If owning a gun is a right, should guns be subsidized for the low income?

[Kaleva]

I think many here would agree that a sizeable percentage of the people most in need of a gun for self and home defense are those who live in inner city areas with high crime and unemployment rates.

However, those very same people are often too poor to be able to afford to purchase a good quality gun, attend a safety class, buy ammo, and go to a gun range to practice and where they'd need to purchase more ammo.

[arendt]

1. I diaried this at Kos a few weeks ago

Let them eat lead

Last summer, the conservative Heritage Foundation tried to argue that if you own a microwave oven, you are not poor. This disingenuous argument was made to support even more vicious means testing to prevent poor people from getting any assistance. People pointed out that a microwave can be purchased for as little as $30, i.e., for less than a bottle of good gin.

With that in mind, let's go over the economics of gun ownership.

From what I have learned over the past few days, ammo costs about $0.25 per round; and bulk discounts kick in at 1,000 rounds or $250. Some posters on boards I frequent have said they regularly go through 1,000 or more rounds per week in target shooting. Right there, you are talking about spending $1,000 month on your hobby. That is almost a month's wages for someone making minimum wage.

Now, of course, if you are going to shoot that much, you want a decent gun. Again, from the last two days, I gather that Glocks cost about $500; and 100 round drum magazines cost about $100. I did not see a number for an AR-15; but I'm going to guess its in the same price range.

So, the buy in to be minimally armed for vigilante combat is $750 - $500 for the gun and $250 for some bullets. I'm not even counting the costs of going to a gun range or paying for licenses. Order of magnitude, for a person at the poverty line, that is about one month's disposable income. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that some poor person can afford to do this.

Can you imagine the outcry from the likes of the Heritage Foundation when that well-armed poor person runs afoul of the law in some "stand your ground" situation? The slander will start with the financial irresponsibility or criminal intent of such a purchase by such a person. It really does matter who does the shooting.

Not much comment there; but I will love to see the reaction from the Gungeon.

Ducking and covering.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. That what you said was patently false does not surprise me

The question is was in ineptitude or malicious falsehoods. Given your cute choice of adjectives, I think it is the latter.

Most shooters do not go through more than 50 rounds in a practice session and may get to the range once a month. In a competition, something very few ever attempt, you can use 1000 rounds in a week, but its not casual target practice.

A practical self defense handgun can be sold at retail for under $300, $200 if some of the repressive laws are removed. Monthly practice under $40. Standard magazines are just fine as well, and in fact preferred.

Despite your ducking and covering, your misstatements are clear

[arendt]

27. Well, you get points for responding to the economics.

I don't appreciate all the slander; but I will respond to the dollar numbers. (I just love how when someone disagrees with me, I use a "cute choice of adjectives". That's a cute, but pathetic, counter-argument.)

First, I didn't say most shooters go through 1000 rounds a week. But, clearly SOME do. And, when you take the "arms race" attitude to self-defense, those who don't practice( or practice less ) are at a disadvantage in a fight. Besides, I did not include that number in my budget. I just gave it as an example of what SOME gun owners are willing to spend.

Fine, I can get a gun that won't jam for $200, and I "only" need to spend $480/year practicing. That's still $680 vs the $750 that I gave as my estimate. Hardly any difference.

So, your rebuttal of my argument is what? That I made "misstatements"? Please.

[gejohnston]

40. get a .22

http://www.luckygunner.com/rimfire/22-lr-ammo

[Glaug-Eldare]

43. I see it a bit differently

First off, welcome to GC&RKBA!

As for the numbers, you're largely right -- firearms are not cheap, nor is ammunition. Guns are something most of us save up for, and we buy ammunition in bulk and on sale. Sad to say, but it's not likely that a poor household will be able to afford a quality gun and premium ammunition without scrimping and saving. Even then, they won't be able to afford to go to the range and practice very often. Permit fees are a major hurdle for the poor (as they're designed to be). That's just how it is, for guns, cars, houses, medical care, and clothes.

