Poor people shouldn't have guns - Page 4

Poor people shouldn't have guns

This is a discussion on Poor people shouldn't have guns within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by farronwolf For arguements sake, I am going to agree with Mr. Cleaver, but not necessarily based on his thinking. No, I don't ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 67

Thread: Poor people shouldn't have guns

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    For arguements sake, I am going to agree with Mr. Cleaver, but not necessarily based on his thinking.

    No, I don't want to take anyone's guns away from them personally.

    If your in public housing, maybe you don't need a gun simply because if you can't feed/cloth/house yourself you don't need to be spending money on anything but the basic necessities for your life.
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    The points made against public housing and/or government housing, valid or not, really have nothing to do with the original question.

    Cleaver holds that people should not possess firearms in a specific location. That's where it becomes a 2nd Amendment issue. It's the same anti-gun argument made by those who banned handguns in DC, and simply doesn't hold water. The Brady Bunch just loves that argument.
    rodc13,

    Like I stated in my original post I wasn't able to take the same possition of Mr. Cleaver. Simply that I was going to argue the same point but from a different perspective. Using Thanis' words, luxury vs my words of necessity.

    One other issue to consider is one of property rights. There have been on occassion threads popping up here about apartment complexes or work locations that forbid guns/weapons on the premisis. If the government housing is that which comes most frequently to mind, the apartment buildings or housing complexes that are wholly owned by the governmental entity, does not that entity have the right to set the rules for their own property?

    This is not the same issue as came up in the Heller Case in DC. The SCOTUS did not say that folks in DC can carry their guns into the capital or around the city or whatever. They simply said that DC can not ban someone from owning a particular type of firearm ie handgun or keeping firearms in their own private property. Yes that is a very simplified version. Using the same reasoning, the public housing that Mr. Cleaver's is referring to, could ban firearms just as DC or the government is able to ban firearms from their public property.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor


  2. #47
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,124
    Thanis wrote: "Millions on welfare / social services, to the farmer, the banker, the unions, the corportaions, we are a country of subsidies, yearning every 2 years to say "What are you going to do about this!""

    There are entire industries and industrial segments which exist solely because of government activity or government mandate. To give just one example,
    the segment of the publishing industry which publishes scientific manuscripts.

    I made my living do research, writing, publishing. Every manuscript this segment of the publishing industry puts out in paper form and distributes to libraries is dependent upon Uncle's investment in research, Uncle paying page charges and manuscript handling fees, or research paid for or heavily subsidized by Uncle.

    Yet, I have no doubt that the printers, the editors, the distributors all think of themselves as paragons of the free market; and don't stop to think about what drives that particular market and that particular product need.

    There are many other examples large and small of corporations waiting for their handout; buying their handout with contributions to candidates. The ordinary poor don't quite have the same opportunity.

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,392
    The argument that public housing it is public property is flawed. What other right beyond 2A can be altered because a person lives on property they don't own. So if you live in public housing, maybe you should not be allowed to own a bible, or pray at the goverment allowed kitchen table. Maybe you lose your right to privacy, and cameras should be set up to make sure the poor don't own something not authorised. Perhaps the poor should not be allowed to own a suit, because they have better things to spend money on. They should only be given enough toilet paper to wipe twice, because that is all they deserve. Maybe since we are paying for the housing they should not be allowed to own any clothing, and only be allowed government issued.

    The thought process is the poor should be happy for the scraps they are given because they dare to be poor.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Though the courts have held that cities or other public entities can limit free speech on public property. Many times the KKK or other organizations have been denied permits or access to public forums due to the nature of their speech and the concern that public safety would be in jeopardy.

    Folks that live in public house are routinely subject to inspections of the property, and often kicked out for lack of care for that property. It could be argued that this violates unreasonable searches.

    As far as owning a bible in public housing, that probably would not be able to be banned because one could not make a good argument that the bible necessarily posed a threat to the other residents. However if the person with that bible were to constantly try to convert or harrass the other residents of the public house with their religious preachings, they certainly would be required to stop that activity, because that activity could result in an enviroment that is hostile or harmful to others.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  5. #50
    Senior Member Array Natureboypkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    From time to time folks post stuff here indicating their distaste for "the poor" who they would deny rights, and hurl names such as lazy, bum, worthless; and then demand to know where personal responsibility is.

    I don't know what is wrong with the upstairs part of folks who think like that.

    We currently have several long time participants here who are struggling, and who wish to maintain their dignity. These examples are are proof that good people come in all economic circumstances.

    With unemployment at approximately 10% and underemployment probably at least another 10% we can't in anything like good conscience hurl abuse at that large a segment of our population, and blame that many people for their circumstance.

    "Poor" too often is used as a code word for folks who are different and whom some wish to discriminate against.

