Burlington city council votes to solve a problem that doesn’t exist

| January 8, 2013

I used to live in Vermont when I taught ROTC at the University of Vermont in Burlington, but I lived in St. Albans. There was a saying outside of Chittenden county that went; “the nicest thing about Burlington is that it’s so close to Vermont”. At the time, communist Bernie Sanders was mayor and there was a Republican governor and they were always at odds. Folks who live outside of Burlington are generally libertarian and scoff at the flatlanders who moved to Burlington from New York City – like Sanders and Howard Dean.

A local TV station reports that the Burlington City Council has voted to approve an assault weapon ban in the city even though none of the weapons they call assault weapons have been used in crime in the city;

Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling said most gun crime in the city involves hand guns, not assault weapons.

Burlington Police could not provide statistics on how many crimes involves assault weapons as that information was not readily available.

But the citizens of Burlington know;

“How many semi-automatic rifles have been shot in the city of Burlington with people injured? None,” said Bob Reid. “How many large capacity magazines were used in those rifles? None.”

Well, that doesn’t really matter, because all that’s important to liberals is that they be seen as “doing something” no matter that there’ll be no effect on the particular issue. It’s their intentions that are paramount.

Luckily, for the residents of Burlington, they’ll get a vote on the scary-looking gun ban in their city, but, they should fire their city council in the interim.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (78)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. UpNorth says:

    Still waiting, Joey. Come on, if you’re so intelligent, it shouldn’t be all that hard to come up with a definition of what you want to ban.

  2. PavePusher says:

    @ Joe #17: My AR15 is not an “assault rifle”. Learn your terminology, and the law, then get back to us, you tool-less wonder.

  3. Joe says:

    Not as bad as you poop your pants when military guys like McChrystal call for GUN CONTROL! BOO! Got scared for a second huh?

  4. NHSparky says:

    Frankly Joe, McChrystal is entitled to his opinion. And again, opinions are like assholes.

    So while he can blather on about his OPINION, I’ll keep the LAW. I win.

    See how that works, Joey?

  5. Reaperman says:

    @44 I (surprisingly) agree with that a bit. Really, rewriting the 2nd is the only valid way that I see to push gun control. Mind that I’m not on the side of gun control, and don’t sure see any major constitutional changes in the near future, but generally doing things the right way feels a lot more valid than backdooring them.

  6. Hondo says:

    Reaperman: there are two very good reason you’ll won’t see that tried. The first is the requirement for passage of any such proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congress. The second is the requirement for ratification of any such amendment by 3/4 of the states. Neither has the proverbial snowball’s chance, and our “liberal brethren” know that full well.

  7. 77 11C20 says:

    Of course according to Joe we will have to ban a rifle that holds fifteen 200 grain rounds in a tubular magazine that can fire all of the rounds in under 20 seconds, because it must be an assault weapon with those stats.

    Opps, it is a 1860 Henry lever action rifle, over 150 years old.

  8. 77 11C20 says:

    Hondo that’s why they never have tried the Constitutional way.

  9. Hondo says:

    77 11C20: correct, amigo.

    They’d also have to ban the Winchester 1873.

  10. USMCE8Ret says:

    @55 – The Constitution was written with the purpose that we adapt to it, not to the premise that it adapts to us. Think about it.

  11. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    No doubt the fine folks at the Al Gorezeera network will be happily covering this topic in the weeks ahead…

  12. MCPO NYC USN (Ret.) says:

    Outlaw matches and lighters … fire destroys buildings!

    On another note:

    Jo Jo … you are a quite the spokesman!

  13. Reaperman says:

    @56 oh I know that it won’t fly. It sure beats all of these unconstitutional ideas I hear floating around. All they will do is make some lawyers rich, waste lawmaker/court time, and maybe give politicians some fresh material for slinging at campaigns.

  14. cannoncocker says:

    haha, Joe’s got nothing and he knows it. His argument consists of “what-ifs” and childish name calling. And I love how he says that a Bushmaster is an assault weapon. No clue what Bushmaster is, no clue at all.

    I told you before Joe, if you don’t like what is in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, there’s an Amendment process for that. Use it or shut up.

  15. H1 says:

    Hanover NH was feeling left out.
    The money quote: She said “people are determined to defend their second amendment rights no matter what, and it’s very difficult to get people to change their minds.”
    Ya think?

  16. USMCE8Ret says:

    @26/David – I knew what you meant in your comment about Boulder being “Five square miles surrounded by reality”.

