Trump. Don’t cut off your nose to spit your face. We need to win Vermont political seats and not some foolish argument about national candidates. Let’s Get Real!
I have known John Rogers for some time. We have discussed Vermont politics when he was still a Democrat, an old time Democrat that you hardly see anymore and won’t see much longer. He was driven out of the Democratic party by their Progressive agenda. Like most politicians, John won’t always agree with you on every issue. I have found that to be true with our own Republican politicians that I like and respect and vote for. There is an advantage to having John become a Republican. Let’s take advantage of it.
Republicans and moderate Democrats need to vote for John Rodgers for Lt. Gov. If we allow Zuckerman to become Lt. Gov. again, he will be our Governor soon. If you think things can’t get worse in Montpelier than they are now, wait until that happens!
Vote for John Rogers for Lt. Governor. I plan to.
Seriously folks, does it actually matter what a politician or bureaucrat says during selection season? It’s selection season, the politician is suddenly honest, believeable and transparent? No, they are competing for a seat on the board of the Corporation – they will do or say anything to grease their wheels and leave yours dry as a grave yard bone. Take a 40,000 ft view of the State of the Union and the State of the State over the past two decades. What did they do in 2020 and 2022? What did they do this selection season by inserting a candidate with no votes? If you genuinely believe your vote matters at this juncture of full on criminal corruption from top to bottom, the belligerent occupation continues unabated as no one has the guts or the will to full on challenge it or put it down.
Kudo’s for Vermont Daily Chronicle and Guy page not only correcting themselves but giving an accurate portrayal of time frame for response from candidate etc.
Rodgers can most certainly be pro 2a, article 16, but his answer if very troubling, rightfully so for many. He could have answered this in many other ways that would not have offended and shown support.
Instead, he chose, nobody needs. That is perhaps more troubling.
Nobody needs a car that exceeds the speed limit.
Nobody needs a house above 1100 sq.ft.
Nobody needs to go on an airplane.
Nobody needs….that shows other signs.
Nobody needs to smoke dope either, but there you go.
What no candidate for Lt. Gov is talking about is how to rebuild Vermont. How to rebuild the VTGOP. That is deafening silence for many of us. Our Governor has decided to recruit more democrats reduce the democratic majority.
Vermont’s underlying problem isn’t that we have democrats running the show with little regard or poor money management skills, as would be suggested by the actions of top leadership in the VTGOP.
The most telling question in the interview was would you vote for Trump. That is the sign that you are owned, by the Montpelier Borg. Notice nobody is saying who they will vote for, just not Trump. Nobody is saying I think so and so would be a good candidate. Zuckerman was truly gleeful in getting Rodgers to admit this. This is the price of admission for getting into Montpelier, you must surrender all thought and deed to the greater cause, which is, carry water for the NWO, the United Nations attempt to run Vermont as their first marxist run colony in the United States.
No talk of censorship
No talk of cancel culture
No praise to VDC for having open commentary,
These things would show they are looking for chinks in the marxist armor, to which there was no such indication.
Nobody is talking about rebuilding Vermont. Like we don’t have problems. There’s talk of “wasting your vote”……well nobody is even talking about making changes in Vermont, so until then it doesn’t matter whom you vote for because it is a waste.
Marxism is a problem, and it’s the biggest problem in Vermont.
Take Back Vermon was directly over the target, hence the push back.
We are part of the United States, we should be grateful and join the others.
A marxist is interested in two statements of late.
Will you deny and denounce Donald Trump?
Will you say the words Jesus Christ.
Now these two individuals are clearly not in the same universe, however, they are the arch enemies of those who support marxism, and follow his teachings.
Look to whom the book Rules for Radicals is dedicated, their words, not mine.
Reveals more than people may be willing to acknowledge.
The teaching in Rules for Radicals go against the foundational thought and practice of Western Civilization, not a coincidence.