But even with a cheap gun, no-name ammo, and a handful of practice sessions through the year, that can provide a huge advantage. The "arms race" mentality doesn't exist between law-abiding gun owners. Except in exceedingly rare cases, the people investing hundreds or thousands of dollars in premium arms, magazines, training, etc. are not the ones committing violent crimes. The ones committing violent crimes have never trained, don't know the difference between steel and brass cases, and don't know how to maintain their guns. The poor Baltimorean with a Hi-Point and Tulammo FMJs has still improved his odds dramatically over the one without.

I don't mean to say that everybody should buy a gun, or that all guns are created equal, or even that everybody can afford to be armed -- only that the difference between being well-armed and poorly-armed is a lot smaller than the difference between being poorly-armed and unarmed.

As for what the Heritage Foundation has to say about it, they're hardly authorities on justice or truth.

[samsingh]

33. gun owners in the us are certainly repressed. there are not

enough guns out there you know.

these are the contined true falsehoods.

[gejohnston]

6. you have the prices right but one thing.

serious target shooters I know wouldn't waste money on the drum magazine. They are the ones that shoot that many rounds. Glock is not the only pistol maker around. I'd never own a Glock. Outside of Walther and CZ, I buy American. My Walther was in the $300 range and is a .22, shells are a lot cheaper. You need to do more research.

[samsingh]

34. i think the poster was referring to the research that the poster conducted.

[Kaleva]

10. A very interesting read

Also interesting is that a great number who commented on your diary did not address the main point your were trying to make.

[arendt]

28. Yeah. I'm trying to address that, one post at a time...

a thankless task, I'm sure.

I do appreciate your interest. Thanks for the thread. It let me post my diary in a low profile manner.

[gejohnston]

11. wait one more thing

I lost interest in your libelous and wretched screed on the third paragraph. I got some coffee and read

Can you imagine the outcry from the likes of the Heritage Foundation when that well-armed poor person runs afoul of the law in some "stand your ground" situation? The slander will start with the financial irresponsibility or criminal intent of such a purchase by such a person. It really does matter who does the shooting.

first, do have the slightest fucking clue what SYG is? Are you saying that anyone who defends their self is a criminal or vigilante? I don't know about the Heritage Foundation, but I have read faux liberals make that claim here.

[arendt]

18. Do you have a clue about history?

Plus, what kind of liberal does not know who the Heritage Foundation is? They are a hard right think tank. Your ignorance is really on display.

To help you get educated on history, here is some more of my Kos diary:

This, by the way, is not a prediction; it is history. When the Black Panthers legally walked around armed in California, back in the 1960s -

the gun laws in the State of California stated that you could carry a loaded gun out on the street so long as it was registered, not concealed, and not pointed in a threatening manner
- Huey P. Newton

the state of California passed a law banning the practice:

It began shortly after the shooting of Denzil Dowell. Easy Bay legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places so long as the weapons were openly displayed [see link to California Penal Code, Sections 12031 and 171.c]. What the Mulford law sought to achieve was the elimination of the Black Panther Police Patrols, and it had been tagged "the Panther Bill" by the media.
The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.

Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols,

PBS radio report

It is so inconvenient to remember that the first time a despised minority tried to exercise its gun rights, those rights were taken away by hard right politicos.

Does anyone really think that won't happen again? Liberals? Why, they are socialists, terrorist enablers, untrustworhty people. Minorities? See Huey Newton.

Gun rights, like every other "right" in this sick society, will be parcelled out to the "loyal" followers by the rich. That is one of the main points of my diary on the economics of gun ownership.

But, seeing as how you missed all my points

[gejohnston]

29. Actually I do know history

and I do know what the Heritage Foundation is, just what it had to do with your point escaped me. Your history lesson didn't tell me anything I didn't know.
Points are easy to miss if they are invisible or simply not there.

[arendt]

30. Its fascinating to watch people not connect dots...

Let me spell out the connection.

The HF villified poor people for owning a $30 microwave.

My statement is that, if they did that, they will have no compunction about villifying a poor person for owning a $200 or $500 gun. BTW "poor" is code for "minority".

