What do the D's have against poor people?


PDA






Lo-Fi
March 14, 2013, 11:38 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/12/can-poor-people-be-trusted-with-guns/

Interesting Op-Ed, discussing the costs to the average citizen to jump through these ridiculous hoops. They don't trust poor people.

If you enjoyed reading about "What do the D's have against poor people?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Akita1
March 14, 2013, 11:44 AM
It's a control thing; when you pay people, they'll vote for you.

armoredman
March 14, 2013, 11:55 AM
Plus poor defenseless people clamor for MORE government to "protect them", regardless of what government can/can't do.

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 11:59 AM
Turn this into a Repubs vs. Dems thread, and it will be closed.

Lo-Fi
March 14, 2013, 12:00 PM
Part that bothered me real bad was this:

Next week Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will introduce legislation that will ban the production of inexpensive guns in the United States.


Well the Ruger, Kel-Tec, and Taurus lines are considered inexpensive, but highly popular. I personally like one of those lines. Even Hi-Point seems to be decent for the money. I don't think we have the "ring of fire" manufacturers out there anymore.

MtnCreek
March 14, 2013, 12:05 PM
Why should individuals protect themselves? That’s the role of government, isn’t it?

GA is in the process of passing a law to allow people in Gov housing the opportunity to possess firearms. I wasn’t aware until this came up in the State house/senate, but I assume this has been illegal. I wonder why these areas have so much violent crime; there’s not supposed to be any guns there…

CoRoMo
March 14, 2013, 12:52 PM
It's simple. The people in our government who are trying to make gun ownership cost prohibitive, taboo, and otherwise too difficult and complicated to engage in... don't believe anyone -other than government- has the right to keep and bear arms, period.

They do not view it as a right.

This is why they work tirelessly to disarm every last American citizen that does not work for government, or is contracted to provide protection for someone who works for government.

It does not matter if the people who are being disproportionately disarmed are from a minority group or poor. The more disarmed Americans the better [in their belief].

JustinJ
March 14, 2013, 12:56 PM
Turn this into a Repubs vs. Dems thread, and it will be closed.

Based on the posts of this thread, apparently left bashing is perfectly fine so long as nobody argues back.

eye5600
March 14, 2013, 01:03 PM
Part that bothered me real bad was this:

Next week Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will introduce legislation that will ban the production of inexpensive guns in the United States.


Well the Ruger, Kel-Tec, and Taurus lines are considered inexpensive, but highly popular. I personally like one of those lines. Even Hi-Point seems to be decent for the money. I don't think we have the "ring of fire" manufacturers out there anymore.
It's been somewhat interesting to me as a political observer that we have not had much discussion of putting taxes on guns. That approach worked pretty well for FDR with NFA. Just raising the tax stamp to $1000 and putting semi-auto rifles into the NFA category would case AR-15 sales to plummet. Possibly they know the Republicans wouldn't vote for it on tax increase grounds without even discussing it as a gun control issue.

There was already a round of legislation to get "Saturday Night Specials" off the street. They were so shoddy as to be dangerous. That approach has been obviated by Kel-Tec and HiPoint and others who figured out how to sell a petty decent firearm for a low price.

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 01:09 PM
I am going to give one last warning.

Some of you seem unable or unwilling to stay on topic. I don't give a damn about your politics in general, but this thread will stay tightly focused on firearms, not your feelings about abortion, drugs, welfare, religion or anything else, or it's closed, and you'll probably face an infraction as well for being our own worst enemy. :fire: This is a potentially valid thread, and it'd be great to hear from the folks who actually have something useful to say.

John

jerkface11
March 14, 2013, 01:13 PM
There was already a round of legislation to get "Saturday Night Specials" off the street. They were so shoddy as to be dangerous.

That was actually about disarming minorities. Gun control at it's roots is racist and anti-poor.

akv3g4n
March 14, 2013, 01:25 PM
Anti-gun legislators are just trying to make it harder to purchase a firearm period. Many of the hurdles that they put in place do disproportionately affect the lower class but they are trying to make it so difficult and confusing that most people abandon the thought of purchasing a firearm.

