How bout we try the classist/racist thread one more time.

[1a2b3c]

With a quick search i found 4 states with racist amendments in their state constitutions, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
I will quote Florida's state constitution as an example: : "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Laws regarding racism in Florida were recognized as late as 1941 in Watson v. Stone

Black Codes and Slave Codes existed before the civil war in an attempt to disarm both free and slave blacks. South Carolina, Virginia, Loiusiana, Florida, Deleware, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, and even the United States of America had some form of these black codes or slave codes. I will take the united states as my example piece here. In 1792 blacks were specifically excluded from the militia with the Uniform Militia Act of 1792. Quote: I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm Some could also see the Dred Scott v. Sandford US supreme court case as racist gun control since slaves were found to not be considered citizens therefore not covered under any of the constitutional amendments, including the 2nd.

These bans didnt stop after the Civil War was won though. Many states still restricted blacks from owning guns. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1866 could be enacted, Alabama and North Carolina had race based gun bans. In 1866 the 14th amendment to the constitution was debated. Sen. Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Ind.) said "if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title and enjoy its advantages in common with the negroes, the coolies, and the Indians." .

In Tennessee in 1870, the first "Saturday Night Special" ban took place. Tennessee has already been noted a couple of times for racism in their laws and even in their state constitution. This law, past by white supremist in control of the legislation, banned all handguns except the Army and Navy revolver which most whites already had or could afford. This came from an article post originally with Reason, the article can be read here: http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/whitelaw.htm

Arkansas also passed one of these bans on "saturday night specials". You might also make a note that Arkansas was one of the original 4 states that i mentioned in the second paragraph as having racist amendments in their state constutions regarding the rights of blacks to keep and bear arms.

The May Issue concealed weapons permits are also extremely borderline, and i use borderline sarcasticly, racist. Fresno county, with a high number of hispanics, has a high number of concealed weapons permits, or CCW's, compared to other California states. That isnt the problem though. THe problem is the major majority of permit holders are the whites in that county. The hispanics were turned down since its up to the police to decide if a person is fit to hold a permit, and yes race can and does play a part in who gets a permit as does bribery. Fresno's major paper did a study on this in their county. More information can be found here: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ If it is like this in one may issue state, why would it not be possible for all of the states that are shall issue to be the same?

As of lately though these laws seem to be more about disarming the poor although they could still be considered racist since the minority groups are leading the poverty levels in many states. A few more states have bans on inexpensive handguns, including South Carolina and Virginia, with their history of racism.

Who could forget the Chicago Housing Authorities Project Clean Sweep, later ruled unconstitutional and was fought by the ACLU? If you arent fimiliar with it all residences in the Chicago projects were raided and searched for drugs, weapons, and gang activity. Firearms, whether they were legal or not, were taken from both gang bangers and honest citizens who were just trying to defend themselves from the crime in their neighborhoods.

The Clinton administration tried to pass H.R. 3838 in 1994 that would have banned guns in all federal public housing. It didnt pass.

Back to my original topic starter, Massachusettes. They already have a "saturday night special" ban on affordable handguns. This passed in 1988. They have a Ballistic Fingerprint Data base that trickles the cost on to the gun dealers who trickle it down to the gun buyers, this data base has never solved a single crime. They have licensing and identification cards, all costing hundreds of dollars for someone to obtain. I will quote a few sources.

Under the Senate plan, firearms dealers will now pay $100 for a license to sell guns, of which $50 will be placed in the general fund, with $25 going to the licensing authority and $25 to the Firearms Fingerprint Identity Verification Trust Fund.

A similar arrangement is being made for stores selling ammunition. But it's not just stores that will pay more, so will gun buyers.

They will pay $100 for a license to carry a firearm, $100 for a firearms identification card, $100 for a permit to buy a firearm, and another $100 if they are either a non-resident or resident alien.

In all, a gun buyer could end up paying $400 to $500 just to get approval to buy and own a gun -- more than the cost of actually purchasing a handgun.http://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/n/nstory.pl?slug-NFEES527

Add in the facts that poverty is unequally distributed to minorities, mainly blacks, and one might consider these laws racist. I do. Ethnical minorities like Afro-Americans and Hispanics represent only a small part of the whole population. But their quotes of poverty are overproportional high in comparison of the white majority. The poverty figures of these minorities have increased over the past 15 years. There is a trend of growing disparities between the ethnical minorities.http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/spsba01_W98_1/usa4.htm

[Romulus]

1. uh-oh

get your Nomex on!!!

[MrBenchley]

2. H.R. 3838

was held up in the Senate after passing the House 345-36.

I find your characterization of it grotesque; it was primarily a bill to aid the poor and homeless.

I suggest you take a look at Thomas Register.

"Although the House overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis passed H.R. 3838, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994, the Senate failed to enact similar legislation in the rush to adjournment before the November elections.
The House-passed H.R. 3838 proposed critically needed reforms to many of the core housing and community development programs, so that HUD, FmHA  and program beneficiaries can implement them with greater ease and flexibility. It also provided for a number of initiatives of both committee members and the Administration that reflect a new spirit of activism and creativity, which reinvigorates the federal role in housing and community development programs.
These programs and initiatives would provide housing and other assistance to this nation's most vulnerable citizens and communities: low- and moderate- income families and the homeless. The Committee was guided by the deficit reduction targets set by the Congress in the fall of 1993. Committee members sought a bipartisan consensus on total program funding to be authorized in each of the two fiscal years.
Of particular significance were rent reform and reforms to the one-for-one replacement policy affecting public housing residents. Under rent reform, residents of public housing would be encouraged to work by being permitted to retain more of their earned income, rather than lose it to rent. The one-for-one replacement reforms, like those under property disposition reform, would increase a public housing authority's flexibility in replacing dilapidated public housing and would establish conditions for replacement that were more congruous with the housing market.
Further, the bill would consolidate homeless programs under the McKinney Act into one unified housing and services program."

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/78/gonzalez.html

[1a2b3c]

3. it was primarily a bill to aid the poor and homeless.

And searching their homes for guns and drugs.

[MrBenchley]

4. Go peddle that crap

to someone dumb enough to buy it...

[1a2b3c]

5. I guess thats all you could come up with?

[MrBenchley]

6. What else did I need?

your post was a load of hooey...

[1a2b3c]

7. Dont feel bad

The last time i posted this thread all someone could come up with was that gas costs more in non white neighborhoods.

[MrBenchley]

8. Hey, considering what a steaming pantload it is

I'm surprised anyone but me responded at all....and I did only to correct a grotesque distortion of fact.

[1a2b3c]

9. Waste of my time

on edit

[MrBenchley]

10. It sure was....

[Township75]

11. Yo, Grand Master B! Break it down for us one mo time!

!

[MrBenchley]

14. Gee, what a fitting cap for this RKBA crap

a racial slur....

Too too funny.

[1a2b3c]

15. Where was the racial slur?

[CO Liberal]

17. In the Title

"Yo, Grand Master B! Break it down for us one mo time!"

[MrBenchley]

18. Amazing, isn't it?

[1a2b3c]

21. HAHAHA

Somehow i knew this was gonna be the racial slur, it was the only thing he said. So whitey just cant say that anymore or what? It sounded like the Beastie Boys to me. Give me a break.

[MrBenchley]

25. So why'd you ask?

"i knew this was gonna be the racial slur, it was the only thing he said."
Guess we were all taken in by your clever ruse....

[RoeBear]

27. A racial slur?

How is his pathetic attempt at trying to sound like a brother a slur.
If a black man, say Eddie Murphy, talks like a white man in one of his routines; is that a racial slur?

[CO Liberal]

28. It Was Uncalled For

It did nothing to advance the discussion on the subject matter. Hell - I'm white and I was a bit offended by it.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

29. LOL

Since when has 'advancing the discussion' mattered to some of the posters down here in the gun dungeon?

[MrBenchley]

33. Certainly never matters to the RKBA crowd...

SSDD...

[demsrule4life]

60. I dont consider that as offensive

as saying that all people that enjoy guns and the shooting sports are a bunch of KKK, neo nazis, white trash, trailer trash backwood no teeth hillbillies. Did I leave anything out?

[RoeBear]

30. Are you going to claim that you've never...

...talked like a black man? 'What chou talking about Willis?'
I appreciate your taking offense for me but it wasn't necessary.

For instance, if I started talking like George Bush would you be offended? Ok that was a bad example. How about Ed Sullivan "Tonight we are going to have a really big shoe?". Is that offensive?

There are bigger battles to fight than someone trying to talk 'black'.

Now, I'm axing you, can we get back to our discusion on classist/racist?

[CO Liberal]

31. I'd Be Happier If This Thread Were Locked

This whole argument is totally bogus anyway. That's why all these threads in the past usually would up being locked.

[RoeBear]

32. But like a moth drawn to the light...

...you can't avoid it can you CO?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

36. What is bogus about it? -nt

[1a2b3c]

49. Why is the argument bogus?

Extreme fees keep a class of people down. Really quite simple.

[MrBenchley]

34. Gee, roe....

too funny....in a thread claiming that gun control is racist, not only does the RKBA make a racial slur, but other members begin angrily pretending it wasn't one.

"There are bigger battles to fight than someone trying to talk 'black'."
Such as why the NRA has so many racist right wing lunatics on its board? Why gun shows are thick white supremacist groups and sellers of Nazi memorabilia?

[RoeBear]

35. Let the mods determine if it was a racial slur or not.

I know a slur when I hear one and that wasn't one. End of story.

[MrBenchley]

37. Yeah, surrrrrrrrre.....

[RoeBear]

39. Just when I was starting to tolerate you...

...you decide that a black man can't determine a racial slur for himself.

[MrBenchley]

41. Cry me a river, roe...

and I'll cry a river for you....

[LalahLand]

58. It wasn't a slur, but it damn sure was rude

What the poster did was attempt to mock you--and he failed miserably. All he managed to do was invoke a completely irrelevant racial stereotype into the discussion.

[MrBenchley]

59. Ironic, eh?

"a completely irrelevant racial stereotype"

[iverglas]

38. hmm

"can we get back to our discusion on classist/racist?"

Who "we", white man?

(Couldn't resist. If you need a citation, I'll find one.)

I notice me and very few others having that discussion. I don't notice you having it. Feel free to join in.

.

[RoeBear]

40. I've done it in the past...

...and didn't really feel like doing it again.

But in a nutshell:

The most stringest gun control laws are in the places that just happen to have the largest black populations.