Is that clear enough?

For further explanation, see the current DU diary: The Top Ten Differences Between White and Non-White Terrorists

[gejohnston]

31. aww but

the OP is talking about handing the guns out. That code and dog whistle only works in a few areas. Where I grew up poor meant poor, usually white and rural while inner city means poor, usually white and urban.

[arendt]

32. Now that is interesting (seriously)

Can you please tell me the region you are talking about?

Because I have never heard of a place in the US where "inner city means poor, usually white..."

I am serious because when you tell me such a place, I will go take the TV cameras there and use the footage of the locals bitching about the poor urban whites to rebut all the lying GOP code words about how urban poor always means non-white.

I can't wait to here where this place is. I googled the top 20 urban areas, and there are a few (bolded below) that might surprise me.

1 New York New York 8,244,910
2 Los Angeles California 3,819,702
3 Chicago Illinois 2,707,120
4 Houston Texas 2,145,146
5 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,536,471
6 Phoenix Arizona 1,469,471
7 San Antonio Texas 1,359,758
8 San Diego California 1,326,179
9 Dallas Texas 1,223,229
10 San Jose California 967,487
11 Jacksonville Florida 827,908
12 Indianapolis Indiana 827,609
13 Austin Texas 820,611
14 San Francisco California 812,826
15 Columbus Ohio 797,434
16 Fort Worth Texas 758,738
17 Charlotte North Carolina 751,087
18 Detroit Michigan 706,585
19 El Paso Texas 665,568
20 Memphis Tennessee 652,050

[gejohnston]

39. SLC

Omaha, places that were not destinations during the great migration or in the south.
Tampa is mixed.

[arendt]

42. Very interesting. Thank you. n/t

[rDigital]

16. Disgusting nonsense

Your prejudice is showing and that's a mighty broad brush you paint with. You try to force people into arguing economics when there isn't a single cogent passage in your entire driveling diatribe.

You're trying to sidestep reality and pound your viewpoint down the reader's throat. The police do not protect us individually. It has been settled in court that police have no duty to protect us and incur no civil or criminal liability if they fail to protect us. In a dangerous situation, police have orders not to enter a hostile locale. They are to wait for SWAT while whatever happens...happens. When your family is on the line in a home invasion scenario, the police might as well be on Mars because if you don't act immediately with appropriate force you may well be left for dead while the scumbags rob you, rape & murder your wife and children, then burn your house down (true story).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
There's only one surefire cure for sociopathy and its made by Smith & Wesson.

Remember, Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Liberty, is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Both are essential.

There are a lot of things we concede in the social contract, however, self defense isn't one of them. Self-defense is the first human right, because you have to be alive to enjoy the other ones.

[arendt]

19. You got nothing, but boilerplate.

You can't refute my economic points - which were the entire point of my diary.

So, you accuse me of "prejudice" of "forcing people to argue economics". Then you say I'm trying to "sidestep reality" when I bring up the hard economic reality of the price of guns and ammo. LOL you contradict yourself inside the sentence.

Then, its the boilerplate scare tactics that I specifically said (at the beginning of my diary) I refuse to discuss.

You got nothing, but ideology.

[rDigital]

44. Ok

Guns and gun control are a low hanging fruit and undefended target in most progressive circles, but you made the mistake of bringing it into the Gungeon.

Logic isn't ideology. Ideology is closer to religion. You label my argument with a negative moniker, because you can't refute it. You tried to control the terms of the debate, you lose. All you have are labels, go read 'Rules for Radicals' again, because you're doing it wrong. You wouldn't endure the semester in my classroom.

As far as economics, you can buy a Hi-Point 9mm for $130.00 (brand spankin' new, used for about $100)and a 50 count box of ammo for $13.00., you don't need a Cadillac for protection. I've had one for years, it's reliable and made right in Ohio. Anybody who REALLY wants a gun in this country can have one. Poor people have inexpensive guns and the rich have fancy guns and bodyguards. There's nothing new to see here. Your economic nonsense is a red herring for your real argument, gun control at any cost.

