Free Cell Phones. Why not Free Guns?


PDA






22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 11:33 AM
The government currently provides low income people with cell phones because they need them and the system discriminates against low income people's basic needs due to cost. The same goes for food and housing.

I think the same may apply to firearms.... it seems that low income people tend to need guns more often for home defense and self defense. The police can't protect these people, so they must protect themselves.

The system discriminates against the very people who need firearms the most for home defense on a cost basis. The govenment needs to subsidize the purchase of guns for each low income person. What do you all think?

Let's not make this political.

If you enjoyed reading about "Free Cell Phones. Why not Free Guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Torian
April 1, 2013, 11:48 AM
I don't quite understand your opening paragraph: "...the system discriminates against low income people's needs due to cost."

The government (taxpayers) will currently step in to provide basic needs (food / housing / medical coverage) in the event that you are unable to afford it or unwilling to properly take care of yourself or your children. Regarding cell phones...contrary to popular belief, obama phones are NOT "needed" for basic sustenance. The program should be removed immediately.

You have the right to own a firearm, not a right to require someone else to buy it for you. If you are unable to save enough money to buy a Mossberg or Remington pump-action shotgun, I fear you are not long for this world anyways.

Steel Horse Rider
April 1, 2013, 11:58 AM
I have always believed that if the wording of the 6th Amendment which states "and to have assistance of counsel for his defense" has morphed into the government providing an attorney then the Second Amendment should authorize the government to give you a firearm if you cannot afford one.......

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 12:05 PM
Communication is crucial in today's world. That's why the government provides computers in some cases (as I understand it), internet access, and cell phones with a minimal amount of use time. If they don't have the basic tools to look for a job, how can you expect them to get a job?

With guns, people have a basic right to self defense. If they can't provide for it themselves because the cost of firearms is too high, then the government coulld subsidize the purchase and perhaps some ammunition for basic home defense.

I would prefer you treat this subject with a little humor, but the government subsidizes many things already. Why not firearms to satisfy a generally accepted right to self defense?

xwingband
April 1, 2013, 12:11 PM
Well, he's saying that the lowest of incomes is or won't ever get above the basic cost of a gun. That's a stance I can accept, but good luck getting anyone to accept your solution as providing guns to low income people.

On "obama phones" it's an illusion that he provided them as he simply got in office when the program started moving to cell phones. The program is paid for by phone taxes to provide new lines to rural people and phones to those of low income. They used to subsidize land lines, but that doesn't make much sense! Low income people are more likely to move frequently and a cell phone simplifies the logistics with that. As for need... you try and get a job without a phone number to call. Now I do think there needs to be limits and oversight, but that's another issue. I have no problems with the "obama phone" other than people are so stupid and believe Obama had a darn thing to do with it.

Now... a more apt system based on this would be a tax on us as gun buyers that would put a portion of our purchase toward providing low income people with a firearm.

Jimbo2032
April 1, 2013, 12:14 PM
Arizona Gun Proponents Launch Free Gun Program (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arizona-gun-proponents-launch-free-gun-program-18837374)

Speedgoat
April 1, 2013, 12:17 PM
I would be completley happy with some complimentary surplus ammo...

Tirod
April 1, 2013, 12:23 PM
"Low income" is relative. It's eligible to those up to 135% of the "poverty" rate, or even if a child qualifies for a subsidized school lunch. The number for a family of four is about $28,500 annual income.

The idea behind the subsidy is to provide a phone so that those who need a point of contact number can be reached - like, a prospective employer calling to schedule an interview.

It's recently been extended to the internet, 9.99 a month for broadband, but the access companies aren't making it easy to find how to sign up. If you qualify, you only get one or the other, not both. In Alaska, the service for phone use is unlimited data and calls, in the lower 48, service providers offer about 80 minutes a month free.

Is the current cell system too expensive for a low income user? You can get a Tracphone for less than $10, $25 is common, and it takes 4 90 day airtime cards to keep it going annually, $19.99 each. That about $100 bucks - the cost of one month on a plan. Or, two tanks of gas. Or, a family dinner at Olive Garden.

Yes, the program is a handout, millions are signing up. You have to qualify annually, and it is biased to the low income, but that doesn't mean they can't afford a phone. What it means is now they get to spend that $100 on something else, which is what everybody does when they have the spare cash in their wallet. Considering a "low income" family of four can get income tax refunds of up to $6,000 annually because of the Earned Income credit and qualifying children, the phone issue is a drop in the bucket. That is a huge handout program, nobody is refusing the checks.