'Junk' gun laws don't have anything to do with the safety of a particular type of gun, it's just a way to limit guns to poor people. A strata of society that just happens to contain a disproportionate amount of black people.

May issue laws are probably the worst example of Jim Crow that is still on the books. "You want a CCW? Go away boy." It may not be that blatant today but the effect is still the same.

[MrBenchley]

42. Say what?

"The most stringest gun control laws are in the places that just happen to have the largest black populations. "
Britain, Australia and Japan have about the most stringent gun laws on the planet...

"May issue laws are probably the worst example of Jim Crow that is still on the books. "You want a CCW? Go away boy.""
Real-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-ly. Mind telling us where that is?
Mississippi? Police can't limit CCW permits...
Georgia? Police can't limit CCW permits...
Louisiana? Police can't limit CCW permits...
South Carolina? Police can't limit CCW permits...
North Carolina? Police can't limit CCW permits...
Florida? Police can't limit CCW permits...
Tennessee? Police can't limit CCW permits...
Kentucky? Police can't limit CCW permits...

[RoeBear]

43. And since 2001 they can't...

...limit them in Michigan either. But they sure as hell were doing it before. There are those here at DU who prefer the old Jim Crow method better. Are you one of them?

[MrBenchley]

44. Gee, roe....

...we thought you were talking about real Jim Crow laws, not arming neurotics....serves me right for responding as if you had a real point.

[RoeBear]

45. Did you just call me a neurotic?

nm

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

47. Must be the strain

of bearing up under those "Jim Crow" laws that made you think that, roe...(snicker)

[1a2b3c]

48. Its not even considered talking black anymore

since half of white america talks the same way. I know a 6th grader who talks the same way. This whole thing reminds me of the time i was called racist on here for saying hood, or was it ghetto.

[DoNotRefill]

62. Be careful...don't use the term "da bomb!"

they'll lynch you for it!!! ;-)

[DoNotRefill]

61. Co....

I think you're out of touch with the younger generation. You might want to watch some MTV before you decide that colloquialisms like that are racist. See if you can find the latest Christina Aguilera video...

BTW, when Vanilla Ice said "word to ya mutha" was he being racist?

[CO Liberal]

65. Regardless of Generation, It's Offensive

And I do watch MTV.

IMHO, Vanilla Ice was trying to SOUND black. CHristina Aguilera and others do the same thing - the age-old ploy of white artists co-opting what was developed by blacks. This was most prevalent in the '50s when white musicians (including Pat Boone, The McGuire Sisters, and The Diamonds) issued "cover" versions of songs originally done by black artists. The worst example of this was Elvis Presley - a white man who "sounded black" in order to make R&B "suitable" for white audiences.

The whole concept of whites trying to sound black is intrinsically racist. That's why I cringe every time I hear a white person saying such things as "give it up for....." or "whazzup?"

[MrBenchley]

67. Amazing, isn't it?

Guess this is what passes for RKBA "logic": "Vanilla Ice did it! Wa-a-a-a-a-ah!"

By the way, you will notice the Reverend Moon's favorite black man with a gun turned up AGAIN down the thread.

[Terran]

74. I must disagree, CO

The whole concept of whites trying to sound black is intrinsically racist.

Let me preface this by noting that my partner of 17 years is African-American, and I've socialized with mostly African-Americans in that time, so I have a modicum of insight here.

I believe that celebrties try to "sound Black" because there's a profit to be made--it sells, and it sounds cool to a lot of the youth market, irrespective of ethnicity. Simple as that. My partner is firmly of the opinion that the current level of influence of African-American culture on American culture is karmic revenge for slavery. It's pissing off a lot of racists.

But ordinary people have differing reasons. I have known a lot of white people who, because of their close affiliation with African-Americans either as significant others or just through social channels, sounded and 'acted' very "Black". For myself, I find that irritating, because in many cases, it's an affectation (not for all, though; some grow up that way and come by it naturally). I don't care for it as an affectation because to me it shows that person thinks they have to be something they're not in order to interact amicably with Black folks; it's like, "I have to change who I am just to get along with you."

My own experience is that while some Black people find that behavior annoying or even rude, they don't find it racist. When it comes down to it, they often have an appreciation for someone who likes their culture better than their own, and leave it at that. I don't want to generalize about it too much, because I'm sure there are some who would adopt a more politicized viewpoint and agree with you; I'm just relating what I've seen over the years, since I had to deal with the issue myself. Personally, I have never modified my behavior to fit in; I'm always the reserved white guy at the party. But I think that I'm liked and respected for that reason.

[CO Liberal]

80. To My Way Of Thinking....

...it's just another case of White America trying to take something else away from Black America.

[DoNotRefill]

120. Careful, dirk....

there are some here that might think your association with minorities is inherently racist because it denys them their "cultural purity" or some other such nonsense. ;-)

(obviously I don't agree with that...)

[MrBenchley]

125. Yeah, there 's a lot of that in the RKBA crowd

http://members.screenz.com/jreed/

"Ms Reno called for a gun licensing system requiring owners to pass a test proving they were responsible.
"It is common sense, pure common sense, to ensure that guns are only in the hands of those who know how to safely and lawfully use them and have the capacity and willingness to do so," she said at her weekly news conference.
Her comments came on the day white supremacist Buford Furrow was charged with eight counts relating to the shooting spree at the Jewish community centre and the murder of a Filipino-American postal worker. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/419177.stm

[1a2b3c]

87. Maybe its just me

but implying that a certain race talks one way and that another race is just trying to be like the other sounds like racism. I cant believe were still on this subject.

[CO Liberal]

88. Well, We Pretty Much HAD To Go Off On This Tangent......

...since the original premise about gun control being classist and racist was so bogus.

:-)

[Man_in_the_Moon]

90. you keep saying that

yet have never offered any proof as to why it is 'bogus'.

[CO Liberal]

91. It's Been Argued Many Times Before Here At DU

Most of the arguments go back to the 1800s and Early 1900s. No one has ever been able to produce a link to any law passed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that specifically bans any specific group or class of people from gun ownership.

Therefore, it's a bogus arguement.

[1a2b3c]

94. No but we have posted links

dating to the 40's. So in 20 years either racism in the laws went away....or....they just backdoor around it with junk gun bans and other feel-good wordings. Or is that not possible?

[CO Liberal]

97. Earth to 1a2b3c.......Earth to 1a2b3c.........

You're reasoning is like a sieve - it just doesn't hold water.

[1a2b3c]

101. Why is that?

Did racism in the system all of a sudden disappear?

[RoeBear]

106. So when a bank redlines a black neighborhood...

...that isn't being racist?

[CO Liberal]

107. What Does That Have to Do With Gun Laws, RoeBear?

[RoeBear]

108. Well you claim...

...that there aren't any racist gun laws because the laws don't specify that they are going after black citizens. But the effect of 'junk' gun laws and red lining are the same; they go after the same group of people. Black citizens.

[CO Liberal]

109. But The Laws Aren't Designed That Way

Using that logic, Mercedes-Benz is racist because it makes extremely safe cars that are too expensive for most minorities to buy.....

[MrBenchley]

111. Whereas red-lining

is a specifically discriminatory practice by lenders....

[CO Liberal]

112. ...Which is Totally Unrelated To The Subject At Hand

:-)

[MrBenchley]

114. Exactly so....

But that's RKBA "logic" or whatever it is...

[1a2b3c]

113. Also selling the ford pinto

So that the poor arent priced completely out of the market.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

96. Like I ahve said many times

If it walks like a duck

It it quacks like a duck

it probably is a duck.

Just because it doesnt come out right as say 'Blacks can not own firearms' or 'the poor cannot get a carry permit', if the law in effect does do exactly that then the law is racist and/or elitist.

Which is exactly what alot of the gun control laws across the country do, they are attempts to keep the poor and the 'undesrieable' from exercising their rights. Any 'may issue' law does exactly that, any law which levees a fee for either a permit, or a 'FOID' or whatever does exactly that.

But it seems just like the old 'seperate but equal' laws some people are willing to turn a blind eye to that as long as they agree with the substance of the law.

[iverglas]

103. straw folk

"But it seems just like the old 'seperate but equal' laws some people are willing to turn a blind eye to that as long as they agree with the substance of the law."

Does it seem that way to you?

I guess that as long as you say "some people", you've made a statement that really just isn't capable of disproof, haven't you?

You could come up with two people, somewhere, who have been willing, at some time, to do what you say. Meanwhile everybody else would be left trying to prove that old negative: that there are no such people.

Me, I wouldn't waste my time. I just assume you aren't talking about me. I'm right, right? And of course I wonder why you bother talking about someone who doesn't seem to be here ...

I have, however, spent considerable time responding to the thesis in question here -- which, in the proper jargon, is that charging high fees for something and thereby pricing certain groups out of the market is adverse impact discrimination or adverse effect discrimination. The rule itself is neutral, but its impact/effect is different on different groups of people.

An obvious example would be an employer who required all employees to work on Saturday but allowed employees to take Sunday off by request. Looks neutral; discriminates against some non-christians.

Or an employer who imposed minimum height/weight requirements that ruled out, say, most women and most people of certain races.

In order to understand and redress discrimination, one must root out myths and stereotypes that perpetuate inequality. Discrimination is the detrimental treatment of an individual or group because of their membership in that group.

"Discrimination" is a distinction, whether intentional or not "based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society". For example, a group may in fact be disadvantaged by an apparently neutral employment criteria, such as the requirement to wear uniform headgear.

"Intentional discrimination" occurs when certain groups and individuals are consciously excluded from organizations, clubs, jobs, etc., or are treated differently because of their group affiliation or perceived affiliation.

Discrimination can be direct ("intentional") or indirect (the result of "adverse impact" or "systemic" discrimination), and individuals may be subject to multiple forms of discrimination.

The Court examines the effect of the provision, not the intention of the drafter. "Adverse impact discrimination" occurs when an apparently neutral provision has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantage on one group. In determining whether adverse impact discrimination has occurred, it is necessary to examine the effect of the law or policy and not simply the intent.

"Systemic discrimination" results from institutionalized practices or policies that disadvantage individuals because they are members of certain groups. Systemic discrimination can be either direct ("intentional") or associated with adverse impact discrimination. For example, an employment policy can either directly exclude women or can result in excluding women, eg. by imposing height or strength requirements not essential to the work.