Do you really believe that people protecting themselves are "opting out" of police protection? You have not one shred of any evidence to support your conclusions. It's just another narrative and a feel good puff piece because you think guns are bad. You're trying to connect anti-gun sentiment with OWS sentiment to try and bolster your credibility. A failed toothless culture warrior with no sense of direction.

The only relevant fact you posted in the whole article supports that gun control in this country has racist roots (Mulford Bill).

The police are almost never at the scene of a crime. You ignore the FACT that police have no responsibility to you or me. You're on your own until they get there. Must be nice to live in your ivory tower of ignorance and safety. Here in the real world, proletarians of all stripes are responsible for our own families protection. The poorest of us live in the worst neighborhoods and need to protect ourselves more than most.

Also, it would be far more expensive for the rich to "raise their own armies" than it is to pay taxes and enjoy the greater police protection and attention that they always get. The .gov needs to protect its revenues streams, because Richy Rich will be out like a trout in the drought and find a new country if he doesn't feel safe. They will always have private security, but the amount they would need if the police were totally gone would be truly staggering. Instead of 2 or 3 personal bodyguards, they'd need a whole battalion. That's a lot of pockets to line and mouths to feed. It's not headed that way at all, government in the US is bigger and more powerful than EVER before. Living in a warzone really puts a damper on selling muffins and cappuccino.

The rich are protected by our .gov more than anyone, why would they want to ruin that? A peaceful free society is WAAAAY more profitable for the rich than a blighted Somali war torn shithole. Once again, the myopy shows itself. Dig a little deeper next time. The rich are smart, not suicidal. Why would they cut their own throats?

You talk about the Wild West. Did you know the WW never existed? Most frontier towns were hundreds of times safer than any modern US metropolis.
http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west

Also, nice Iraqi straw man.

You encase your lack of legitimate argument with class warfare double speak. You know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. Your bigotry couldn't be more glaring, and your ignorance can be seen a mile away. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but your vitriolic diatribes are nothing less than putrid misdirection and you need to be called out. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[arendt]

47. About what I expected from a hardcore ideologue.

I came here for the laughs. I don't expect to reason with people like you.

Your economic nonsense is a red herring for your real argument, gun control at any cost.

Way to read in something I never said, and neither did the OP of this thread. Your projection and paranoia are showing. The topic is paying for people to HAVE guns. Of course, paranoids can turn anything into a perceived attack.

You ignore the FACT that police have no responsibility to you or me.

Right. That's why we have public law enforcement, because they have no responsibility to the public. Do you know how wingnutty that statement sounds. It is boilerplate libertarian garbage. As I suspected, gun people wrap themselves up in libertarian cloth.

Also, it would be far more expensive for the rich to "raise their own armies" than it is to pay taxes and enjoy the greater police protection and attention that they always get.

You simply don't understand how the rich think. They will spend pots of money to cement their domination. They want to be king. They do not want to be questioned by any public servant. They want mercenaries kow-towing to them. They want to lord it over the peasants. From my politico-economic POV, your rational economic man argument for public police is pathetically naive and worshipful of the rich - who have lately mutated from capitalists to gangsters and pirates.

But that is clear from your off-hand dismissal of my POV:

You encase your lack of legitimate argument with class warfare double speak. You know absolutely nothing about the subject at hand.

As I said at the start, we live in two different worlds. You piss on mine; and I piss on yours.

You label my argument with a negative moniker, because you can't refute it. You tried to control the terms of the debate, you lose.

Excuse me. I posted the article. That, by definition, states the terms of the debate. It is you who steps into my frame and tries to control it with your made up fantasy paranoia. As for your earlier post, it was nothing but boilerplate. Again, by definition, boilerplate does not need refutation; it is already discredited.

So, try to keep up with debate 101.

But, don't waste your time with me. Cause I got better things to do than argue with paranoid ideologues.