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 12:27 PM
Let's focus on guns and home defense. It goes along with the More Guns Less Crime theory. But yes, I know the whole subject is inter-related with social issues.

The program could exclude all handguns with barrels less than 5.5" or something that makes them more easily concealed. Or... it could be a Biden double barrel shotgun....

By the way, good info on the cell phone program.

MtnCreek
April 1, 2013, 12:34 PM
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 12:38 PM
Providing a link to the Communist Manifesto is a wonderful thing, but you really need to demonstrate how it relates to the topic.

Torian
April 1, 2013, 12:44 PM
You can't talk about entitlements without addressing social issues. They are completely interconnected.

I'm in favor of supporting basic sustenance for the poor, but anything beyond that (firearms) is out of the question. Should I also buy them ammo, a gun safe, and take them to the range?

After a point, you expect someone to start being able to fend for themselves. We are doing our generation no favors by allowing them to become ever more reliant on the government. Welfare / section 8 / food stamps etc was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle...but rather a stop gap measure while someone gets back on their feet and finds employment again.

I fear that the real poor in the country will have to suffer as we are forced to dramatically cut back such benefits due to uncontrollable growth and rampant abuse of the system.

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 12:50 PM
Think how many shotguns Remington and Mossberg could produce to satisfy this new market. That would in fact increase production and may in fact encourage other companies to expand production capacity. More jobs....

Torian, my remarks are a little tongue and cheek, but I do tend to agree with you. However, gun control has it roots in exclusion of people who others determine should not have the right to defend themselves or even have the tools to forage for game in the woods during hunting season.

Domina
April 1, 2013, 12:54 PM
Congress has had the constitutional power to provide people with arms since day one.

From Article 1 Section 8:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

ETA: "Free" guns are not provided for the same reason "free" phones should not be provided. It is an unwarranted federal expense that the people should see to themselves. George Washington alluded to the need for private industry and arms in his first state of the union address. The aim being that the people not be dependant on the government for handouts in terms of military equipment. Neither should people be dependent on government for other neccessaries and conveniences.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

FitGunner
April 1, 2013, 12:57 PM
Given the way things are right now, I can only imagine how many people would be claiming they are poor and in need of a firearm.

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 01:02 PM
Domina, excellent point!

FitGunner, there would be a lot of people applying. It would tend to piss me off when I find out somebody has three shotguns provided to them by the government and then they sell a couple to pay for whatever. UBC's could exclude resale... but that is registration/registry stuff.

Torian
April 1, 2013, 01:05 PM
All are good points, and precisely the reason why we have issues with these programs today.

How do you ensure accountability and fairness? Also, if the government gives them a weapon, and they commit a crime with it? Is the government (IE the taxpayer) now responsible?

FitGunner
April 1, 2013, 01:05 PM
It would tend to piss me off when I find out somebody has three shotguns provided to them by the government and then they sell a couple to pay for whatever.

Like buying a single grape at the grocery store and getting cash back for the remaining amount on someone's Lonestar Card (Texas welfare/food stamps).

CoRoMo
April 1, 2013, 01:11 PM
Why not Free Guns?
Because the issuing party, the government, is populated and run by a great number of elected individuals who believe as the Commander in Chief told John Lott... "I don't believe people should be able to own guns". As long as people of similar persuasion are in power, forget about the welfare guns.

MtnCreek
April 1, 2013, 01:14 PM
I assume youíre mainly talking about urban areas, correct? I live an area with a good bit of poor folks; the ones I know personally are armed. I lived in a very poor area in WNC; everyone I knew was armed. I have family in ETN (some of them are big-gov types. Is that you uncle Sammy? :) ); some of them would be considered poor folks and they are armed.

My dad grew up poor; always had plenty to eat, most of which was grown/raised on the farm he was raised on. He had firearms and used them in his daily life. He bought them via hard work. Novel concept huh?

If you donít see the relation between the communist manifesto and your proposed plan of taking from one class to distribute to another, sorry, Iím not going to explain it to you.

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 01:17 PM
I assume you’re mainly talking about urban areas, correct? I live an area with a good bit of poor folks; the ones I know personally are armed. I lived in a very poor area in WNC; everyone I knew was armed. I have family in ETN (some of them are big-gov types. Is that you uncle Sammy? :) ); some of them would be considered poor folks and they are armed.