Multiple discrimination consists of the cumulative and compounding effect of discrimination based on several group characteristics. For example, racial and gender discrimination can occur simultaneously.

http://www.educ.sfu.ca/cels/past_art1.html
(citations to Canadian case law omitted)

I'm so surprised that no one has pointed out that women are also adversely impacted by the fees associated with legal firearms possession. After all, women, on average, have much lower incomes than men.

Of course, race and sex are prohibited grounds of discrimination by government in most cases in our society. Income/class itself is not -- the fact that something impacts on a poor person more than a rich person is what we tend to regard as one of those "that's life" things; who would expect life to be different?? When I say "we", I don't mean *me*, don't get me wrong. But I'm certainly not going to single out firearms fees as the place to start that particular battle.

"Which is exactly what alot of the gun control laws across the country do, they are attempts to keep the poor and the 'undesrieable' from exercising their rights. Any 'may issue' law does exactly that, any law which levees a fee for either a permit, or a 'FOID' or whatever does exactly that."

I'm not much interested in this "may/shall issue" business, but here's how it looks to me. If "may issue" is being applied discriminatorily, challenge the discriminatory practice. "Discretion" does *not* imply the discretion to practise discrimination, or to act arbitrarily. Demand issuance practices that are not discriminatory and/or arbitrary; that's what administrative law is for. Seems pretty damned simple.

If people are being denied permits because of race, that isn't "adverse impact discrimination", it's systemic, direct discrimination. If they are being denied permits because of some other factor not related to the usual prohibited grounds of discrimination (they look poor? I dunno), then there is still a violation of the rules of natural justice going on: the arbitrary exercise of discretion. Go to court, smack 'em down.

If driver's licences were apparently being denied to women, apparently based on some negative "women drivers" stereotype, I'd challenge the direct discrimination being practised. If poor people were being denied driver's licences even though they could pay for them, I'd challenge the arbitrary exercise of discretion. In neither case would I propose that the government be compelled to issue a driver's licence to anyone who walked in the door.

So anyhow, heck, if you're so eager for substantive discussion of this, how come you haven't joined the discussion that's actually going on? It's down and to the left a little. I'm sure you can find it.

.

[DoNotRefill]

115. Co...

I'm sure you realize that race based descrimination is facially unconstitutional. That means that all laws that specifically say "this race can't do whatever" are void.

The fact that specific races are not mentioned in the law doesn't mean that the laws are not in fact racist. Think about all of the racist laws that are on the books, but that in no way mention race.

By your argument, after 1964, there are NO racist laws of any kind still on the books. This is blatantly untrue. There are no gun laws that say "N****** can't own guns." That would be unconstitutional on it's face. There are, however, plenty of laws on the books that deny blacks the RKBA in much greater proportion than it does their white counterparts. That's what they're designed to do. While these laws are not facially racist (they don't say "no guns for blacks"), the effect is identical, and still just as racist.

Most gun control advocates state that they don't want to ban all guns. Instead, they say "they want to keep guns out of the wrong hands". The "wrong hands" are, in practice, predominantly black.

[CO Liberal]

121. Nice Try

Thanks for being such a WONDERFUL contestant. Don Pardo, what do we have for him???

:-)

I'm not buying it. Taht's like saying Mercedes-Benz discriminates against blacks because their cars are too expensive.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

124. You are lookin at it the wrong way

What would be racist/classist/elitist is if some group gets a law passed that gets rid of all the cheap cars and only allows Mercedes-Benzes, bmws, etc, to be sold. Or puts an extreme fee/tax (lets say $10k, which would be comparable to a $75-100 fee for a firearm) on the purchase of any car.

Such a law would do little or nothing to stop a person of affluence from purchasing a car, but it could and would effectively price the car out of the purchasing power of a certain class of people (namely the poor).

You can not honestly say that such a system would NOT be classist, elitist, and potentially racist.

[MrBenchley]

126. So you're trying to tell us

that civilian helicopters are inherently classist, elitist, and potentially racist.

Ho kay....

[Paladin]

122. I Wonder Why It Is.......

....that whenever you RKBA types make the mistake of starting one of these pathetic "Gun Control Advocates Are Racist" threads, it's invariably you guys who resort to using the "N" word in your posts. Too bad your skills at appreciating irony are on the same level with your ability to properly interpret the Second Amendment, i.e., non-existent.

Let me state the painfully obvious one more time: the overwhelming majority of this country's racists and pro-gun activists are clustered together on the same side of the political spectrum: the far right, way the hell away from the Democratic Party and those of us who favor controls on firearms. And those of you who claim to be Democrats and persist in trying to label your fellow Democrats as racists: get a fucking clue, howabout.....

[MrBenchley]

127. Great post....

"Let me state the painfully obvious one more time: the overwhelming majority of this country's racists and pro-gun activists are clustered together on the same side of the political spectrum..."
Exactly so.

[1a2b3c]

93. I still havent seen one single person prove to anyone that its bogus

[CO Liberal]

95. It's Been Proven Time and Time Again, 1a2b3c......

See my post #91 above.

[MrBenchley]

102. Hardly worth bothering...

as other people know...check out post #10 (and note I didn't write it)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=185508#185603

[1a2b3c]

105. I know you didnt write it

God_bush_n_cheney wrote it. He is my friend here on the DU and he wasnt saying that i chained myself to the door because im some kind of nut job either. He thinks i look like the guy who did. Its funny that you misunderstood the whole meaning of his post and then posted it down here to look like everyone here thinks im a nutcase. Did you know God_bush_n_cheney was going to go shooting for his first time ever with me? Probably not since youre new to this forum.

[RoeBear]

128. Just thought you'd want to know that...

...no one agrees with you that it was a racist comment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=1840

[MrBenchley]

129. Too frigging funny..

Here's what was actually said....

"nobody was using slang of any sort or using any type of "ebonics." So why did the poster decide to invoke racial stereotyping into a serious discussion? "

"I consider you to be racist"

[RoeBear]

130. Completely out of context...

...you know it and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Here's your edit:
""nobody was using slang of any sort or using any type of "ebonics." So why did the poster decide to invoke racial stereotyping into a serious discussion? "

And here's the complete comment:
" It wasn't racist BUT it was inappropriate

I looked at the discussion, and nobody was using slang of any sort or using any type of "ebonics." So why did the poster decide to invoke racial stereotyping into a serious discussion?

If you are having a serious discussion with a white guy at work and he all of a sudden starts attempting to "talk black"--would you not think of that as inappropriate?"

So from the complete comment we can determine that the poster did not feel that it was a racial slur.




Here's your edit:
"I consider you to be racist"

And here's the complete comment:

"RoeBear:
I consider you to be racist because your subject line states: "A question for my black brothers and sisters"!!!

ROFLMFAO"

It was a joke, he was direct the comment to me!

This boils down to: Nobody should tak anything MrBenchley says seriously because he distorts things on purpose for his own advantage.

[MrBenchley]

133. What a pantload....

Now go snivel to someone who gives a crap, roe. You lost all credibility with mne a long long time ago.

[billbuckhead]

12. Actually almost everything costs more in nonwhite neighborhoods

You didn't disprove it then and won't disprove now. Ever see a Walmart in the 'hood? A Super Target? Ever hear of "redlining"?

[1a2b3c]

16. Actually i have seen a target

I wont say anything since i cant really prove it right or wrong. I was just saying that you couldnt disprove my theory, which looks more like fact, that gun control leans towards keeping a class or race of people in its place and has for years. I have yet to see anyone disprove that. Like i said, all ive seen so far is that HR 3838 was "not so bad" and that milk cost more in the ghetto.

I can say ive seen cheap stores like food for less and mega foods in the hoods ive lived in. Gas would seem to be a hard one to prove, but like i said, i dont really agree or disagree with you.

[MrBenchley]

19. How would one begin to disprove such utter rubbish?

But then that's RKBA bizarro world, where Ted Nugent is not racist but the NAACP is....

[1a2b3c]

22. yawn

No one said Ted wasnt racist. I dont keep up on him so i dont know. I see you have nothing yet again. Wake me up when you have a reply i might be interested in.

[MrBenchley]

23. Since I don't post racist fantasy...

I doubt there's any need to wake you....

[iverglas]

26. apples and oranges

As far as I can tell, you are not suggesting that the costs associated with firearms ownership are higher in ABSOLUTE terms for people of colour than they are for white people. Doesn't everyone pay the same number of dollars, regardless of race, colour, sex, income level ...?

You are saying that they are higher in RELATIVE terms -- they represent a higher PROPORTION of income.

So why would anyone need to demonstrate that PRICES for any commodities are HIGHER in neighbourhoods predominantly occupied by people of colour, in order to establish that your thesis applies to zillions of things besides firearms?

As long as the prices that people of colour pay for food, gas, milk, whatever, are THE SAME AS the prices that white people pay, there is the same ADVERSE IMPACT DISCRIMINATION.

Your argument would apply in exactly the same way to food, gas, milk, utilities, etc.

If the costs associated with firearms must be LOWER for poor people / people of colour, in order to avoid adverse impact discrimination (or if the prices should simply be minimal for everyone, to achieve a substantially similar effect), then the costs associated with eating, for example, must ALSO be LOWER for poor people / people of colour in order to avoid the same adverse impact discrimination.

Proving that the prices of other (essential) goods and services are THE SAME in both types of neighbourhoods would do nothing to bolster your position that the prices of the services associated with firearms ownership must be LOWER for poor people / people of colour in order for there to be equitable treatment.

And like I said -- if I'm going to be making an adverse impact discrimination argument about pricing structures, which I would do in a "free-market" economy only as an exercise in frustration, *I* would start with price subsidies for goods and services that

(a) the poor people / people of colour in question are more likely to be more concerned about, and
(b) a society that genuinely cares about the public and individuals' welfare is more likely to regard as productive uses of public money.

After all ... I thought that going after the root causes of violence, rather than "preventing people from defending themselves against violence", was the only real way to reduce that violence.

Seems to me that (further) subsidizing food, housing, childcare, schools, health care, and so on and on, is going to be a better investment of public funds than subsidizing firearms ownership ... if we really are concerned about individual welfare and the increase in public welfare that enhancing individual welfare in these respects can be expected to bring about.

And gosh, I'd expect a Democrat, who surely is supposed to both care about individuals' welfare and understand the connection between individual welfare and the public welfare, to be focusing his/her energies in those areas.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I completely fail to see how multiplying the number of firearms in private hands, regardless of whose, while doing nothing about hunger, homelessness, ill health and unemployability -- or even while doing "something" about those problems, until what is done is even marginally sufficient -- is going to promote the general welfare of the people of the United States.