They've tried more direct methods but that pesky second amendment keeps getting in the way. They figure that they'll just try to introduce as much red tape ( insurance, additional training, special permits) as possible now to get their way.

For sure, they don't just want to stop the poor from getting guns, they are aiming for equal opportunity disarmament.

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 01:32 PM
Well, it is true that many early "gun control" efforts were especially aimed at blacks and poor whites. South Carolina, for instance, at one time had a law that only firearms by Colt and Winchester were legal- both of those being some of the more expensive commonly available firearms. Such laws were typically only enforced against the poor.

It should come as no surprise that, years later, South Carolina has a "melting point" restriction prohibiting firearms that melt below a certain temperature~ unless they're (more) expensive ones like Glocks. :rolleyes:

(SC law may have changed since I left the state, but this was at least the law when I was there as a young adult.)

jerkface11
March 14, 2013, 01:35 PM
Illinois also has a melting point law. All such laws do is disarm the poor.

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 01:36 PM
Agreed. Even S&W has produced alloy guns.

JustinJ
March 14, 2013, 01:44 PM
Democrats have nothing against the poor and the vast majority do genuinely want to help the poor improve their lot. The best way to do that is obviously debatable and beyond the scope of this forum. However, regarding guns the primary goal of many who advocate gun control(and not just dems) is to reduce the total number of guns. Disenfranchising the poor is not their goal as they see reducing the amount of guns as a good thing in general. Saying that gun control legislation is done out of malice against low income americans is absurd.

jerkface11
March 14, 2013, 01:50 PM
Saying that gun control legislation is done out of malice against low income americans is absurd.

I guess that's why they banned "saturday night specials" and not Purdy doubles.

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 01:50 PM
Saying that gun control legislation is done out of malice against low income americans is absurd.

Well...maybe. It's common to hear some politicians mouthing that we need to get guns out of the "inner city". That does sound like specific targeting of the lower income folks to me.

John

jerkface11
March 14, 2013, 01:52 PM
No guns allowed in a lot of housing projects as well.

Ankeny
March 14, 2013, 01:53 PM
Disenfranchising the poor is not their goal as they see reducing the amount of guns as a good thing in general. Saying that gun control legislation is done out of malice against low income Americans is absurd. I agree. Nothing more than an effort to reduce gun numbers and availability.

Well...maybe. It's common to hear some politicians mouthing that we need to get guns out of the "inner city". That does sound like specific targeting of the lower income folks to me. Sounds to me like targeting high crime areas.

Lo-Fi
March 14, 2013, 01:58 PM
Well...maybe. It's common to hear some politicians mouthing that we need to get guns out of the "inner city". That does sound like specific targeting of the lower income folks to me.


If it looks like a duck....

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 01:59 PM
I believe it's fairly common for people to not understand they're sexist/classist/racist.

Hell, I see it here on THR all the time, automatic assumptions about what all righteous gun lovers are.

John

ATLDave
March 14, 2013, 02:12 PM
Remember, though, that guns used criminally in the inner city are usually turned on poor people.

Once one comes to the (erroneous, in my view) conclusion that guns cause additional crime/violence/death, then reducing their supply or availability is a good thing. If raising the price beyond what the poor can afford is the method, then the supporters of that method probably believe the poor neighborhoods will disproportionately benefit.

They're generally not motivated by a desire to stick it to poor people, but by a mistaken belief that they're helping them. Doesn't make it right.

jerkface11
March 14, 2013, 02:17 PM
AtlDave and JustinJ both seem to think anti-gunners are simply misguided. I'm not willing to be that generous.

Deanimator
March 14, 2013, 02:19 PM
Saying that gun control legislation is done out of malice against low income americans is absurd.
Oh yeah, the Sullivan law was passed to disarm the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts...

Generally, gun control legislation is done out of malice against people who fail the "paper bag test".

The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its adherents to create and maintain a "safe working environment" for themselves.

Not only do gun control advocates use the same tactics as White supremacists and Holocaust deniers, they frequently use the same language. I've long since ceased believing that that was a coincidence.