[Skittles]

51. I give you points for trying, arendt

but people like that are in so deep their ears are covered

[gejohnston]

57. unfortunately,

Right. That's why we have public law enforcement, because they have no responsibility to the public. Do you know how wingnutty that statement sounds. It is boilerplate libertarian garbage. As I suspected, gun people wrap themselves up in libertarian cloth.

it is not libertarian garbage. I wish it were, but the law is the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

[arendt]

58. The district court of DC, a majority opinion by the fascist Scalia, and that crumb Rehnquist

They may be the law of the land; but they are not the law that any Democratic politican wanted then or wants now.

All these cases are clear examples of the callousness of GOP-appointed judges and the timidity of the Democrats who approve these assholes.

But, yeah, by the law you are correct.

That is sickening.

But it won't get better by arming everyone. What? You want to arm the kid being abused by his father so he can defend himself. What a shambles a country that did that would be. Kids shooting parents, parents shooting kids.

[gejohnston]

59. not arming everyone

that is something that is up to the individual situation and that individual. Personally, I would support amending the 1968 Gun Control Act to include those convicted of some violent misdemeanors (right now only domestic abuse is) and and animal cruelty (even as juveniles) being defined as "prohibited persons" under the act.
Of course firearms are not the only viable options. a good pepper spray works reasonably well. Of course neither is perfect or ideal. The Star Trek phaser on stun is yet to be developed.
I would prefer a situation where it would be legal but simply not customary because people feel safe enough like Vermont for example or the Czech Republic (like the part of Wyoming I grew up in, we all had guns, but they mostly were unloaded at home, didn't open carry although legal, didn't lock the doors) to, and have a strong social safety net to prevent problems. You might find this ironic, but that is how the "wild west" actually was. Yeah, Dodge City and a few places had drunken cowboys during cattle drives. Once the drovers sobered up and went back to Texas, Dodge went back to being Mayberry.

When I was a kid, one of my classmates did shoot his step-dad. Step dad was in a drunken rage and was beating the kid's mother to death, kid got one of her guns and abruptly ended the violence. It was ruled justifiable by the family court judge (him being a minor in 1968), even under Wyoming's duty to retreat law, (did not have a castle doctrine then, the one now is narrow and specific and nothing like Florida's or California's). That is not to say he grew up unscathed. You won't see him a gun show, but you won't see him at a Brady Campaign gala either.

[arendt]

61. A very interesting post.

I would be all for the de-escalation of self defense from lethality to non-lethality (pepper sprays, even tasers).

And, if it were not for the vast and decades-old propaganda campaign for ever more lethal weaponry, I could support "legal but not customary". That is how it seems to work in Canada.

I can appreciate your examples, but I could produce equally compelling counter examples.

The issue for me is the huge ideological network that has been put in place in the US to de-legitmize the police, to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later, to look the other way at the epidemic of abuse of minorities (NYPD stop and frisk, Oakland PD outright murder, Trayvon Martin and all the coded, racist Castle Doctrine bullshit, etc.). How far do you think a minority is going to get using a gun to defend himself against police violence?

Your post here is perfectly reasonable in 1960s Wyoming. It is not reasonable in Florida in 2012.

What have you got to say about the NRA, about the open trade in scratch buyers of guns for the Mexican gangs in Arizona?

[rDigital]

64. Fitting.

[IMG][/IMG]

[gejohnston]

66. that is not how it works in Canada

at least not since 1969. Any such defensive weapon is illegal for non LEOs in Canada.

The issue for me is the huge ideological network that has been put in place in the US to de-legitmize the police, to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later, to look the other way at the epidemic of abuse of minorities (NYPD stop and frisk, Oakland PD outright murder, Trayvon Martin and all the coded, racist Castle Doctrine bullshit, etc.). How far do you think a minority is going to get using a gun to defend himself against police violence?

Your examples are total nonsense. First, Castle Doctrine is not racist. It is based on English Common law and is also the norm in Canada. Stand Your Ground has been US common law since the Progressive era. Every claim about Stand Your Ground you have read in in Media Matters or the MSM is quite frankly, disinformation. None of them quoted the Florida law correctly. I hold my side to a higher standard, detest dishonesty from the progressive side as I do from the right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Your post here is perfectly reasonable in 1960s Wyoming. It is not reasonable in Florida in 2012.

