by Brian Wheel
Supporters of S4 are willing to throw out constitutional protections of private property for all Vermonters. They say it’s necessary to reduce suicides and domestic violence killings.
Not to diminish the deaths of the poor 79 souls who committed suicide or the 8 people murdered in domestic violence disputes every year on average, but the gun wasn’t the core problem in any of those situations. It was mental health, poverty and/or some other awful condition. Mostly things the government is making worse not better.
Now what about the 620k+ other people who own property? Is the government going to stop seizure of property with just guns from people who may commit suicide or who may commit domestic violence? They can’t. They don’t know who to take them from. The deadly events haven’t happened yet. So this isn’t targeted at those who are certain to commit crimes, because that idea is preposterous.
Tell me when, if ever, the government has relinquished a constitutional right they’ve taken without a big, expensive Supreme Court case and the media behind it?
Here’s a novel idea.
Maybe instead of sending money to another nation (that may or may not be in bridled in a war that we may or may not have started), you could use that $620,000 committed to Ukraine to fund more mental health programs of which it’s difficult to even get an appointment for.
Maybe instead of giving people housing that don’t even live in this state yet, you can take care of the mental health of the people that live in the state.
Maybe you could lower taxes and fees and bring good jobs into the state. All of those things will help the mental health of the people living here and prevent many of these deaths.
Instead, legislators drive us nuts with this flipping nonsense. Just to put it out there and make sure everybody remembers:
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The definition of probable cause is: n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Notice the tense on probable cause, “has been committed” it is not “might be committed.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” and what part of “shall not be violated” do they not understand?
They’re not trying to protect those 87 people no matter what heartstrings they pull on you. They are attempting to disarm you so that they can impose more dystopian/draconian measures just like they demonstrated in the last 2 years.
I think that the people who voted for this should have all of their possessions forcefully taken from them by the people, so that they get reminded of why individual rights are so important, since they conveniently forget it every time they vote.
And for the record, my text above is covered under Amendment I.