Steel Horse Rider
March 14, 2013, 02:22 PM
I guess the concensus here is that gun ownership causes crime?

pockets
March 14, 2013, 02:25 PM
I don't think we have the "ring of fire" manufacturers out there anymore.
Most of the R-O-F companies designs are still with us. 'Sundance' and 'Sedco' are not, nor are their designs....however:
Nearly all of the old 'Davis Industries' line is currently produced by 'Cobra'.
Several of the old 'Lorcin' line are also currently produced by 'Cobra'.
Most of the old 'Jennings/Bryco' line is currently produced by 'Jimenez Arms'.
The ubiquitous Raven was produced by 'Phoenix' until a couple of years ago...and Phoenix still produces the HP-25 and HP-22 today.
'AMT' was considered part of the Ring-Of-Fire manufacturers. I believe 'High Standard' is currently producing some of the old AMT designs.
.

Deanimator
March 14, 2013, 02:29 PM
AtlDave and JustinJ both seem to think anti-gunners are simply misguided.
Misguided or gullible and stupid, not unlike Holocaust deniers and 9/11 "truthers".

It's a pyramidal structure with a great mass of dupes and saps at the bottom, with a small core of conmen and fanatics at the top.

I've often been able to turn "low information" types who just regurgitate whatever they hear. I've NEVER turned a "movement" anti-gunner any more than I've ever turned a "movement" Holocaust denier. They're HEAVILY invested in their psychopathology, for reasons of power, money, hatred or feelings of personal inadequacy.

Deanimator
March 14, 2013, 02:36 PM
They're generally not motivated by a desire to stick it to poor people, but by a mistaken belief that they're helping them. Doesn't make it right.
Personal experience and observation tells me it's more of a sense of superiority over poor (and different) people.

It's the "little brown brother" schtick from colonialist times, and the Southern slave holder mentality overlayed across 21st century American society. Some of the things I've heard anti-gunners say, especially when they didn't think there were Black people around would make Piet Botha blush. They view themselves every bit as threatened as any Alabama plantation owner or Afrikaaner. They're AFRAID of Blacks and Hispanics with guns, TERRIFIED in fact. The White cop whom they see as standing between them and "chaos"? Not so much. They'd give the police 16" railroad guns if they asked for them.

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 02:49 PM
I guess the concensus here is that gun ownership causes crime?

Where, exactly, do you see that in this thread, Steel Horse Rider? Because I don't see it.

Personal experience and observation tells me it's more of a sense of superiority over poor (and different) people.

I would say you're right in that sense of elitism. That idea of knowing what's best for others is very largely true of the politicians and activists trying to take firearms away from US citizens, just as there are some racist/classist motivations for gun control and statism, as well. That's why it's just plain silly to generalize about the people that want to restrict freedom. There are black politicians who want to restrict firearms for people's own good, and white politicians who want to restrict firearms for people's own good, and politicians of every conceivable hue who have their own darn motivation for trying to control what adults do.

John

Ryanxia
March 14, 2013, 03:15 PM
The fact that I can't buy a $50 new gun because of the metal it's made out of is infringement. Next they might include polymer guns, or guns made out of anything but unobtanium. Just another form of gun control. And to someone that works at Burger King (not me) even $200 for a new gun is too steep.

FROGO207
March 14, 2013, 04:13 PM
When the POTUS stated he wanted to get rid of cheap handguns last fall I went out and immediately ordered a half dozen High Points. Some of them ended up as gifts this last Christmas.:D I agree that anti gunners (not necessarily a D) will use any method or trick to effect their end game. That being no guns for the population at large IMHO. I feel we need to take off the kid gloves and use their own tricks/tactics against them and smack them back to reality.:cool:

Kiln
March 14, 2013, 05:09 PM
Most of the R-O-F companies designs are still with us. 'Sundance' and 'Sedco' are not, nor are their designs....however:
Nearly all of the old 'Davis Industries' line is currently produced by 'Cobra'.
Several of the old 'Lorcin' line are also currently produced by 'Cobra'.
Most of the old 'Jennings/Bryco' line is currently produced by 'Jimenez Arms'.
The ubiquitous Raven was produced by 'Phoenix' until a couple of years ago...and Phoenix still produces the HP-25 and HP-22 today.
'AMT' was considered part of the Ring-Of-Fire manufacturers. I believe 'High Standard' is currently producing some of the old AMT designs.
.
Yup. Oddly enough almost all of them were shut down with liability lawsuits over the use of their firearms in crimes (when you could sue a gun company just because their gun was used in a crime) and not because of injuries to people using their products.