So the reasonalbe thing for Florida was for the kid watch his mother get beaten to death while waiting for the cops. I'm sorry, that is not acceptable anyplace at anytime. That is fucking stupid.

What have you got to say about the NRA, about the open trade in scratch buyers of guns for the Mexican gangs in Arizona?

Again, too much disinformation or misinformation. Arizona law has nothing to do with it. The NRA has nothing to do with it. It has to do about a Bush appointed AUSA not doing his job and dumbass ATF agents who let some guns go across even after the gun stores reported them. When busted, the some idiot who writes for Fortune becomes the mouthpiece for the agent to retaliate against whistleblowers. The straw buyers have been violating federal law, they should be in federal prison either here or Mexico. Agent Voth and Newell should be stripped of their badges and extradited to Mexico.
To be truly well informed, you read from different sources, and certainly not just ones with an ideological bent.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/iron-river-guns-a-myth-stratfor-says-008207

Of course, that is before I get to Wikileaks, Latin American Herald, El Paso Times. Etc.

[rDigital]

63. Arm an abused child against their parents? Your straw man is showing. nt

[samsingh]

35. this is a good post.

[xchrom]

2. Given our current trajectory re: things like health care or

Or the MIC - why not?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Right to own is not quite the same as the right to have

You have the right to own any number of things, but there is no requirement for society or government to provide it.

What would help is if the states and the Federal government was not intentionally and artificially driving up the cost of firearms, which does negatively impact those of which you speak.

[aikoaiko]

4. +1 This was pretty much my response too

So I'll just plus one it

But I do think that the US .gov should distribute surplus arms and ammo to its citizenry better than they do now.

[samsingh]

36. not enough guns out there?

[aikoaiko]

41. I'm sure many people would like to increase collections.

Surely, you are not against legal firearm ownership?

[samsingh]

45. not against legal - but against a lack of controls and common sense

[shadowrider]

55. I'm willing to bet your "lack of controls and common sense" don't match up with mine.

Therein lies the problem.

[ManiacJoe]

7. Right on the money.

Speaking of money. Folks get to make spending choices.

(a) Flat-screen TV + monthly cable bill
(b) Reasonably priced handgun + monthly ammo

[gejohnston]

8. easy choice

500 channels and nothing to watch.

[Kaleva]

9. I can't afford cable or satellite. Netflix at $7.99 a month is the best I can do.

I'm on a budget of $58.00 a week till at least the end of this year. That's for food, clothing, gas & oil for the scooter (can't afford a car) and lawnmower, and for other consumables.

Any extra money I have is going to have to go in replacing a broken out window in my living room before winter.

[rDigital]

13. That's a rough budget, if you're

able to manage on that, that's amazing. Huge credit to you.

Less than $10/day. Do you fit in any shooting practice?

[Kaleva]

14. I own two Mosin Nagant 91/30s

They are over at my ex wife's place and the box of ammo I have for them are at her father's house. I don't need them for home defense and I quit hunting years ago but someday I'll ask my ex to bring them over. There's a gun range about 12 miles from where I live but that's too far to go with my scooter.

The budget I mentioned is after I paid for utilities, the phone and internet access, pay on my property taxes, make a payment on my doctor's and hospital bills, pay for my blood thinner medication and make payments on accounts I have at two hardware and lumber stores. I can't get a new window for the living room on credit until I pay off my current bills which will be in early October as long as I stick to my budget.

I find guns interesting but the truth is, I just can't afford any more for the foreseeable future even if I really did need one for self defense. The bolt actions would do in a pinch but they are not practical to have around near me at all times.

[rDigital]

15. Still, that's a lot of self control being able to

live on that budget. My gasoline bill is over $70 week just from commuting, and I get 33mpg. If I stop at Taco Bell, it's all over!

Mosins are a lot of gun for the money and the ammo price is right.

[arendt]

22. Or maybe, if they are lucky, crappy health insurance.

Your prejudice against "lazy, spendthrift" poor people is showing.