    We all have a collective responsibility to make our economy work in a way that allows anyone willing and able to work to find gainful employment that will keep them above the poverty line and enable a life of dignity.
    Mixed Martial Arts Record= 2-0.......Kyokushin Karate Record=5-0

    USMC.....helping enemies of America die for their countries since 1775

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    From time to time folks post stuff here indicating their distaste for "the poor" who they would deny rights, and hurl names such as lazy, bum, worthless; and then demand to know where personal responsibility is.

    I don't know what is wrong with the upstairs part of folks who think like that.

    We currently have several long time participants here who are struggling, and who wish to maintain their dignity. These examples are are proof that good people come in all economic circumstances.

    With unemployment at approximately 10% and underemployment probably at least another 10% we can't in anything like good conscience hurl abuse at that large a segment of our population, and blame that many people for their circumstance.

    "Poor" too often is used as a code word for folks who are different and whom some wish to discriminate against.

    We all have a collective responsibility to make our economy work in a way that allows anyone willing and able to work to find gainful employment that will keep them above the poverty line and enable a life of dignity.
    Its the part of your statement that I bolded that I have problems with.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Whether or not someone is poor should have nothing to do with exercising ones rights. I do not believe the Government should pay for it or to hamper it. If a person is to poor to own a gun because of a free market ,well thats the breaks. Now if the person cannot afford it because of Government actions affecting the price, such as with what happened to machine gun prices, I have a problem with that. If the Government places fee's or other restrictions on it so that certain groups are effectivly prevented from exercising that right that is also wrong.

    If you have a problem with what some might buy with Government funds, then stop giving them cash. Change to a voucher system where no cash ever changes hand. To do it any other way will only come back to bite you.

    In my state a popular way to be against something you don't like is to say the poor will spend their money on it. They did it with tobacco, lottery, horse racing. Its an easy way to fight something. Do away with the cash and you kill that argument.

    Michael

  8. #53
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The participant who posted that people are poor because there are insufficient jobs and employment opportunities is partially correct. He forgot to add that in too many instances they are also poor because
    wages for most folks have never kept up with underlying inflation.
    Yawn! :smiley icon of yawning: People are paid depending on their value to the company. Not a penny more. If they don;t think they are paid enough money THEY CAN QUIT. If they really think they should be paid more than anyone else values their services they can START THEIR OWN BUSINESS. But wait! That actually requires initiative. Some think people should have jobs for life and every whim, including guns, provided to them by the government.

    There was an available compensatory mechanism in the 1970---men finally had to give in and their wives went to work; often with horrific effects on family life.
    Wrong. Women entered the workplace in large numbers because of the idiotic feminist ideaology: that women needed to work to find fulfillment; that women needed men like fish need bicycles; and that staying at home tending the house and raising children should be demonized.

    The fact is that women in the workplace has depressed wages (supply and demand), created a generation of latchkey kids, and established a day care mentality that has caused real physical and mental harm to children.

    And to SD, you know full well that in your field you are beholden entirely to Uncle for the major income stream at your company. There isn't much of a private market for "rocket science" or rocket engineering. You are feeding at the trough as much as anyone else.
    Nonsense. I have no idea why you want to attack me personally but the fact is that I am an embedded systems engineer. I have worked for defense contractors, private industry and I have consulted. My skills set encompasses a wide range of industries, from video to telephony, to internet and wireless, to graphics and any small portable device with a microprocessor.

    And by the way, I own a small business and employ a number of people. Comparing my usccess with people taking handouts is disingenuous at best.I won;t even mention the worst.

    Were it not for the North Koreans and the Iranians, you might well be one of the poor, a displaced engineer trying to find work in a flooded market, with skill that don't transfer well to what little R&D our private companies still do.
    You seem to have a misnderstanding of engineering. The poor displaced engineers of which you speak are typically computer programmers, who have grave competition from other countries. Still, as a nation, we need to provide an exorbitant number of visas and green cards because we do not have enough engineers in America. Every time I update my resume on Monster (everyone should ALWAYS keep an up to date resume) I am FLOODED with job offers from recruiters and companies throughout the United States.

    The reason I cirrently work in missile defense and other related defense activities is because I firmly believe that is where my skills are desperately needed. Exactly because of North Korea, Iran, China and other national security threats is why I am supporting the most necessary programs we have.

    Poor people CHOOSE to be poor. They have every opportunity to advance and, in fact, most traverse any income strata throughout their lives. I suggest you read Thomas Sowell. He is a brilliant economist and can make a complicated subject very easy to understand.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    The argument that public housing it is public property is flawed. What other right beyond 2A can be altered because a person lives on property they don't own. So if you live in public housing, maybe you should not be allowed to own a bible, or pray at the goverment allowed kitchen table. Maybe you lose your right to privacy, and cameras should be set up to make sure the poor don't own something not authorised. Perhaps the poor should not be allowed to own a suit, because they have better things to spend money on. They should only be given enough toilet paper to wipe twice, because that is all they deserve. Maybe since we are paying for the housing they should not be allowed to own any clothing, and only be allowed government issued.