The fact of it is that we've seen legislation in this country before specifically targeting poor people and their rights to buy cheap guns. Putting a minimum price tag on a gun is really limiting for a surprising number of people. At one point in my life I was extremely happy that the Raven was $100 because despite it's weak rount, it still allowed me to have a gun to protect myself with. Same goes for Phoenix Arms, who is a great company with decent pistols.

If a gun gets a reputation for honestly being junk, nobody will buy it and the company will eventually shut down. Lawsuits can still be filed against companies for selling dangerous products. Basically what I'm saying is that guns aren't really blowing off people's hands as was the popular rhetoric back in the 80's and 90's from anti gunners trying to ban cheap handguns. Interestingly enough, it is the same people who are trying to ban black rifles today. At that time they were constantly billing saturday night specials as more dangerous to the users than people in front of them all the while they were complaining that these same guns were most often used in crime.

At one point in time anti-gun smear campaigns had everybody convinced that a Hi Point would self destruct before it'd fire a single magazine, now we know that isn't true and they've gotten lots of respect as a cheap "good enough" gun.

HorseSoldier
March 14, 2013, 05:19 PM
I've often been able to turn "low information" types who just regurgitate whatever they hear. I've NEVER turned a "movement" anti-gunner any more than I've ever turned a "movement" Holocaust denier. They're HEAVILY invested in their psychopathology, for reasons of power, money, hatred or feelings of personal inadequacy.

The true believer types are going to be a generally lost cause for the other side in any sort of divisive issue. The low info types are the people we need to be working to attract to our side.

HoosierQ
March 14, 2013, 06:38 PM
I think the problem is that, as has been said a thousand times, there is a tendency to correlate the tool to the crime. The correlation is between socio-economic realities and crime (with some mental illness thrown in).

So it's ironic that in this context we're asking why one of the parties seems to promote policies and laws that would make it more difficult for poor people to access guns and easy for the rich. All the while the folks on the other side of the aisle are, otherwise, seen as the ones favoring the rich.

Poor people are more likely to commit crimes of all sorts. Desperation, etc. Therefore, poor people are more likely then to commit a crime with a gun. There are those that, having no constructive way to combat the root cause...poverty...seek to remove an inanimate object from the entire public in hopes of lowering crime among that group most likely to turn to crime in the first place.

If every single solitary firearm in North America were removed from the continent and none took their place, there'd still be poor people. There'd still be desperate people. There'd still be crime. And nobody, law abiding or otherwise, would be able to protect themselves from being bludgeoned by a 2x4 or whatever tool robbers would turn to.

So nobody hates the poor. People hate crime. People put poor people and guns together in their minds and there's a gun problem. Nobody thinks, for whatever reason, that there's a poverty problem.

JShirley
March 14, 2013, 07:08 PM
Well, okay, as someone with a history degree and an anthro minor, I can tell you that some people do think there's a poverty problem! :D But you're entirely right that it's not the first thing that springs to most people's minds.

Socio-economic status in general tends to paint a clearer picture than "race" or political ideology, in regards to committing crime...or at least getting caught.

John

wrench
March 14, 2013, 10:47 PM
Here's a really long read, but I thought it was very interesting. On the history of gun control in this country.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/tahmassebi1.html

wild cat mccane
March 15, 2013, 12:16 AM
D's have against poor people? HAHAHA. From Fox News of all places too?

Goodness. Someone needs a CURRENT and PAST history lesson.

DammitBoy
March 15, 2013, 12:24 AM
All one needs to do is recall recent history in the deep south (1900's) and who was denied the right to own firearms by the party in power at the time.

Poor people and black people were targeted specifically...

jerkface11
March 15, 2013, 12:36 AM
Should we find an alternet article for you wildcat ?

Kiln
March 15, 2013, 12:44 AM
Not to draw party lines but if you're voting for pro gun democrats, you won't have many options. I also keep hearing democrats in rural areas calling for common sense measures that don't effect hunters...which tells me that they're not pro second amendment but are afraid to openly state it.