YOU are defining firearms ownership as a "need", and your definition is, of course, highly debatable; I define it as a discretionary purchase, and you can of course debate my claim. But I don't think there could be much argument that food, housing, health care and employment are needs -- or that they are not being adequately met at present. My question is therefore about your priorities -- both in terms of what needs you think are so important that they merit the efforts of both yourself and others, and in terms of how likely those efforts are to achieve the overall goals that you and they presumably want to achieve, the premise being that it will be necessary to gain political power in order to achieve those goals.

Certainly, if an individual feels that s/he has suffered adverse impact discrimination under existing firearms ownership rules, s/he would be quite free to make that argument in the appropriate forum. I just can't imagine why an association of people dedicated to enhancing both individuals' welfare and the public welfare (the Democratic Party?) would want to make that issue a priority when deciding how to allocate the limited resources available to it for advancing that overall agenda, and how to most effectively generate the most possible public goodwill for itself and approval of its agenda.

.

[1a2b3c]

51. I never said the cost should be lower for anyone

If the costs associated with firearms must be LOWER for poor people / people of colour, in order to avoid adverse impact discrimination (or if the prices should simply be minimal for everyone, to achieve a substantially similar effect), then the costs associated with eating, for example, must ALSO be LOWER for poor people / people of colour in order to avoid the same adverse impact discrimination.


I did mention banning guns that could be affordable to a certain class of people. I also mentioned fees that are not needed that also price out the poor. As for the gas and food, dont we have government assistance for these? Dont we have food stamps and goodwill and salvation army's? That is what these things are for. To help those who cant afford to pay the high prices the rest of us pay.

Proving that the prices of other (essential) goods and services are THE SAME in both types of neighbourhoods would do nothing to bolster your position that the prices of the services associated with firearms ownership must be LOWER for poor people / people of colour in order for there to be equitable treatment.

I think you have me wrong here. I wasnt planning on proving the prices were the same or different. The thought never crossed my mind. I also never said the prices should be lower for firearms. What i did say is that poor people are being priced out of the self defense market when they live in neighborhoods that they probably need the protection the most. I also heard, but havent checked, that you need a $100 permit in MA to get pepper spray. Maybe im the only one who finds that a bit outrageous?

After all ... I thought that going after the root causes of violence, rather than "preventing people from defending themselves against violence", was the only real way to reduce that violence.

Very true, but i dont see the War on "SOME" Drugs ending any time soon. Shouldnt those in the lower class neighborhoods, who are right in the middle of this bullshit war, have a chance at self defense legally?

Seems to me that (further) subsidizing food, housing, childcare, schools, health care, and so on and on, is going to be a better investment of public funds than subsidizing firearms ownership

Again, i never said this. I never mentioned anything about subsidzing. I mentioned doing away with bans that only effect lower incomes and doing away the $300 or $400 in fees that you have to obtain to own a firearm. The food and the health care is all good but its all subsidization. Removing fees that you have to pay to exercise a constitutional right to self defense isnt.

And gosh, I'd expect a Democrat, who surely is supposed to both care about individuals' welfare and understand the connection between individual welfare and the public welfare, to be focusing his/her energies in those areas.

Can we knock off the youre not a democrat shit? This is about all ive read since ive been back. This is DemocraticUNDERGROUND. Underground meaning all moderates, progressives, liberals, libertarians, and whoever else hates conservatives, am i right? I fit in somewhere between the liberals and the libertarians if it makes you feel better.

I completely fail to see how multiplying the number of firearms in private hands, regardless of whose, while doing nothing about hunger, homelessness, ill health and unemployability -- or even while doing "something" about those problems, until what is done is even marginally sufficient -- is going to promote the general welfare of the people of the United States.

I fail to see this too.

And firearms are needs and incase of an emergency they also double as tools (the best tool for the job) that would provide you with food clothing and shelter, which you say are needs. Would you say i am correct on this?

[iverglas]

57. and I framed it in the alternative

As you quoted me, underlining the "alternative" here:

Of the costs associated with firearms must be LOWER
for poor people / people of colour, in order to avoid
adverse impact discrimination (or if the prices should
simply be minimal for everyone, to achieve a substantially
similar effect), then the costs associated with eating,
for example, must ALSO be LOWER for poor people / people of
colour in order to avoid the same adverse impact
discrimination.

I don't place much importance on how the end you desire is achieved -- whether by exempting poor peope / people of colour from the fees, or eliminating (substantially reducing) the fees for everyone.

I must presume that you are advocating that *one* or the *other* be done; since what you are complaining of is adverse-impact pricing discrimination, you must be proposing *something* to prevent it.

"... doing away <with> the $300 or $400 in fees that you have to
obtain to own a firearm"

So what you're proposing is an across-the-board reduction of fees to the nominal amounts that poor people could afford -- keeping in mind that people who can't obtain the money to house or clothe their children decently are not likely going to be able to obtain much of anything at all, in the way of money to pay fees for firearms ownership.

"Again, i never said this. I never mentioned anything about
subsidzing."

What you're proposing would be a subsidy. It's a maxim of economics that income forgone *is* expenditure. The government would be foregoing a source of income, which it would have to make up elsewhere if it wished to maintain its spending levels.

Foregoing $100 in income has exactly the same effect as spending an extra $100; either more money has to be taken in elsewhere, or spending has to be cut elsewhere.

(Think about your personal budget -- if you take a week off every month without pay, does your rent go down? You have to either earn the money for the rent somewhere else, or find a cheaper apartment, or cut way back on the take-out meals.)

Are there no costs associated with firearms licensing? If the licensing activity itself is legitimate, should those costs not be borne, at least in some meaningful part, by the people who benefit from the activity -- the people who want firearms licences?

Should driver testing and licensing, and vehicle registration, also be provided at purely nominal charge, because poor people who need cars to get to work can't afford the fees?

It's a pretty fundamental principle of government in this particular era that the user-pay principle will be applied to services that are available to the public on a discretionary basis, i.e. that the public can take or leave. Think airport security taxes on your airline ticket. Think gasoline and cigarette taxes.

You're saying, I do understand, that this is a tax being charged on the exercise of a right. But all similar fees, duties, taxes, etc., charged by governments are essentially taxes on the exercise of rights. Everything we do is in the exercise of some right or other.

You are apparently recommending that a source of government income be abandoned, without giving any thought to where the money that is needed to provide the service in question will come from. Higher corporate taxes? Not likely. Higher sales taxes? Always a good target for governments looking for a little easy money. Who pays a disproportionate share of sales taxes? Whom do income taxes impact more severely, in terms of after-tax income available for non-discretionary spending? Poor people.

I see robbing from Patricia to pay Paul here. Government spending (whether by direct expenditure or by foregone revenue) on something that, "essential" as you may try to argue it is, just is not as essential as health care, for one small example. Paul gets his firearm without having to pay for the services the govt. provides in that connection, and Patricia gets to sit around a hospital ER for even longer than now, or pay even more tax on her essential purchases than she does now, or whatever.

I see you pushing an agenda on people who haven't really asked you. I suggest that you ask quite a few of them whether, given an either/or choice as this certainly is, they'd rather have lower sales taxes or cheap gun licences; better health care or cheap gun licences; cheaper cigarettes or cheap gun licences, even. Sure, maybe they'd rather have higher income taxes on the top 10% of the population. Gonna happen?



One thing you haven't mentioned that you could have, so I'll do it for you, is that high licensing costs are a disincentive to complying with the law. If licensing were cheap, more people might comply.

And *that* is an argument that I'd listen to. I'd just have to see some evidence that people who don't comply now -- who choose to deal in the black market rather than the official market -- would make different choices if the latter were available to them at a reasonable price.



"And firearms are needs and incase of an emergency they also
double as tools (the best tool for the job) that would provide
you with food clothing and shelter, which you say are needs.
Would you say i am correct on this?"

I'm afraid not. I'm afraid I'd laugh out loud at the image of all these folk you're so concerned about being somehow, for some reason, dropped in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a Saturday night special, and having to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families using that tool alone. Now that *would* be an emergency. Which Star Trek episode are we thinking of, here? Or was it the original Trek, across southern Africa?

Firearms are tools for some people for the things you refer to. So sure. Maybe if someone demonstrated that a firearm was necessary to him/her for subsistence hunting, say, and s/he was low-income, the fees should be waived.

In that case, a firearm is indeed a "need". A point of agreement.

.

[DoNotRefill]

64. Doesn't that argument work equally well for the poll tax?

"What you're proposing would be a subsidy. It's a maxim of economics that income forgone *is* expenditure. The government would be foregoing a source of income, which it would have to make up elsewhere if it wished to maintain its spending levels."

When did exercising a constitutionally protected right become a taxable event? How would you feel about a special "subversive book tax?" Or how about a fee system to guarantee that you're not searched illegally?

You're not supposed to have to pay money to exercise a right, regardless of if it's $500 or $.50

[iverglas]

69. see the other post

I think it addresses these questions.

"You're not supposed to have to pay money to exercise a right, regardless of if it's $500 or $.50"

Tried exercising your right of free speech lately by publishing a book without paying for the printing?

How's the legal aid situation in the US? Doesn't everybody have a "right to counsel"? Shouldn't everybody be provided with the services of, oh, F. Lee Bailey on demand?

Now I know, I'm mixing apples and oranges. Prices that must be paid in the private sector to exercise a right, and fees charged by the government. Those points would be more relevant if someone were suggesting that guns themselves should be available free of charge. Nonetheless, the point stands that there are often costs associated with exercising a right. You have a right to life, but you still have to pay for the food you need to exercise it.

Do state govts in the US charge sales taxes on books and newspapers? That's a burden on the right of free speech.

This 'right' to possess firearms, surely even you have to agree, is not quite like the right of free speech, or the right to vote. There are legitimate, justifiable burdens on that right that don't come into play for most other rights -- like restrictions designed to prevent people with violent criminal records or who are subject to restraining orders, or children, from obtaining firearms. There are costs associated with operating a system to achieve those objectives.

Should the general public be liable for those costs? Even if owning firearms were a 'right', it is still a choice. I don't expect to be liable for the costs of someone else exercising certain rights that they are free to exercise or not, make where their choice to exercise the right has no beneficial impact on "the general welfare".

I agree to subsidize their choice to have children by paying for their children's schooling, because I believe that to be important for the general welfare. There are other exercises of rights that I believe to be for purely personal benefit; ownership of firearms, even if it is a right, is one of those, and I see no reason why anyone else should subsidize it.