    I’ve posted a link to substantiate that:


  17. NHSparky says:

    H1–look at the institutes of “higher” education in Hanover and Keene, and tell me that there isn’t a high concentration of teh stoopid there.

    I’m on the other side of the state and have to deal with it coming out of Durham and Dover.

  18. H1 says:

    I typically wear my NRA hat when going down town to vote.
    Have yet to be polled on the way out, what a suprise.
    They take one look at me and stare at the ground.
    When I scan the voting center I can’t help but wonder how many of the college age voters in attendance are voting, twice.
    Until photo ID’s are required nationwide, we will never know.

  19. Reaperman says:

    @68 I kind of like the simplicity of an inked thumb over ID. It seemed like such a good idea when I saw Iraq doing it. It’s way cheaper to verify, still pretty hard to fake, and a little less big brotherish. Probably still need voter registration to keep the felons and foreigners out of the process or we could save some real cash.

  20. David says:

    Sparky – though Pemmy was frozen over?

    Joe – just out of curiousity, how would you rewrite the 2nd? I’m just curious since most of your ilk try to always say “well, it applied only to flintlocks etc” and ignore that the militia clause states that the eligible citizenry be well-armed: i.e arms similar to the military’s, and oh, no: that would be the closest civilian equivalent to an M4, right? Or do you feel there is no such thing as a militia? Or that they should not be well-armed? Please blather on… let’s hear you a) redefine the 2nd in such a way that all the rest of the Amendments still apply and b) hile you’re at it, define what you think an assault weapon really is? Try not to use the word scary… we’re mostly grown-ups here.

  21. Winter Soldier says:

    @ 69 – I had the same thought. Inked fingers are cheap. And, when the fight was on in MN this past fall about voter ID, I suggested it. Shockingly, all the whack jobs I live near were opposed to that as well.

  22. Hondo says:

    Reaperman, Winter Soldier: inked fingers only work when people can vote only in person on a single day. It doesn’t prevent people from voting twice if one of those votes is cast via absentee ballot obtained from another state or via early voting. That’s how many college students reputedly manage to vote twice – once at college, and once in their home state via absentee ballot.

  23. jonp says:

    I did not read all of the comments but as a life long Vermonter with family roots in the state going back to Ethan Allen I do have one thing to say. The Vermont Supreme Court has already spoken to this subject quite emphatically. There is no “home rule” in Vermont. This happened last time it was tried. Burlington’s opinion may make them feel all squishy and warm inside but has no basis in law and is nothing but fodder for the press and themselves.

  24. B Woodman says:

    IF (and that’s a mighty BIG IF) you and your ilk (look that one up) do manage to re-write or eliminate the 2A, and all my weapons are suddenly illegal, just remember this:
    “If the law does not protect me from thee, it no longer protects thee from me.”
    Words to think about (as deep or as shallow as you prefer).
    Not brag, not threat, just fact.
    How far can your head swivel?

  25. Anonymous says:

    It’s an unfortunate byproduct of the long term tourists who moved to Vermont because they saw an episode of Newhart. They believe in manipulating the mechanism of government to make futile, wasteful gestures instead of solving real problems with real solutions. In this case, the Vermont Constitution clearly says you have a right to a firearm, period. Not for hunting, not for target shooting, but to defend yourself. Additionally (and fortunately) Vermont lawmakers were wise enough to clearly forbid municipalities in state code from making laws relating to the ownership, possession, carriage or transportation of firearms.
    The next act of this little passion play will come with Town Meeting. Newspapers will breathless report that “Umpteen Vermont Towns vote to outlaw assault weapons and bad attitudes”. What they will fail to report, as with the impeachment votes a few years ago, is these measures are introduced “from the floor” at the end of town meetings by zealots who hold out for exactly that purpose. They generally are not included in warnings, or more importantly in absentee ballots such as those sent to servicemembers or the homebound, and are voted upon only by those who can physically attend the meeting. Vermont’s “perfect exercise in democracy” is actually a mechanism for disenfranchisement of those serving their country whose suffrage is dependent upon absentee ballots.

  26. jhstuart says:

    An interesting aside, several years ago Burlington, VT became only the 2nd or 3rd city to allow al-Jazeera access to the municipally owned CATV network. At the public hearings the commission allowed supportive comments from a diverse group of progressives including a member of a Iraq veterans group against the war. The individual in question admitted publicly that he and others who served in Iraq had willfully murdered innocent civilians (an NCIS investigation proved him to be a liar). Jokingly, Burlington is often referred to as the Peoples Republic.