RetiredUSNChief
March 15, 2013, 01:14 AM
This isn't just about "the poor", though I can see how this is drawn up for political sides to be taken.

Keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the gun control crowd is to eliminate guns from the hands of citizens. Period.

I don't think "the poor" are really being targeted, per se. I think that the poor are simply going to be among the first to be affected by a long string of gun control measures that are meant to eventually sweep ALL private ownership of firearms by citizens away.

To that end, they (the gun control crowd) will use every means at their disposal, knowing that this fight is for the long haul. Long haul defined as decades and generations. All they have to do is institute a few key laws on a wide spread basis and gun ownership will virtually disappear in a few generations with little actual physical effort on their part to make it happen.

What kinds of tools? Nothing so open as Feinstein's AWB. That's too blunt and too direct.

Tax ammunition more. Like the "sin taxes" we see on other products, like tobacco and certain foods deemed "unhealthy". If you can't afford the ammunition, then there isn't any point in owning a firearm.

Tax firearms more for the same reasons.

Mandate more and more "safety features", akin to the James Bond style stuff we see in the movies...like built in fingerprint scanners or other forms of biometric identification devices. Such things will increase the prices of weapons beyond what people can afford, especially when putting food on the table is already a major concern for many. Not to mention introduce an inherent problem with reliability as the weapons become more complex than necessary.

Increase security and law enforcement aids, such as encoding all bullets manufactured and sold in the United States (see "Ammunition Accountability Act"). The use of special gunpowders could also be mandated, with microtagging technology included. This costs money...which gun owners ultimately pay.

Increasing regulations on sales and such will result in higher prices as well.

Changing inheritance laws such that firearms could no longer be passed down, or not passed down without some weighty legal processes. Which, of course, costs time and money.

Increasing personal security requirements. Want to own a gun? Then you've got to have a certified safe installed and inspected. And you better have a firearms certificate for each weapon, too...which must be renewed annually. And expect to have random inspections as well.

Make the tax burdens so heavy and complex on firearms manufacturers that it starts becoming unprofitable for them to stay in business.

Change the liability laws and push through court cases which establish the precident that any person injured or killed by a firearm may sue the firearms company for fault.


There are TONS of ways to legislate private ownership of firearms out of existence. And some of the best ways involve the most favorite manipulative tools of politicians: laws and taxes.

Coop45
March 15, 2013, 01:55 AM
I agree. Nothing more than an effort to reduce gun numbers and availability.

Sounds to me like targeting high crime areas.
High crime areas are where people need guns. Criminals doing obey laws and turn in their guns.

Myles
March 15, 2013, 02:32 AM
The same thing was tried back when the latest buzzword was "Saturday night special." By going after affordable pistols, the discrimination is going to hurt the poorest segment of society. Those that cannot afford a BBQ 1911 but have enough sense to want to protect their family.

HoosierQ
March 15, 2013, 10:36 AM
Well, okay, as someone with a history degree and an anthro minor, I can tell you that some people do think there's a poverty problem! :D But you're entirely right that it's not the first thing that springs to most people's minds.

Socio-economic status in general tends to paint a clearer picture than "race" or political ideology, in regards to committing crime...or at least getting caught.

John
Agreed. The "nobody" to which I referred are those policy makers trying to convince voters they know a quick route to ending crime. To them, gun control seems to be a viable policy on the matter, at least in terms of rounding up votes. I strongly suspect they actually know about that root cause (vis-a-vis Switzerland with almost universal gun ownership, almost no poverty, and, guess what, very little crime). But needing to keep in office, they go after what they regard as low hanging policy fruit...the assault weapon. If they are lucky, they just might get something done on that...capacity limits etc. Correcting poverty is a generations long effort.

ATLDave
March 15, 2013, 10:41 AM
I think I know a little about how some citizens who favor gun control think because I know a lot of them, and used to be one myself. I favored the AWB in 1994. I believed that guns as a whole, and certain types of guns in particular, were an important input into crime. Standard economic analysis suggests that reducing the supply of an input will increase its price, which will lower the output of the finished "good" - violent crime. Since I do not like high levels of violent crime, I wanted to see its output level reduced. I had no ulterior motive, no grand designs on subjegating the populace or turning honest men into criminals. In fact, I had just finished high school - all my grand designs involved young ladies, recreational alcohol use, and/or scheduling college classes to give me Fridays off.