Despite that precedent in the US, I'd say the same about marriage and divorce these days. Marriage is no longer as fundamental to status and entitlements as it once was; it's much more in the nature of a personal choice that someone can take or leave without being denied benefits or suffering costs (well, where I'm at, it is), and I wouldn't be up for subsidizing the costs of someone else's choice in that respect either.

Everything we do is in the exercise of some right or other -- fundamentally, the rights of life and liberty. I'm taxed on all sorts of things I do in the exercise of those rights, even where there is a less direct connection between the costs of my choice and fees or taxes I pay.

Like I said: cigarette taxes? I have a right to smoke; it's inherent in my right of liberty. I'm being charged an exhorbitant fee by the govt. for exercising that right; I am required to buy my tobacco through the govt.-regulated system, and I must pay enormous taxes when I do. Poor people are without question discriminated against by the adverse impact of those taxes. We see paying that fee as their choice -- even though meeting the need created by nicotine addiction is truly much less a "choice" than is buying a firearm. I see paying the fee for permission to acquire a firearm much the same way.

.

[1a2b3c]

89. You wont win me over with this logic

Like I said: cigarette taxes? I have a right to smoke; it's inherent in my right of liberty. I'm being charged an exhorbitant fee by the govt. for exercising that right; I am required to buy my tobacco through the govt.-regulated system, and I must pay enormous taxes when I do. Poor people are without question discriminated against by the adverse impact of those taxes. We see paying that fee as their choice -- even though meeting the need created by nicotine addiction is truly much less a "choice" than is buying a firearm. I see paying the fee for permission to acquire a firearm much the same way.

I am strongly opposed to sin tax, or sin fees, on anything. It all reminds me of the tea tax we learned about in history class. I see how youre saying its a choice, but even so, should it be taxed so high that only the wealthy can buy it? Whether its firearms, cigarettes, candy, or beer?

A gas tax makes sense since we all need road repaired to drive on. A cigarette tax they say is to cover the health insurance costs but i try to look past the political bullshit in that. If the government controled spending a whole lot better than it does now there wouldnt be a need for a sin tax. But this is a whole different debate in a whole different area.

[iverglas]

98. and I won't disagree

I think that cigarette taxes are a horrific bit of scapegoating of the poor and elderly. A senior cit on the lowest fixed income here -- with the various supplements to make up for not having paid into the Canada Pension Plan ("social security") or a private pension plan, that is -- receives a little over $900 a month. One who is lucky enough to be in subsidized housing (although here, it's not that hard to get in) pays 1/3 of that in rent, leaving about $600 a month for everything else. A carton of cigarettes is $55. And we're talking, in some cases, about old guys who were given free cigarettes while serving in the military during wartime (and in all cases about people addicted to something that the govt. allowed to be sold without restriction) -- and now we're going to punitively tax their addiction?? Yup, I'm with you on that one.

... Although I might prefer to subsidize their expenses, rather than reduce the taxes across the board. I do think that reducing cigarette smoking is a valid public objective, and that high prices are not an reasonable mechanism for doing that.

I'm not by any means persuaded that cigarette taxes go to cover health care costs. In any event, we do not super-tax anything else that people do that raises their health care costs (what would a doughnut cost if we did??).

I don't disagree that taxes are a reasonable way of cutting down on a behaviour -- gas taxes, no problem for me, because reducing the pollution associated with driving is a perfectly valid objective -- but not when the "behaviour" in question is both (a) no more anyone else's business than other similar behaviours that are not so taxed, and (b) driven by addiction that at least partly removes it from the realm of "choice".

"Sin taxes", I don't agree necessarily. Alcohol, tax the hell out of it, I don't care -- and I don't see it entirely as a "sin tax". Reducing alcohol consumption is, again, a valid objective. In fact, if prohibition worked, I'd give up the exercise of my "right" to a couple of drinks now and then without hesitation, because I would never put my mere convenience or totally non-essential pleasure above other people's ruined lives. Same reason I oppose legal gambling.

Essentially, we are in agreement. Taxes on commodities and services should not be used as the easy way out to fill government coffers.

But I don't see that having too much to do with firearms licensing fees. I'm not seeing any response to my point that there are costs associated with the licensing/approval process (i.e. there are still costs, whether someone needs an actual licence to purchase a firearm, or just needs some kind of clearance each time).

If you're not disputing that there should be some such process -- and I'm not really clear on whether you are or not -- then who should bear the costs??

The fact that you have a right to do something does not mean that the right cannot be burdened by some sort of reasonable requirement to ensure that you are not exercising it in a way that is contrary to the public interest, surely you must agree. There *are* limits on the right of free speech -- you *may* be charged with a criminal offence for shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, for conspiring to commit a crime, for giving false testimony, for uttering death threats, for disclosing state secrets, and so on. You are *not* allowed to exercise your right of free speech in ways that your society has agreed are sufficiently contrary to the public interest that there is justification for prohibiting and punishing them.

If there can be reasonable limits on the 'right' to possess firearms, and if the procedures for investigating whether it is in the public interest for "person A" to possess firearms -- all the criminal record, legal residence, restraining order things -- are necessary in order to apply those limits, who should pay the associated costs?

You are apparently saying that the general public should. I am saying that I can't see why I should pay the costs of someone doing something that has nothing to do with me -- that is neither in my interest nor in the public interest; that is a purely personal and discretionary choice.

Of course, this is all just one more reason why I see the inclusion of such a 'right' in a constitution, and the notion that such a right is actually included in a constitution, absurd.

Rights are usually framed in non-interference terms. I have a right to life, but not to be fed; I have a right to liberty, but not to be given a ticket to Disney World if I happen to want to go there. I may not be stopped from eating, and I may not be stopped from going to Disney World -- unless there are valid reasons for doing so. There aren't many reasons that would justify interfering with my eating, but there are lots of reasons that would justify interfering with my going to Disney World; the fact that I've broken the law and been sentenced to a term in prison would be one that springs to mind.

The exercise of the right to life or liberty may be interfered with as long as due process is afforded and sufficiently compelling reasons are given -- but the 'right' to possess a firearm may not?? Like I said, absurd.

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.

Governments make laws all the damned time abridging/burdening freedom of speech, not to mention the right to peaceably assemble. Howzat? Aren't those rights absolute? It says "shall make no law"; how come there are laws? Surely your framers were perfectly aware that they had and would have laws abridging freedom of speech.

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.

Even if this provision meant what some people say it means, how could the right not admit of reasonable and justified interference in its exercise? How could the right to possess firearms ever have been intended to be absolute when the right of free speech was obviously not?

So, plainly, reasonable and justified limitations on the exercise of the right are permissible. (As is constantly pointed out: nobody has ever challenged them.) It would be a pure nonsense to say otherwise.

And given the nature of the activity in question, the only way such limitations can be effective is by prior restraint on the exercise of the right by those whom it is reasonable and justified to prohibit from exercising it. Just as imprisonment is a 'prior restraint' on someone who might want to go to Disney World where it has been determined that it is very much not in the public interest for his/her exercise of the right to liberty to be restrained. The honour system - house arrest? - has not been found to be effective for our purpose. Is the honour system likely to be effective for preventing people from possessing firearms, when it is reasonable and justified to prohibit them from doing that?

We don't need "prior restraint" on free speech to make sure that people don't, say, utter death threats; we find that the deterrent effect of the criminal law works relatively well. If it doesn't, the violation of the rule will be public and can be dealt with. The deterrent effect of laws about firearms just might not work quite so well -- there literally has to be prior verification that the reasonable and justified limitations are not being violated, if we want to achieve their purpose.

Everybody has a right to liberty -- but we place limits on who may exercise that right by driving cars, by requiring them to show that they are not disqualified from exercising it. Ditto absolutely anything else that people need licences or permits to do, and must show that they are not disqualified from doing in order to get the licence or permit. They have the right, but I'm not going to pay the costs of licensing them to exercise it.

Perhaps you could tell us how much of the price of the firearms licensing/approval procedures you object to is actually charged on a cost-recovery basis, and how much is above and beyond cost-recovery and is imposed for other reasons, whether they be to deter the proliferation of firearms or just to soak an easy cash cow.

We'll have to wait and see, in Canada, whether the operating costs of the firearms registry, for example, are covered by the fees charged to firearms owners. (The start-up costs will just have to be eaten by the public.) I think they should be. I might be willing to exempt anyone who actually engaged in subsistence hunting, if a cost-recovery fee turned out to be very high, because firearms possession in their case would *not* be a discretionary choice. But I'm just damned if I can see why I should pay the costs associated with anybody else's choice.

.

[1a2b3c]

104. Tell me about it

My girlfriends mom had cancer. She was going to die in a few months. She had been smoking her whole life, Carlton menthol 120's. When she couldnt work anymore she had to get her social security. Well it seems you only get half of it for the first 3 months(she didnt have that long to live). So she was given $500 a month to live on in the state of Washington. Her rent was $525 a month. It took awhile to get the paperwork in order for her to get her perscriptions for free so she also had to pay for that. Food stamps worked a little faster.

Anyway, she could either die wanting a cigarette or pay $6.25 a pack. I am not shitting, $6.25 a fucking pack. Five years ago you would have bought that same pack for $2 and still got some change back. Even with my income it was a struggle paying for all of this stuff. I might also mention she was an Navy nurse since you mentioned the free cigs in the war.(she didnt serve in wartime) Anyway the tax is bullshit.

How could you disagree with a cigarette tax, which is only put there to make people quit smoking, and yet agree with an alcohol tax that is put there for the same reason? This is why i fear marijuana becoming legal. They will just use it as a profit to run the war machine and tax the shit out of it so people cant afford to smoke it. I would be willing to bet my life that if pot was legalized it would still be illegal to grow your own.

Why do you disagree with legal gambling? Even when its illegal, it still takes place. Its like prohibition, it doesnt work to keep it illegal. Whats your opinion on legal prostitution?

Im not disputing that there shouldnt be some costs. I am disputing that they are pricing the cost way above actual costs in order to keep a class of people in their place. I think we are kind of on the same page here. I think the fees associated with approval of a permit is fine. But $400? Thats just outrageous. There is no way in hell it could cost that much.

I know that the state of Washington, a very high priced state to live in, does the exact same thing for $60. So someone has to milking this cash cow youre talking about.

[iverglas]

110. and the kitchen sink ...

Fine, I wasn't going to finish any more work today anyhow. But I'm tired, nonetheless ...