    The thought process is the poor should be happy for the scraps they are given because they dare to be poor.

    Ok, let me ask this.

    Is the property owned/opperated by the state?

    If the answer is yes, then how is is different than me taking a firearm to the State Fair? (Illegal in NC.)

    They are both state owned property, where at least in this state the laws are very clear about firearms being quite verboten in that instance.

    The issue of living somewhere you don't own is a different argument all together with one that is presiding on state property. If I were to deliver a pizza to a project house, and were carrying a weapon, I would likely be arrested if caught during that time by a police officer.

    So, why should they be allowed to have a firearm on the property, but not I? Are their lives more valuable because they are dependent on the system, or because of their race, circumstance or other discriminatory factors?
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowsbane View Post
    Ok, let me ask this.

    Is the property owned/opperated by the state?

    If the answer is yes, then how is is different than me taking a firearm to the State Fair? (Illegal in NC.)

    They are both state owned property, where at least in this state the laws are very clear about firearms being quite verboten in that instance.

    The issue of living somewhere you don't own is a different argument all together with one that is presiding on state property. If I were to deliver a pizza to a project house, and were carrying a weapon, I would likely be arrested if caught during that time by a police officer.

    So, why should they be allowed to have a firearm on the property, but not I? Are their lives more valuable because they are dependent on the system, or because of their race, circumstance or other discriminatory factors?
    Frankly, I think you should be allowed to carry on both, however, the difference between someone's government housing bed room and the state fair is one is someone's bed room and the other is the state fair.

    See one you have the right to walk around at, the fair, and the other, if the renter does not want you there, you can't legally enter.

    Hope the difference is more clear now.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    I agree that both should be allowed, but since I can't protect myself while safeguarding their right to delivery pizza (Joke), I don't see why they should get preferential treatment and be allowed to take advantage of rights that are restricted to me.
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  12. #57
    Member Array Holger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I didn't say that it did. I said that too many people think the poor are poor because they lack personal responsibility. That is certainly true in some cases, but it is also certainly untrue in very many instances.
    Clearly I misread your post. I didn't think that jived with previous things you've posted. I apologize.

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,740
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Wrong. Women entered the workplace in large numbers because of the idiotic feminist ideaology: that women needed to work to find fulfillment; that women needed men like fish need bicycles; and that staying at home tending the house and raising children should be demonized.

    The fact is that women in the workplace has depressed wages (supply and demand), created a generation of latchkey kids, and established a day care mentality that has caused real physical and mental harm to children.
    Oh, S.D. I do believe my opinion of you just slipped a couple of notches.

    My mother worked her whole life and she instilled in me a very strong work ethic.

    I have worked my whole life and BOTH of my kids are over-achievers.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill

  14. #59
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowsbane View Post
    I agree that both should be allowed, but since I can't protect myself while safeguarding their right to delivery pizza (Joke), I don't see why they should get preferential treatment and be allowed to take advantage of rights that are restricted to me.
    Interesting point of view, but if you live there, I think there is a difference. My $.02
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  15. #60
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    Oh, S.D. I do believe my opinion of you just slipped a couple of notches.

    My mother worked her whole life and she instilled in me a very strong work ethic.

    I have worked my whole life and BOTH of my kids are over-achievers.
    Patti,

    Please don't misinterpret my view. I fully support women who choose to work and some of my female coworkers are the sharpest and smartest people I could hope to have.

    My point was that the feminist ideaology coerced some women, perfectly content to be homemakers and full time mothers, which is a full time unappreciated job, because of the stigma associated with 'only' being a housewife. Many of these women were not happy with the real world being much different than the picture feminists painted of the typical workday. Others were able to fulfill their potential and their dreams. I think Hopyard's assertion that women entered the workplace (in that time frame) because of financial reasons is valid in but a few cases.
    Congratulations on raising a terrific family. Your story of success should be a model for others.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Some folks really shouldn't have guns
    By Treo in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: July 6th, 2010, 04:07 PM
  2. Some people should NEVER have guns
    By CyberGuyPR in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: January 13th, 2009, 01:05 AM
  3. Some people just shouldn't be allowed to work on their own guns.
    By Bruces45 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: February 7th, 2006, 10:05 AM

Search tags for this page

cleaver poor not have guns
,
guns in public housing
,

manna food bank irresponsible bums

,
people shouldnt wield a gun
,
poor have guns
,

poor people shouldn't have guns

,
poor people shouldnt own guns
,
why little people shouldn't have guns
,
why people shouldnt carry firearms
Click on a term to search for related topics.