Posted on 03/12/2013 6:15:33 PM PDT by marktwain
Can poor people be trusted with guns? Overwhelmingly, Republicans thinks so. But while Democrats fight against taxes on the poor and oppose voter photo IDs because they impose too much of burden, they seem to be doing everything possible – from fees, expensive training requirements, and photo IDs -- to make it next to impossible for the poor to own guns.
Indeed, legislation in at least 17 states around the country is aimed specifically at making it more costly to own a gun. Democrats are voting in mass against exempting the poor from fees when it comes to guns. New Yorkers aren't alone facing everything from registration fees to buying liability insurance.
That's too bad, because many law-abiding citizens, particularly minorities in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. There is little doubt that the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crime – again, overwhelmingly poor blacks in urban areas -- are also the ones who benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.
Apparently, Democrats believe that the right to self-defense is something that only belongs to the wealthy.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Can poor people be trusted with guns?
They’re probably more trustworthy the Federal or State Agents.
A poor person can be trusted more with a gun than a rich person can be trusted in government.
Well, at least you'll be able to feed your family when the SHTF.
The inside the beltway crowd, metro NYC, and LA will be dead in a week.
Don’t forget Old Folks on fixed incomes.
The one good thing coming out of this is they are finally being honest about their true goal. Never again can they deny they seek to ban all firearms.
What a stupid question - to the headline.
BTTT!
RR, I was once a very wealthy man until my Cajun hull with attached 115 hp Johnson hit a submerged tree. The hull survived (damned fine boat: wish they still produced), spent a shear pin, and lost everything except the tackle in the locker.
The bankers and the politicians who have proven that they are not to be trusted with the economy are opposed to poor people having guns.
Considering the fact that poor people by and large live in high crime areas, I would say they need guns.
If I only had some snorkeling gear (and wasn't afraid of gators), I might be able to dig my weapons and ammo up out of the moss at the bottom of the swamp.
Of course, they're worthless by now.
Hunting in the swamp never came to any good tho, did it?
You are kidding, right? To the left, Orwell's 1984 is like a Bible. The ability to lie to themselves is one of the most prized of all!
I think one of their favorite stories is the one that goes: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
If it were not for the ability to deceive, the left would have nothing.
What you probably mean, and I agree with, is that their *plausible* denial of their true goal is now harder....
But you know, and I know, that flat out lying in the face of absolute evidence, is very common on the left, and they seldom even get called on it.
HEY, I’m trying to be more optimistic dangit.
We’ve got some good folks out there taking the message to blacks. (since they make up a large proportion of the poor)
Rick Ector posted this video yesterday promoting a product but he says some good things to say about armed women in Detroit and the need for options other than police for self protection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QL8r9mwGJz0
pfl. I was just thinking this morning how odd it is that libs flip out at the idea of showing an ID to vote, but it seems perfectly normal to them to require us to show an ID to exercise our inalienable right to life.
Some people can also afford to appeal in lawsuits, have records expunged, etc. Remember that much of the remaining middle class will probably fall from the economy before long, too (lacking enough manufacturing for revenues to support anywhere near so much debt). Since the ‘90s, we’ve seen quite a few incremental steps toward effectively shutting down Second Amendment rights for all—one group at a time.
On Republicans, watch the compromises ahead.
Another point: look at the incomes of the families of Holmes and Lanza.
Let’s not forget that at the same time, they are doing everything in their power to make sure All of US become Poor.
Sure.
But only if a) the Second Amendment isn't illegally deleted and b)The "stand your ground" and the "Castle Doctrine" become universal and immune to challenge.
It's almost like dems want the poor broken, frightened and dependent... (which of course they do...)
better yet, can only the rich elite and official government run military be trusted with guns when noone else can own them? Let’s count the countries where just such scenarios played out
I went to Wall-mart today to buy bullets. They had none so I went to a well known
, high priced, gun store. I stood in line over an hour and still got no bullets.
What is going on?
I seem to recall the USSC voided inexpensive poll taxes as infringing on the right to vote. Could they strike down these expensive costs as infringing on 2nd Amendment rights as well?
Sounds like some newsy is trying to hunt down some gimmicky trend topic for the Fox talking heads today, I hate it when MSM morons come to forums asking stupid nonsensical questions.
The armed poor are criminals.
There ya go. I fixed it.
I think it's a good guess that it won't be the result of starvation, either.
“Poor People?.... By labeling people for this purpose, we take for granted they have no sense of responsibility or need for a weapon. Certainly the intercity poor have defferent needs for protection than do country people who also are “poor”. I know several rural people who are struggling and by some standards are considered “poor”. Yet, few if any of these people go around shooting or killing their neighbors just for the funo f it. Rural poor, actually use their guns as tools for survival (yes they do). I think it unfair to label a person poor and then take away his/her rites to survival.
Especially since they required one to attend their convention.
Hypocrites all.
“legislation in at least 17 states around the country is aimed specifically at making it more costly to own a gun.”
The lines of division for CW II are becoming more clear everyday.
I guess Zero will just have to make ammo a permissible purchase with an EBT card.
I’m still trying to find this ‘Right to vote’ myself.
Poll tax = NO, but a license, registration fee, stamp tax (and possibly ammo taxes) = A.O.K.??
I wish they’d finally bring a lawsuit up to the USSC and have them try to define ‘shall not be infringed’ along with all the existing laws....If abortion is a ‘right’ by the 4th, how is a license/stamp tax NOT an infringement??
Sorry to not have been clearer. In Chicago the laws and circumstances are such that the good poor are disarmed. Hence my statement that the armed poor are criminals.
Either they really are criminals or they have been criminalized.
Well, I figure if you fixed, (i.e.: get rid of this tax and spend agenda that permiates all corners of our governmetn at ALL levels) that a rejuvinated economy would allow folks in a lower income bracket the ability to afford such armaments that they deem necessary to protect themselves against criminal activity...
By fomenting this destructive economic direction we are ALL in, the Fabian socialists are gaining more and more people dependent upon their existance...And the porrer you are the less likely you are looking at the overall picture in a proper perspective...
There was a recent article on all the anti-family regulation out there. The analyst, who I think was an economist, stated that individually they make little difference, but in the aggregate they really hurt families.
He went on to mention the requirement for car seats. It used to be that a family could fit 5 in a sedan - mom, dad and three kids. Not any more. To have the 3rd child means moving up to a more expensive minivan.
How did we get here without all the government regulation
if we were all dropping dead from liberty a generation ago?
Yup. THIS needs to be the argument which is made along with the fact that women are at a distinct disadvantage when not allowed to own guns. Use their own arguments against them.
All gun laws are unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.