Your girlfriend's mum is a good example of victimizing the victim, as I was talking about. It's sad.

"I know that the state of Washington, a very high priced state to live in, does the exact same thing for $60. So someone has to milking this cash cow youre talking about."

Okay, that's a start. But there's always the possibility that the great tax-paying public of Washington State is in fact subsidizing the costs already -- that is, they charge the applicant $60, but they aren't actually "doing the exact same thing" for $60, they're just covering the rest of the costs of doing it out of general revenue. More facts needed. Surely *some* "RKBA enthusiast" outfit has addressed this??

"How could you disagree with a cigarette tax, which is only put there to make people quit smoking, and yet agree with an alcohol tax that is put there for the same reason?"

The big reason? One person's smoking doesn't have much impact on anybody else. What impact it has can be reduced to close to nil by other rules: like no smoking in restaurants, no smoking in classrooms, etc.

Before you ask -- I support anti-smoking by-laws for bars and restaurants, even though I'm a smoker and this limits my opportunities for fun. Of course I'll agree with the anticipated next objection: yes, going to bars and restaurants is entirely a matter of personal choice -- for the customers. For the workers, it ain't. In our highly civilized societies, we don't say to any other class of worker "like it or lump it" -- live with the health hazards of your job, or leave it and get another one. Disease caused by second-hand smoke just isn't a risk inherent in the job, and the risk can be easily eliminated by eliminating smoking. If the only concern were the customers not being able to go somewhere without enduring smoke, I'd say: let the market prevail. Patronize non-smoking establishments, which that invisible hand will doubtless provide, or open your own.

Alcohol is different. It's not the drinking of it that is dangerous to others the way the smoking of tobacco is; it's what people do after they've been doing the drinking of it. They kill and abuse and crash into other people -- in many, many cases where they would not have done that if they hadn't been doing the drinking. We can tell people not to do something, like smoke or drink in public places, and effectively enforce that rule. We can't tell people not to be something -- drunk -- and expect to be able to enforce that rule.

Smoking is "dangerous to others" in that it generates costs that have to be borne by non-smokers. But so do a hell of a lot of other behaviours, and we don't super-tax or prohibit them. Eating doughnuts comes to mind, as does having unprotected sex and then having babies that will cost society. (And I'm not attacking poor people here; rich people's children cost society a lot more than poor people's do.) Or having abortions, which up here are covered by the health care plans. We don't outlaw doughnut eating or unprotected sex having, despite the costs that can reasonably be expected to result.

I'm against prohibition of alcohol and drugs because (a) it doesn't work, and (b) it causes more harm than it prevents. The latter is indeed a very sound argument, based on "harm reduction" -- which also calls for carrots rather than sticks (like treatment programs rather than jail sentences), and allowing the undesirable behaviour to be engaged in more safely, rather than making it more unsafe, when you can't stop it (like by offering needle exchanges).

"Why do you disagree with legal gambling? Even when its illegal, it still takes place. Its like prohibition, it doesnt work to keep it illegal. Whats your opinion on legal prostitution?"

My best friend, who is teetering on the edge of destroying her life with gambling, was doing just fine before the casino across the river opened. Fifteen years ago, she bought her stupid instant lottery tickets and scratched them all over my dining table -- and even in that, she was spending money that she didn't have without taking it from something more essential. But at that time, she had kids at home, and her inhibitions -- her commitment to feeding and housing them -- did override her gambling impulses for the most part. Then they left home, she got a real job and could afford discretionary expenditures, and the casino opened. And she gambled (and lost) the rent money most months (I'm her landlord), her daugher's savings, the utility bill payments ...

Very few of the people whose lives have been wrecked by legal gambling were actually going to go looking for a back-room poker game, or a back-alley bookie. The social acceptability of gambling, not to mention the incessant promotion of it by the very body supposed to protect the public, the bloody government, is what gave them the opportunity to ruin their lives. In fact, they may never have had any urge to gamble before they actually did it. I have no urge to shoot smack, but if I did it a few times I might develop an urge before too long.

Nobody needs to gamble. There is no individual or social need being fulfilled by permitting gambling. Prohibiting gambling is an entirely reasonable restriction on the exercise of liberty, justified by the horrible effects on the gamblers themselves, the other individuals in their lives, and the economy (e.g. bankruptcy, and crime to acquire the funds to gamble with). This is a case where prohibition actually does have the desired effects, to enough of a degree to make it reasonble and justified.

"Whats your opinion on legal prostitution?"

Opposed. Numerous reasons.

We place limits on the exercise of liberty when there is a strong likelihood that individuals will be exploited.

We do not permit individuals to work for less than the minimum wage, even if they "want to". The only reason that people would do that is if they were desperate and someone else was exploiting them for his/her own ends. Similarly, we do not permit people to work in hazardous conditions, for the same reasons. And we don't permit people to indenture their labour, or pay usurious rates of interest, no matter how badly they need money.

Prostitution isn't a "career choice" made by upwardly mobile people with lots of options. And no anecdotes about happy hookers will rebut that assertion. It is a "choice" made mainly by women, virtually always because other choices are closed to them -- usually, in our place and time, because they are addicted to something, and also because their choices are limited by the damage done to their own personalities as a result of abuse, an absence of education and training resulting from poverty, and so on. No healthy person with other choices chooses to be a prostitute; really.

In a society that protects the extremely vulnerable from exploitation for the exploiter's profit or pleasure, which our societies do, there is no more reason to permit prostitution than to permit people to "volunteer" to be paid $1 an hour by Mcdonalds. People don't generally work at Mcdonalds for the fun of it, and women don't generally allow strangers to use their bodies for sexual gratification for their own pleasure. Prostitution is exploitation in a very classic sense.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that prostitutes should be charged and jailed and all that. Exploitation is normally combatted by targeting the exploiter, not the exploited.

The fact that the practice is widespread and long-lived doesn't persuade me of anything. So are slavery, and child abuse, and sweatshop employment. Prostitution will undoubtedly go on as long as those "root causes" aren't addressed, just as child abuse does today. That doesn't mean that society should sanction it, any more than it sanctions any other extreme form of exploitation.

And all that is just the reasons based on protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation, without addressing the social harm associated with prostitution. Would you expect an African-American to support "voluntary" slavery? - say, one-year slavery contracts? I think that said African-American might regard that as a very regressive step in terms of the advancement of a people already suffering from severe disadvantage, stereotyping, and so on. Well, I'm a woman. Colour me ditto. A society that sanctions prostitution is no different from a society that sanctions "voluntary slavery". Different disadvantaged, stereotyped group; same principle.

Back to our sheep ...

"Im not disputing that there shouldnt be some costs. I am disputing that they are pricing the cost way above actual costs in order to keep a class of people in their place. I think we are kind of on the same page here. I think the fees associated with approval of a permit is fine. But $400? Thats just outrageous. There is no way in hell it could cost that much."

I would agree in principle: if a fee is unrelated to the direct costs ... I think I'd have to throw some "indirect costs" in here too, though I'd have to think more about it ... then it should not be priced out of certain groups of people's reach (and the good/service in question shouldn't be made less accessible to them by other improper means, e.g. choice of location where the good/service may be obtained) for some other illegitimate reason.

*Even if*, in this case, firearms possession is not a 'right'.

Discriminatory pricing really isn't my idea of a reasonable and justified limitation on the exercise of a right, no question. But if it is "adverse effect discrimination" and it relates to the discretionary exercise of a right, based purely on personal choice, and no public good comes out of the exercise of the right, and there are costs associated with the exercise of that right, then I don't see the pricing in question as any more discriminatory than any other pricing structure.

*All* prices will have a greater adverse impact on poor people, and on any other group (people of colour, women, very old people, very young people) who are disproportionately poor.

I see getting health care as a "personal choice" that involves a public good -- a healthy population is in everyone's interest, and allowing people to make that discretionary choice ("discretionary" at the very margins of that notion: the decision to try to stay alive is of course discretionary) prevents the significant harm to the public interest that happens when people are disabled or bankrupted. So I'm more than willing to subsidize the prices paid for that choice.

If you're agreeing that firearms ownership should not be "subsidized" in this manner -- by charging back the costs of putting the reasonable and justifiable limitations on the choice to exercise the 'right' to the public rather than to the user -- then we're basically on the same page, yes. I think that other mechanisms that are more rationally related to the objective (my own being to stem the proliferation of firearms in private hands) and not as violative of equality rights should be used.

And I'll bet you're happy now.

Smiley-face tongue sticking out/in cheek winking.

But seriously. Amazing how understanding is sometimes possible, ain't it?

Now if only we knew how much it costs to perform all those firearms-acquisition-related services ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

117. How is that different than voting?

"But I don't see that having too much to do with firearms licensing fees. I'm not seeing any response to my point that there are costs associated with the licensing/approval process (i.e. there are still costs, whether someone needs an actual licence to purchase a firearm, or just needs some kind of clearance each time)."

You have to register to vote in Canada, don't you? ( I don't know, but assume so) Can the Government charge fees to offset the cost of voter registration? Here, they certainly can NOT.

[DoNotRefill]

116. 'k

"Tried exercising your right of free speech lately by publishing a book without paying for the printing? How's the legal aid situation in the US? Doesn't everybody have a "right to counsel"? Shouldn't everybody be provided with the services of, oh, F. Lee Bailey on demand?"

As you say, you're mixing apples and oranges. If you want to publish a book, the government doesn't charge you for that right. The only associated fee that goes into government coffers is sales tax, which is uniformly applied to all things sold at retail, and only charged to retail businesses. If you print your own fliers, or something similar, there's no charge by the government. Everybody does NOT have a "right to counsel" at state expense. What a ridiculous statement. The ONLY time a person has a right to counsel at state expense is if they're charged with a criminal act that carries possible jail time. You should know that.

""This 'right' to possess firearms, surely even you have to agree, is not quite like the right of free speech, or the right to vote. There are legitimate, justifiable burdens on that right that don't come into play for most other rights -- like restrictions designed to prevent people with violent criminal records or who are subject to restraining orders, or children, from obtaining firearms. There are costs associated with operating a system to achieve those objectives."


Wrong. It's practically identical to the right to vote. With both the RKBA and the right to vote, there are certain restrictions (age-based, conviction based, etc) that are enforced. That doesn't mean that the Government should be able to charge fees to exercise the right. Take this for example: If the government required a fee for people to register to vote in an effort to defray the governmental cost of registration, would that be constitutionally acceptable? Even if the only purpose was to raise revenue to defray the cost to the government for maintaining the voter registration system, it would be unconstitutional, at least here.