My dad grew up poor; always had plenty to eat, most of which was grown/raised on the farm he was raised on. He had firearms and used them in his daily life. He bought them via hard work. Novel concept huh?

If you don’t see the relation between the communist manifesto and your proposed plan of taking from one class to distribute to another, sorry, I’m not going to explain it to you.
MtnCreek, I grew up the same and see much of the same things today.

But as far as your last comment, lighten up a bit. I don't agree with almost all of these programs or more aptly, the way they have grown and been abused.

"Welfare Guns"... what a novel concept? It would be a whole new catagory of firearm. Yes, CoRoMo, the current powers would not support this.

MtnCreek
April 1, 2013, 01:24 PM
I guess those early years of stapling newspaper pictures of Gorbachev to trees and aiming at the birthmark with my trusty Crossman have had an impact on me. I can’t play nice, so I’ll go away. :)

22-rimfire
April 1, 2013, 01:50 PM
Because the issuing party, the government, is populated and run by a great number of elected individuals who believe as the Commander in Chief told John Lott... "I don't believe people should be able to own guns". As long as people of similar persuasion are in power, forget about the welfare guns.

So, the President's views are discriminatory towards the very people that he claims he wants to help?

bannockburn
April 1, 2013, 01:54 PM
Why the U.S. government doesn't give out free guns...

1) The current adminstration and one political party in particular doesn't like guns and doesn't believe fellow citizens should be able to own them.

2) A free gun voucher program would end up being a complete bureaucratic fiasco wasting millions of taxpayers dollars and possibly doing more potential harm than intended good.

3) This isn't Switzerland.

CoyoteSix
April 1, 2013, 02:26 PM
I don't know how I feel on this idea.

Following the "More guns less crime" method, it does sound like a good idea.

I believe armed, responsible citizenry is always a good thing. It'd make me feel much safer for one. Especially during times of crisis.

However, I'd be scared of what some individuals would do with the guns.

It's inevitable that crimes would be committed with welfare guns. I can accept that. Stuff happens and the only thing we can do is deal with it.

What I would really worry about are the people who don't respect firearms like many people here on THR and elsewhere do.

There'd be alot of people not exercising proper safety, handling, and storage of these guns.

What happens when:

1. Joe Schmoe doesn't know that it's a bad idea to keep a loaded firearm around kids and someone gets hurt/killed?

2. Joe Schmoe doesn't exercise good trigger discipline and accidently sends a round into his apartment wall and into his neighbors dwelling?

3. Joe Schmoe doesn't even try to lock up his gun or ammo and a Bad Guy breaks in and steals it? Joe Schmoe also doesn't know that he should probably report it to the Police?

I believe that for the "Welfare Gun" idea to work these people would need training and education along with free guns.

I really think that people should buy their guns themselves. They won't take it for granted that way.

Guns don't have to be expensive to defend you. A Pre-panic Hi-Point was only $90 at my LGS. Used shotguns can still be found for under $250 easily at a pawn shop.

If you can't afford to save that much than you might need to prioritize your spending and change some of your lifestyle habits.

Even on minimum wage I'm able to buy a gun or two a year along with my other needs/hobbies ( Working on a Jeep, Taking the Lady out, holidays etc. )

Certaindeaf
April 1, 2013, 02:27 PM
Facevote is not compatible with .38.

Texan Scott
April 1, 2013, 05:48 PM
Amazing how most "poor" people own a TV, but apparently can't afford a phone. :scrutiny:
Food stamps and school lunches are one thing... I may wonder why some people keep having kids, but I won't let them starve. They want cell phones and other goodies, they can get 'em the way I afford mine (working my butt off).

St. Reagan was right ... the best social program is a job.

miller.lyte
April 1, 2013, 06:57 PM
I live in midtown Atlanta. I see the type of people who live around here and sure as hell don't want them having free/more guns. The folks I live near are not the responsible firearm owning type at all. I believe inner city violent crime would skyrocket even more.

Not saying poor people shouldn't have guns, but for free, hell no. That's just asking for trouble.

xfyrfiter
April 1, 2013, 07:00 PM
You can't talk about entitlements without addressing social issues. They are completely interconnected.

I'm in favor of supporting basic sustenance for the poor, but anything beyond that (firearms) is out of the question. Should I also buy them ammo, a gun safe, and take them to the range?