However, when the AWB came and went with no discrenable bottom-line impact, I changed my assumptions about how the world works. I still want to see lower rates of violent crime. I no longer believe that an AWB, or a mag limit, will have the desired effect, so I am no longer in favor of them. What's the difference between me and many folks who still think an AWB or mag cap limit will do something positive? They have never re-examined their starting assumptions. They think the world works a certain way. I (and probably you) think it works a different way.

All that said, stupid and oppressive laws are no less stupid or oppressive for being well-intentioned.

jerkface11
March 15, 2013, 10:42 AM
Haven't we been fighting the "war on poverty" since LBJ?

jamesbeat
March 15, 2013, 05:28 PM
This isn't just about "the poor", though I can see how this is drawn up for political sides to be taken.

Keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the gun control crowd is to eliminate guns from the hands of citizens. Period.

I don't think "the poor" are really being targeted, per se. I think that the poor are simply going to be among the first to be affected by a long string of gun control measures that are meant to eventually sweep ALL private ownership of firearms by citizens away.

To that end, they (the gun control crowd) will use every means at their disposal, knowing that this fight is for the long haul. Long haul defined as decades and generations. All they have to do is institute a few key laws on a wide spread basis and gun ownership will virtually disappear in a few generations with little actual physical effort on their part to make it happen.

What kinds of tools? Nothing so open as Feinstein's AWB. That's too blunt and too direct.

...

There are TONS of ways to legislate private ownership of firearms out of existence. And some of the best ways involve the most favorite manipulative tools of politicians: laws and taxes.
Sounds exactly like what happened in the UK...

junyo
March 15, 2013, 07:24 PM
Of course the poor are being targeted first. They're poor, therefore easier to screw over. You want to start a fight, you start with the people that can't drag you into court, and probably have sketchy friends and relatives that you can use to discredit them via association. Then you just need to convince the people you plan on screwing over later that they're in the 'good' group, that you have no problem with them. And they're smart and handsome and smell good too. It's the mouthbreathers in the 'bad' group that are frakkin the whole thing up for everyone else.

The beauty of divide and conquer is that you can apply any label to the good/bad placeholder:
lazy, good for nothing, poor people/hard working middle class
greedy evil rich people/hard working middle class
stupid rednecks/smart urbanites
effete metrosexuals/salt of the earth country folk
Choose ethnicity off of list A/Choose a second ethnicity off of list A

The key, when you set up the strategy, is to tie self worth and perception of virtue into the group that's going to be oppressing the living crap out of some other group in a minute. You're not just a bunch of people screwing over another bunch of people, you're a righteous bunch of people, helping other people.

By force, and whether or not they want your help.

Of course you're going to be taking away choices, or freedom from the bad people, but it's for their own good. They're just too stupid to notice, so they need the wise guidance of good people like you, you smart, generous, awesome good person. Did I mention that you're handsome and smell good? Cuz ya do. Now where where were we? Oh yeah, getting stuff we don't like away from the spics, dagos, darkies, and rednecks... Opps, I meant to say, making the world safer, for our most at risk fellow citizens.

And once you've successfully screwed over the 'bad' people, you suddenly discover that a portion of the 'good' people are JUST AS BAD. Gasp. Carve off another slice, lather, rinse, repeat.

DammitBoy
March 15, 2013, 09:29 PM
Haven't we been fighting the "war on poverty" since LBJ?

That's what all the propaganda tells us...

Solo
March 15, 2013, 09:58 PM
"1964 threatens to be the most explosive year America has ever witnessed. The most explosive year. Why? It's also a political year. It's the year when all of the white politicians will be back in the so-called Negro community jiving you and me for some votes. The year when all of the white political crooks will be right back in your and my community with their false promises, building up our hopes for a letdown, with their trickery and their treachery, with their false promises which they don't intend to keep."
-Malcolm X

If you enjoyed reading about "What do the D's have against poor people?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!