"Should the general public be liable for those costs? Even if owning firearms were a 'right', it is still a choice."

So is voting. Nobody HAS to vote, it's still a choice. Would you support a poll tax to pay for election and registration costs? I wouldn't. For that matter, so is free speech. You don't HAVE to exercise that right, either. It's a choice.

"Like I said: cigarette taxes? I have a right to smoke; it's inherent in my right of liberty. I'm being charged an exhorbitant fee by the govt. for exercising that right; I am required to buy my tobacco through the govt.-regulated system, and I must pay enormous taxes when I do."

Smoking is neither constitutionally protected nor a right "fundamental to an order of structured liberty", is it? If it is, could you please cite the part of the Bill of Rights that states "A well-regulated tobacco industry, being necessary for the liberty of a free people, The right of the people to smoke tobacco shall not be infringed." I must have missed that one... ;-)

[DoNotRefill]

63. Where'd he say anything about subsidizing firearms?

"Seems to me that (further) subsidizing food, housing, childcare, schools, health care, and so on and on, is going to be a better investment of public funds than subsidizing firearms ownership ... if we really are concerned about individual welfare and the increase in public welfare that enhancing individual welfare in these respects can be expected to bring about."

I thought he was complaining about the Government tacking on lots of expenses to make sure that poor people couldn't get guns legally. There's quite a difference between subsidizing firearms, and not taxing them so that poor people can't afford them.

How is taxing guns in a manner designed to be class discriminatory any different than a poll tax designed to keep poor people from voting?

[iverglas]

66. maybe now

You'd like to try reading my explanation of where he said something about subsidizing the costs associated with firearms ownership. The next post in the sequence after the one you replied to. Written for those who are less familiar with economic concepts, which is entirely understandable.

"Where'd he say anything about subsidizing firearms?"

If you do read that other post, maybe you'll be able to answer your own question. Eliminating the fees charged to cover the costs of a service, while still providing the service, = subsidizing. Whether the fees are eliminated (or reduced to a nominal figure) for everyone or just for specific groups.

We subsidize all sorts of things in our societies. School attendance is free; it is subsidized by all taxpayers. We could charge tuition fees for all students in elementary school that would cover all the costs of the school system, or we could charge tuition fees for some students but not others, thereby subsidizing some students but not others. We choose to subsidize all.

There are costs associated with issuing firearms permits. If those costs are not charged back to the person applying for the permit, then they are being subsidized. They are being paid for out of general revenue. The general revenue that comes from everybody's taxes.

I'd rather see my taxes subsidizing schools and housing and stuff like that. I tend to think that most people who can't afford firearms licences would rather see that too.

Subsidizing the acquisition of firearms by eliminating licence fees isn't going to do a damned thing about all those 'root causes of violence'. And yup, neither is imposing tight restrictions on the private possession of firearms.

But my position is that subsidizing the acquisition of firearms will both
(a) exacerbate those root causes by soaking up govt. funds that would otherwise be available to do something about them, and
(b) exacerbate the violence itself by adding more 'tools' for the violence to the mix, i.e. become an additional causal factor in the violence.

Someone else's position would be
(a) that as long as the root causes of violence have not been successfully addressed, people who 'need' firearms for protection from that violence should have their acquisition of firearms subsidized, and
(b) that poor people / people of colour in fact tend to have greater 'need' of that protection at the same time as they have less means available to acquire it.

I understand that position. I both
(a) disagree that anyone 'needs' firearms for that alleged purpose and
(b) say that this 'solution' will worsen the problem of those people, in particular and more than others, since it will worsen the problem and they are more vulnerable to it.


"How is taxing guns in a manner designed to be class discriminatory any different than a poll tax designed to keep poor people from voting?"

To phrase your question as I think it is intended:

How is taxing guns in a manner designed to keep poor people from owning guns any different from a poll tax designed to keep poor people from voting?

First, I'd need evidence that this is what firearms licence fees etc. are intended to do. Of course, "adverse impact discrimination" does not require intention -- it could be enough to show that one group suffers more than another from a measure that is neutral on its face.

But then we'd be going after grocery stores for adverse impact discrimination, because their pricing policies 'discriminate' against poor people. Right? Even if they charge the same prices in every store in the country, poor people are still suffering from "adverse impact discrimination" when the price of caviar puts it out of their reach.

So we really do need to look at what the stated purpose of the measure is, what relationship there is between the stated purpose and the actual effect, and so on. Specifically, I assume that there are costs associated with licence application and issuance and other aspects of the licensing scheme. Should the users not pay those costs, at least to some extent?

Apparently, many would say no: users should no more pay the costs of firearms permit issuance than users should pay the costs of elementary schools. Again, I understand that. And I disagree with it, for the reasons stated.

Apparently, many would say that the fact that firearms possession is a "right" means that it should not be burdened by charging fees for the exercise of that right. To which I would say:

(a) it simply has not been established that there is an autonomous "right" of individuals to own firearms for their own purposes;

(b) even to the extent that there can be said to be a "right" to do that, all rights can be burdened to some degree, and while the onus would be on the govt. to justify this burden like any other, I think that the justification is possible, not to say obvious.

A poll tax unjustifiably burdens the right to vote. In Canada, the Supreme Court has held that denying prisoners in federal and provincial correctional facilities the vote is also an unjustifiable interference with the right to vote, which is indeed a pretty fundamental right. Any measure that interferes with the right to vote must be justified by a pretty high standard, in terms of the relevance and effectiveness of the measure for achieving a legitimate and sufficiently compelling state objective. Very few interferences with the right to vote would stand up to such scrutiny.

Would firearms licence fees stand up to it?

Well, then comes the perennial question: why hasn't the NRA, or some private individual with an interest, ever challenged them?

Could it be that the NRA doesn't care about poor people / people of colour being able to exercise their rights? Could it be that poor people / people of colour do not generally make owning guns a priority or regard current fees as unreasonable?

.

[RoeBear]

68. Vermont has the answer to subsidies...

...they don't require any license to carry a concealed weapon.
I believe Alaska has changed to this method also. I predict this will be the new wave in all the states over the next few years.

[Romulus]

70. damn

that was the best explaination I have heard as to why firearms owners should bear the costs of any firearms license scheme. JTO and other groups cast that cost-burdening as a great way to penalize firearms owners by "imposing" it on them, which made me automatically oppose the idea.

But what about the argument that people without kids, or that don't send their kids to public school, shouldn't have to pay tax money for public schooling? I have no kids, but would willingly cough up the tax money, but that's beside the point. Isn't that situation similar to the firearms license cost-burden?

[iverglas]

72. I'm playing leapfrog!

"But what about the argument that people without kids, or that don't send their kids to public school, shouldn't have to pay tax money for public schooling? I have no kids, but would willingly cough up the tax money, but that's beside the point. Isn't that situation similar to the firearms license cost-burden?"

But I'm staying one step ahead.

;)

I got to that one in the other post, the "see the other post" post. A start, anyhow. I'll restrain myself from going on and on some more about it until you've had a kick at that one.

.

[MrBenchley]

71. Why hasn't the NRA challenged?

It couldn't be because that position is a steaming pantload that only impresses gun nuts and has no legal basis whatsoever, could it?

After all, despite the NRA's claims that gun control is unconstitutional, they NEVER challenge any gun control laws on second amendment grounds.

[1a2b3c]

92. I never said anything about subsidizing

Eliminating the fees charged to cover the costs of a service, while still providing the service

Fees to cover the cost of what service? A fee in order to buy a gun? I dont have one of those fees in my state. What service is this fee paying for? How bout the $100 fee to carry mace? What service is that fee paying for?

There are costs associated with issuing firearms permits. If those costs are not charged back to the person applying for the permit, then they are being subsidized.

These are not concealed carry fees we are talking about. These are fees just to purchase a gun, sort of like the cigarette taxes. Here is how it breaks down. They charge $100 for a CCW permit. That i can understand, even though its still more than almost all other states, they still have to perform background checks and run fingerprints and keep records. ANother $100 for a FID card. Now its getting a bit steep. Does it really cost $100 for something that is pretty much a drivers license? I dont see how you could justify that much money for an FID card. Then you have another $100 for a permit to buy a gun! Why would you need a permit to buy a gun? There are already background checks in place. Lets say you do need the permit, WTF would it cost $100 to get one? Then another $100 if youre a resident alien, cause of course, we all know we dont want the LEGAL migrant workers, who work for peanuts, to be able to own a gun.

[iverglas]

99. more leapfrog

see my post "and I won't disagree", where I raised the question of the breakdown of these various fees into cost-recovery fees, deterrent fees, opportunistic fees, etc.

I really think that before you critique the fees involved, you need a little better factual foundation in terms of what the fees cover and are used for.

.

[1a2b3c]

100. Please explain to me

Why they would need $400 in fees when the rest of the US doesnt.

[DoNotRefill]

118. 'K.....

"How is taxing guns in a manner designed to keep poor people from owning guns any different from a poll tax designed to keep poor people from voting?

First, I'd need evidence that this is what firearms licence fees etc. are intended to do. Of course, "adverse impact discrimination" does not require intention -- it could be enough to show that one group suffers more than another from a measure that is neutral on its face."

Poll taxes here are illegal, period, even if they're designed only to raise revenue to offset governmental costs, and even if the tax is minimal (like Virginia's $1.50 poll tax, which was struck down). Voting is a right "fundamental to a structured order of liberty." So is self-defense, IMHO. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled that way yet, but they've been ducking the issue practically forever.

"Well, then comes the perennial question: why hasn't the NRA, or some private individual with an interest, ever challenged them?"

It's been tried, but cert has never been granted. BTW, it's been held constitutional here that you can deny people the right to vote, along with certain First Amendment rights (namely unfettered access to the press in person while incarcerated), if they've been convicted of a felony.

[iverglas]

13. not quite

"The last time i posted this thread all someone could come up with was that gas costs more in non white neighborhoods."

You tried flying it in Civil Rights etc., and that's not what I said.

I pointed out that if we are looking at disparate impact, i.e. what things cost as a percentage of income, I, personally, would start by looking at the prices of necessities. Surely it's racist for food to cost the same for the average black family as it costs for the average white family. And hey, wot about those regressive sales taxes?? Pure racism, I'd say. Apart from being pure make-the-poor-pay-ism.