What a GOP stereotype.

[ManiacJoe]

56. That would be a radical interpretation of what I wrote.

Before you start tossing insults, you might want to observe and learn at bit first.

[samsingh]

37. food and health care are unimportant

sarcasm off

[arendt]

20. We won't mention the gun manufacturers scare tactics...

that have caused people to buy ammo like its World War 1.

Its not the government driving up prices; its the free market of false "gun grabbing" ads and speculators. I know someone who doubled his money in a month back in 2009 by buying and reselling ammo.

[samsingh]

38. agreed

[arendt]

23. So, your OK with the GOP version of healthcare.

The government has no right to provide it.

Its nice to see such consistency on a supposedly Democratic board.

[arendt]

24. Sorry, "requirement", not "right" n/t

[Jenoch]

12. The 'right' to own arms is

a right. Not the right to have arms given to you.

[arendt]

21. A right you simply cannøt afford is not a right. It is a cruel joke.

It is like health insurance, only it is death-avoidance insurance. Same racket. The poor can't afford to buy it. Tough luck for them.

[Glaug-Eldare]

50. The construction of the BoR...

doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right against infringement by government, and that is where the strict protection ends. We're not entitled to a bullhorn for free speech, or a transportation reimbursement to get to your polling place, or a free privacy fence. I know your article is more of a "modest proposal," but as a pro-gun Democrat I'd prefer to see government act to improve everybody's economic station, instead of trying to parcel out everything for everybody. Fix the economy so everybody can afford to exercise the rights the BoR guarantees.

As for degrading police protection, I really can't see eye-to-eye with you on that one. I haven't heard of any initiative whereby armed private citizens would replace general public law enforcement, regardless of how well-armed they are. Self-defense is a looooooooooooooooooooong ways away from "vigilantism."

By the way, I believe rDigital's remark in #44 about the police having no duty to protect you stems from a DC CoA ruling which held that the police are under no obligation to respond to calls, and have no duty to individuals.

[Kaleva]

53. Poll taxes were deemed unconsttutional

They were used to keep poor blacks and Native Americans from voting. Poor whites who could show that a grandfather had voted before slavery was abolished were exempt from the tax.

If I am charged with a crime, the taxpayers are required to provide me with an attorney if I cannot afford one myself.

All polling places are required by law to be handicapped accessible.

It would cost me nothing to go down to my local library to use the internet to send e-mails to my representatives nor would it cost me anything to send e-mails to local and national newspaper editors.

Churches are tax exempt but they are afforded all of the government services non-tax exempt organizations are.

[Glaug-Eldare]

67. No dice

The voting requirement exemption is an example of justice denied -- not of correct application of Constitutional rights. The intent was never to guarantee the exercise of a right, but to deny it to blacks.

The right to counsel is a closer parallel, but the assistance of counsel (a service by a publicly-credentialed attorney) is very different from buying a firearm (a product of a private company or individual). As applied to the 2nd Amendment, this example might support the establishment of a public arsenal, like a public library of guns.

Polling places are not required to be handicapped-accessible by the Constitution -- this is a provision of "Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act," which is simple legislation as opposed to case law.

Public libraries are provided by state and local governments on their own authority. There is no Constitutional mandate requiring them to provide libraries, free or paid.

Like the VAEHA, this is a result of legislation. The tax code confers this treatment on religious entities because legislators wanted it to -- not because the Constitution requires them to.

[Kaleva]

69. Your comment

"The right to counsel is a closer parallel, but the assistance of counsel (a service by a publicly-credentialed attorney) is very different from buying a firearm (a product of a private company or individual). As applied to the 2nd Amendment, this example might support the establishment of a public arsenal, like a public library of guns. "

What's the difference between purchasing a firearm and hiring an attorney? With a lawyer, one is buying the product or services offered by a private company or individual. The very wealthy can afford the very best but everyone has the right to at least the bare minimum. If you can't afford a lawyer to defend your rights in court, one will be provided. If one can't afford a gun for self and home defense, one will be provided for you.

