Dumb......is all I can say.
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; Missouri Democrat: Poor Too Irresponsible to Exercise Second Amendment "There was a time during the ’70s and ’80s when public housing developments were considered killing ...
Missouri Democrat: Poor Too Irresponsible to Exercise Second Amendment
"There was a time during the ’70s and ’80s when public housing developments were considered killing grounds,” said Emanuel Cleaver II , D-Mo., who grew up in public housing. “It is just foolhardy to place guns in developments of poor people, many of whom are unemployed, and place these guns around children. . . . Why would we try to put guns in the most densely populated areas in the urban core? It’s just unbelievable.”
Of the few housing projects I have seen the residents there are the ones most needing a means of self-protection.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
Hóka-héy! Crazy Horse
Next they'll decide bald, fat people shouldn't have guns. Or people with Toyota pickup trucks shouldn't have guns. Or left-handed people shouldn't have guns!
My suggestion? Emanual Cleaver II, D-Mo., shouldn't have...an elected job.
There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.
How quickly we forget, Mr. Cleaver.
His statements and logic is the _exact_ same as was used so as to support enactment and continuation of both the 'Slave Codes' and the infamous Dred Scott at SCOTUS decision.Additional reading on the subject:The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, . . . and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; ... and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
March 6, 1857 - Chief Justice Taney, Supreme Court of The United States
Source - Africans in America/Part 4/Dred Scott case
Racist Politicians Want Your Guns
Commentary by Richard W. Stevens, JD
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Racism and 'gun control'
Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans
MCSM: The Racist Roots Of Gun Control
The Disarming of Black America
by Richard Poe
The Disarming of Black America by Richard Poe
I personally grew up as being poor and my entire life to age 18 when I moved out on my own living via public assistance on welfare and literally amongst public housing as a resident including for nearly two years through all of 8th and most of 9th grade in a shelter for homeless and battered women. The ghetto for real not like how kids and folk now days like to use the term with whimsy. Nobody did in my day. It was a shameful and hurtful term of situational acknowledgment. I will never in life forget that feelinig and position.
Public housing as a matter of fact does include an inordinate amount of crime by _unlawful action_, that is not the fault of firearms being available to citizens nor as held by such specific situation citizens. Contrary to popular assumption including that of Mr . Cleaver current.
Further criminals do not and never have submitted themself to governance nor governmental restrictions as by law toward their own desires and actions.
It does not happen and never ever has, as based on historical facts and figures.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
I would think that law abiding citizens in those crime ridden areas would require a means to protect themselves on a daily basis from becoming a victim,Or is he saying that poor people have nothing worth taking so they do not need a gun to protect that which they do not have?How about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,everybody has a right to protect themselves from bodily harm or death.
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
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.
Poor people are _people_ too.
Even a person who has no material possessions at all still stands real chance of loss and being predated upon, as that person maintains a life which very many people per history do actively seek to take if only for their own entertainment and whim.
Real world proof:
Absolutely right, Janq....
If you trace the origins of our gun control laws, they all without exception address firearms ownership amongst the immigrant poor or former slave populations in this country. Even the Sullivan law enacted in New York was passed to insure that the only people who were armed were the police, and "Big Jim" Sullivans' Tammany Hall thugs who extorted rent and other protection fees from poor immigrants that populated their tenements......
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
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. Yes, some may argue that a gun which can be used for defense is necessary for survival. That is a valid arguement. But if you didn't have somone providing your food or housing you would be forced to sell that gun and everything else of value that you had to put something in your stomach or that of your children so that they would not starve to death.
There are members here who have posted that they had to sell their firearms in order to keep their families fed or the car paid so they could get to and from interviews or their job, whatever. If the folks here, who I am assuming are upstanding people are willing to part with their firearms or other possesions in order to keep their heads just above the high water mark, then why should someone who is full fledged on the taxpayers pocketbook be able to keep things that our members have reluctantly given up?
If your getting help from the public, then you don't need any luxury items at all. No cable or tv, no cell phone, no internet, and no probably not any firearm either. Not until you can purchase it all yourself. And no, I don't care if your white/black/yellow/red/old/young/religious/athiest or whatever, that should have no bearing on the matter. If that is anyones basis for this, well you would be wrong to start with.
I will now get out the flame retardant suit.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
I never like it when people simply compare something to Nazis, but taking firearms away from those in public housing creeps very close to not allowing jews to own firearms in the getto.
Can they own a camera to take a picture of their child's 1st birthday, are they allowed to have children, do they have to sell their wedding rings to get a block of government cheese, not allowed TV entertainment or news, can they own a radio, maybe they should be required to wear special patches to show where they live (to help reduce crime), etc?
I get what you are saying, but just because people in troubled areas live in government housing does not mean they lose their rights to own what you think is a luxury. Since they can't afford housing does that also mean the state can deside how much they get paid and where they will work. Other people desiding what you can own is not that much different then being a slave.
To qualify for housing you need to meet certain requirements. There is a thought process out there that everything government is welfare, that the poor are lazy, but many of those people work more hours and jobs then you can imagine. They even get into situations where they are willing to take that 3rd or 4th job, but if they do, they would be kicked out of housing.
I get that farronwolf is just playing devil's avocate. However, that thought process changes "government assistance" into "a state controled getto."
Farron is generally correct in that if you are living with public assistance, you probably aren't in a position to splurge on luxury items, and to do so would probably be irresponsible. However, I tend to disagree with him regarding what is a luxury item these days.
For many of our members, having a Wilson Combat 1911 or a Sig 556 certainly is a luxury. And when times get tough, selling those guns can help. However, if you live in a high-crime area (and not necessarily public housing), a $250 .38 should not be considered a luxury item, but a necessity.
Same with internet access or a computer. Many people put themselves through higher ed via online classes or even take GED classess online. Denying access to the internet could easily contribute to keeping them on public assistance, which nobody wants (most of the time them included).
I also disagree with Hopyard about something he said, too. I agree that being poor does NOT mean one is lazy, shiftless or anything of the sort. It doesn't, however, alleviate the obligation to personal responsibility.
I know the flavor of hunger and poverty... when I was 17, I was sleeping in a empty Chevy panel van in Los Angeles, and I was damned grateful, because before that, I was sleeping under a highway overpass. Too young for a handgun, and I don't even know if a handgun would have been legal in those days anyway. I have fended off predators at the point of a Buck folder, and I can assure you that a handgun is preferable to a blade...
But since "poor" has been used as a codeword for black or Hispanic, let's stand that on its' head... what if you are poor white trash, shoeless and illiterate in the most remote part of Appalachia... should the poor in Carbuncle, West Virginia be denied arms as well...?
"Who is to say that I am not an instrument of karma? Indeed, who is to say that I am not the very hand of God himself, dispatched by the Almighty to smite the Philistines and hypocrites, to lay low the dishonest and corrupt, and to bust the jawbone of some jackass that so desperately deserves it?"