Firearms, despite your attachment to them, are a discretionary purchase for the vast majority of their owners. Expenditures on food, utilities, housing and sales taxes, in at least a basic minimum amount, are not.

Higher education is another discretionary expenditure. Given the positive correlation between amount of education and length of life, that seems to me like a more sensible place to focus one's outrage at unequal access, if we're going to be getting outraged about the indirect ("adverse effect/impact") discrimination operated by pricing structures.

People forego all sorts of things to get a higher education (income, discretionary purchases, leisure time) and postpone others (childbearing, home-buying). It's one of those personal choice things, even though the choices are indeed distorted by unequal opportunity. So ditto for firearms. In a user-pay system, which seems to be more or less what you're talking about (fees for what in this case are mandatory services associated with the purchase, which are mandatory for perfectly good reasons), the would-be user gets to make up his/her own mind -- to use his/her own discretion in making those discretionary purchases. And no one else is required to cover the costs of that choice without having any choice in *that* matter.

Freedom of choice, what a wonderful thing, eh?

.

[1a2b3c]

20. Finally someone who wants to talk about this.

Firearms, despite your attachment to them, are a discretionary purchase for the vast majority of their owners.
True, but.... they are being priced out of any minimum wage workers price range with new fees and the banning of affordable guns.

How does a woman with 3 kids, who is single, and working a $6 an hour job afford a handgun for protection? She cant if she has to pay $300 in fees and, dare i say, penalties before she can even buy the top of the line handgun. Of course to cheapen things up she could buy the CZ handguns for around the price of what her handgun license will cost ~$300.

I am also interested in talking about impact of pricing structures related to race and class, but thats more of a civil rights discussion.

fees for what in this case are mandatory services associated with the purchase, which are mandatory for perfectly good reasons
What would be the perfectly good reason for making a minimum wage person pay half a months salary or more before being able to spend the other months salary on the very best home protection? Are the non wealth at NO risk of robbery, rape, and other hate crimes? Unless gays quit getting beat to death and dragged behind trucks and people in Idaho quit killing blacks for walking past their skinhead compounds and the world becomes a peacefull loving and caring place....I see the need for the poor to have the same protection as the middle and upper class.

I just dont see how it is a choice in this matter. The only choice i see is either to risk the chance that you wont need a gun so dont get one. Or, risk the chance that you will need a gun and get an illegal one without paying all the money. Or even #3, pay all the money to the government so you can exercise your right to protection just like the middle and upper class.

[MrBenchley]

24. What a pantload!

"How does a woman with 3 kids, who is single, and working a $6 an hour job afford a handgun for protection? "
Sell the kids for painful medical experiments?

Any single mom with three kids earning $6 an hour is going to have trouble affording food, clothing and school supplies....

"Unless gays quit getting beat to death and dragged behind trucks and people in Idaho quit killing blacks for walking past their skinhead compounds"
Jeeze, that's the RKBA crowd in action.

"I see the need for the poor to have the same protection as the middle and upper class"
And yet blacks support gun control by a higher margin than whites do...and city dwellers at a higher rate than rural folk...

[1a2b3c]

50. Can i get this in writing?

blacks support gun control by a higher margin than whites do

[MrBenchley]

52. One of many.....

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part1/gunside3.html

[Romulus]

53. interesting

People of both races are equally likely to own a handgun, however, with about 30 percent of whites and blacks having them.

*snip*

When asked their main reason for owning a gun of some sort, nearly half of whites say hunting -- while nearly half of blacks say self-defense.

[1a2b3c]

54. another interesting line

"Part of the difference that appears to be between blacks and whites is there because the black population is much more urban, and rural and non-urban populations are the most likely to be against gun control," says Bositis

So you have the urban city dwellers needing a gun for self defense and the rural americans need it for hunting. Sounds to me like Dean had it right on the money in the debates when he said Vermont doesnt need the gun control laws that NY and LA need.

"The black population also has a larger proportion of women than the white population, and women are generally more supportive of gun-control laws than men."

This kind of goes along with the classist and racist thread in theory. Why are there more black females than black males?

This is also interesting: More than half of whites were given their first gun by a parent or other relative, but one-fifth of blacks got their first firearm that way.

[1a2b3c]

55. Here is a link if you want to check it out.

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/

[MrBenchley]

56. STILL peddling this right wing loony?

Next be sure and tell us how well Walt Williams and Clarence Thomas reflect black opinion.

[CO Liberal]

73. Don't Forget Thomas Sowell and Alan Keyes

:-)

[iverglas]

75. educate me

Who's Walt Williams?

Google finds me a baseball player and a 19th century Texan colonizer ...

.

[MrBenchley]

77. An "economist"

at Ed Meese's diploma mill, George Mason University, who fills in for Rush Limbaugh sometimes when the flabby coward is on vacation. He also occasionally writes articles for Newsmax and the like.

[DoNotRefill]

119. Isn't Chuck Robb(D) faculty at GMU?

GMU has a pretty diverse crowd at it.

[CO Liberal]

123. It Would Take a Billion Chuck Robbs.......

...to cancel out the evil of ONE Walter Williams. He's useless.

[Romulus]

78. Walter Williams

is an economist at my AM, George Mason University in Fairfax, VA (suburban DC area). He is definitely a free-market-everything convert. His claim to fame is being a syndicated newspaper columnist (usually carried by JWR-type outlets and being a part-time Limbaugh fill-in.

[iverglas]

79. ah

I'm partial to economists, myself. Always regretted going to law school instead of grad school in economics, not that this was something that would have occurred to a lefty feminist back in 1971 ...

But I'll stick to The Economist for my "conservative" economics, I think. They just sent me a special offer. Still awfully expensive; and if I take them up, I'd have to renew the lapsed Guardian subscription too ...

____________________________________________________________________

How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. They all went for a beer and let the invisible hand take care of it.

I thought I'd made that one up -- actually, I did make it up, it's just that a lot of other people seem to have, too. (Kinda like my "brother, can you paradigm?", that it turns out isn't all mine either.) I did it in the early 80s, on the spur of the moment for my ecologist boyfriend who worked with a bunch of economists and was tired of the ecologist jokes:

How many ecologists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Eight. One to change the bulb, and seven to do the environmental impact study.

... so maybe I beat 'em to the punch.

Aargh! My economist-jokes bookmark link is dead.

Here, it's moved: http://mluwis17.wiwi.uni-halle.de/~jzw/texte/economists.htm

The ecologist joke is there -- I'd submitted my "hand of the marketplace" joke before I realized there were much more sophisticated versions of it on the site:

Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. If the light bulb needed changing the market would have already done it.

Q: How many mainstream economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A1: Two. One to assume the existence of ladder and one to change the bulb.
A2: Two. One to assume the existence of latter and one to change the bulb.

Q: How many neo-classical economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It depends on the wage rate.

Q: How many conservative economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A1: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.
A2: None. If it really needed changing, market forces would have caused it to happen.
A3: None. If the government would just leave it alone, it would screw itself in.
A4. None. "There is no need to change the light bulb. All the conditions for illumination are in place.
A5. None, because, look! It's getting brighter! It's definitely getting brighter !!!
A5. None; they're all waiting for the unseen hand of the market to correct the lighting disequilibrium.

The above light bulb jokes were mostly stolen from an article in _The_Wharton_Journal_, Feb. 21, 1994, by Selena Maranjian, who undoubtedly pilfered the humor from someone else. ...

... so I got the site owner to remove my embarrassingly sophomoric effort, but he left the ecologist one up.

I once tried to explain this one to the person playing "The Inspector" in a murder-mystery weekend play with whom I was shamelessly flirting ... not realizing at the time that he was a friend of my economics professor friend who ran the shows and had traded the weekend-for-two for my legal fees, and was also an economics professor in real life:

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Lets build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."

Paul Samuelson

(In my version, it's a case of beans, and the engineer spills them all over the sand, and the chemist blows them up ...)

So.

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: That's not funny.

Hey, I'm a feminist, so *I* can tell it.

.

[MrBenchley]

81. Q: How many RKBA "enthusiasts" does it take

to change a lightbulb?
A: What law that you gun-grabbers propose would possibly have prevented the bulb from burning out?

A friend of mine who Is an economist often starts off his speeches to industry groups by noting that economists have accurately predicted seven of the last three recessions.

[CO Liberal]

82. Well, It Takes One To Shoot Out the Old Light Bulb.......

:-)

[MrBenchley]

84. LOL!

Apropos of nothing, the BALLPLAYING Walt Williams used to have the wonderful nickname "No-Neck" due to the muscularity of his shoulders...

Ranks up there with Bob "Death to Flying Things" Ferguson, Clarence "Choo Choo" Coleman and Jim "Mudcat" Grant among all-time great baseball nicknames.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

83. who needs lightbulbs

When you have nightvision?

[iverglas]

85. har! - a contest!

to all. I should have had the foresight to anticipate/propose the contest.

Shall we collect entries and take 'em to GD for judging?

To be fair, we'd have to run the parallel contest:

How many advocates of reasonable restrictions on private possession of firearms does it take to change a lightbulb?

...

Lemme see; "how many RKBA enthusiasts ...?"

Two. One to take his/her 'tool' out foraging for a new lightbulb, and another one to defend the old lightbulb until the first one gets back just in case someone breaks in and tries to steal it.

So far, I like CO's best.

.

[MrBenchley]

86. Since blind people ought to be armed

according to the RKBA crowd, who needs lightbulbs anyway? We'll just shoot toward any sounds we hear....

[MrBenchley]

76. Walt Williams!!

[demsrule4life]

132. What is the "black opinon"?

This is one of your better ones. Now I understand, opinions are a collective right not an individual right.

[MrBenchley]

134. Tell you what, dems

Go on up to general discussion or the civil rights thread and snivel to them therer about how unfairly you feel Sowell and Thomas and the rest are being maligned down here.

[Shanty Oilish]

131. "Free white men..." That's also sexist.

"That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

And the women are what, irrelevant? incompetent? ineffectual?

"...poverty is unequally distributed to minorities..."

Women are more likely than men to live in poverty. And they're not even a minority.

If gun control is racist and classist, it's also sexist. In a physical contest, the average woman has about 60% the strength of the average man of any race or class---plus a few thousand years of indoctrination against asserting herself.

...
Colonel Colt made women equal.

http://womentoarms.net/wta2.html

[1a2b3c]

135. You should read the laws on being a member of the militia

They are sexist too. It includes all able bodied men age 17-45 and all woman who join the guard. So men are automatically in woman have to work for the government to be considered.