If people here are arguing they have a Constitutional right to have a firearm to defend their family, home and themselves, then that right ought to granted to all and not restricted to those who have the ability to pay.

[Glaug-Eldare]

70. Hey, cool! Civility is fun!

The difference between purchasing a firearm and hiring an attorney? Not that great. The difference between being appointed a public defender and being issued a (presumably non-public) firearm? A lot bigger. I can understand the comparison, and I'm not unsympathetic to those who have financial difficulty exercising their rights, but I'm opposed to the idea that government should just parcel out everything we can't afford. Raise the income floor, encourage growth and full employment, and this becomes a non-issue. Otherwise you go down the path of trying to micromanage every expense of the poor. When you do that, you wind up with the government owning the lives of the poor -- that's too dangerous to leave in the hands of any administration, R, D, or other.

I'm guessing this is all rhetorical, though -- would you vote to arm the poor out of public funds if it came up on the ballot?

[Jenoch]

65. Where is health insurance

mentioned in the Bill of Rights? There are many affordable guns. This is a ridiculous thread. I wish I had not wasted my time reading it.

[Paladin]

17. I Want To See The Ad Campaign For Such A Proposal.

Ought to be hilarious........

[slackmaster]

26. It's already been done - the Arm the Homeless campaign. Results were hilarious.

Fellow SubGenii will note that the leader of the organization identified himself as "Robert Dobbs."

Some text chatter from 1994:

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Organizations/Arm%20the%20Homeless/

[Paladin]

68. Thanks, Slack. Too Bad It's Not A Hoax, Here........(nt)

[slackmaster]

25. The right to own something doesn't mean a right to have someone else pay for it

The proper term for something like that is "entitlement" rather than right.

I think gun SAFES should be subsidized in the form of a small tax credit.

[Kaleva]

46. Some prices and costs

RUGER SP101 .357MAG $395.00


RUGER SP101 holster (Amazon.com) $20.74

Speedloader DBL Pouch with 3 Loaders for .38/357(Ebay) $25.00


Federal Premium .357 Mag ammo $24.00 for a 20 round box

Tula Cartridge Works .357 ammo $18.00 for a 50 round box

PMC .357 ammo $400.00 1000 rounds

MBI .38 Special ammo $290.00 1000 rounds (.38 Special rounds can be fired in a .357 Magnum gun)


NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Course $75.00

NRA Basic Personal Protection In The Home Course (satisfies MI CPL training requirement) $90.00

NRA FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation (satisfies WI CPL training requirement) $100.00

NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home Course $200.00


MI Concealed Pistol Application fee $105.00

WI Concealed Pistol Application fee $50.00


Range fees
Action Impact Gun Range & Firearms Store in Southfield MI (near Detroit).

Gun range fee $10.00 per 1/2 hour

MI CPL Certification course $99.00

Handgun rental $10.00

The store gives a limited amount of free range time if one purchases a qualifying gun there.


The more experienced here could give some ideas as to how often one should go to a gun range to practice, how long they should be there and about how much ammo one can expect to shoot each time.

[arendt]

48. thanks. most useful.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. There is stupid, and there is stoopid.

I haven't quite figured out which this one is yet.

[gordianot]

52. One of my favorite movies is "Hobo With A Shotgun"

Sometimes a tire iron or steel pipe is not enough. I do get a kick out of gun threads on DU for sheer entertainment value.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. It is a negative right.

It prohibits the state from some regulations of some guns, it does not entitle you to a gun.

[Kaleva]

60. Yet the arguement is often made that guns are needed for protection of family, home and self.

My local phone company offers free 911 service to those who are low income. They can't use the phone to make regular calls but they can call 911.

The local fire departments will clean the chimneys every fall for those who burn wood and are either senior citizens or disabled for free. And they often give out free smoke detectors to anyone who wants one.

The local Sheriff's Dept. gave out free toddler car seats to anyone who wanted one last summer.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. There is no constitutional obligation to offer free 911 service.

And public safety is why we pay taxes for a police force, fire department, emts, etc.