After a point, you expect someone to start being able to fend for themselves. We are doing our generation no favors by allowing them to become ever more reliant on the government. Welfare / section 8 / food stamps etc was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle...but rather a stop gap measure while someone gets back on their feet and finds employment again.

I fear that the real poor in the country will have to suffer as we are forced to dramatically cut back such benefits due to uncontrollable growth and rampant abuse of the system.
This is the most concise statement on the issue of social welfare that I have seen lately.

We as a country need to end the generational welfare state or this country is doomed.

grock5k
April 2, 2013, 08:12 AM
Everybody I know that uses the welfare system abuses it. I know people with the free phones who just use them to make drug deals. They use their iPhones for regular phone calls. Couples that live together but don't claim to live together so they can each get benefits. People that get free food, clothes, toys, christmas and thanksgiving meals, day care etc so they can afford to buy 200 dollars worth of weed a week. The whole welfare system is flawed anyway. For my aunt, a single mother to get healthcare for her son she had to be getting food stamps. She didn't need the food stamps just the healthcare and felt embarrassed to use them. So she just didn't use them and would give them to people she knew who could use them. Anyway my point being no good would come from free guns they would just make more problems and more crimes.

tarosean
April 2, 2013, 08:26 AM
I help fund WHAT????????????????????????????????

What do these jackwagons think we did before the advent of Cell Phones and Computers/internet??

Hacker15E
April 2, 2013, 08:52 AM
I have always believed that if the wording of the 6th Amendment which states "and to have assistance of counsel for his defense" has morphed into the government providing an attorney then the Second Amendment should authorize the government to give you a firearm if you cannot afford one.......

For the former, there is a specific SCOTUS case that determined that, and it was considered quite a controversial and "activist" ruling when it happened.

barnbwt
April 2, 2013, 10:11 PM
We are doing our generation no favors by allowing them to become ever more reliant on the government. Welfare / section 8 / food stamps etc was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle

All these measures get passed in the spirit of Depression-era programs, that at best, kept some people from flat-out starving to death (and at worst prolonged the Depression). We've conveniently forgotten that the CCC Works program was merely a scheme to move young, idle, frustrated men out of the cities where they would no doubt riot for bread and hang politicians, and into the Empty (unseen) West where they had a Hobson's Choice of remaining in the workcamps for the duration. "Well, you can always leave and thumb a ride back from Nowhere, Wyoming to fend for yourself, if you want" :rolleyes:.

I'm unsure about the program, because Gov handouts do have a way of making people shirk responsibility and turn into children. However, guns are durable, ammo is durable, and a person in need of protection would really only require an initial allotment; qty (1) gun, and qty (1) box of 100 rounds. That would be plenty to keep a safety-trained user protected for years and years. It almost seems like it could be something of a "teach a man to fish" thing rather than a stipend, which you can come to rely upon for your livelihood. Supporting a frequent shooter's ammo consumption, however...that's a welfare junkie in the making :D. This program would be a good use for all those PD turn-in S&W 10's that were super cheap a few years back; durable, reliable, safe, and worth so little people would be less inclined to pawn them for the fun of it (the real enemy of these programs). Full-size Plastic/pot metal 22LR revolvers would be a good match for these programs as well, for that reason (provided they can be made to actually work, of course :D).

I live in midtown Atlanta. I see the type of people who live around here and sure as hell don't want them having free/more guns. The folks I live near are not the responsible firearm owning type at all. I believe inner city violent crime would skyrocket even more.


And that my friends is why Atlanta will lead Georgia to enact prohibatory firearms legislation within a few years. In fact, they are already well on their way, and are projected to dominate state politics utterly (like NYC) within the decade. Fear of power parity in the hands of the unwashed masses has fueled every last piece of inner city gun control in history. If gun-owners make it more dangerous (less profitable) to rob random people's houses, and if gang-bangers have 9's already, how will this do anything but force them to leave for greener pastures with more opportunity for crime (or even legit employment :D)? You can't only have faith in the freedom of some of your fellow men, because others are unworthy. That's Jingoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism), a common philosophical bent among Big City Mayors, which compells them to change the heathen ways of the savages around them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all, even if he's broke, and I have yet to hear a good argument for why one's social status should dictate what fundamental rights they may enjoy.

TCB

22-rimfire
April 2, 2013, 10:52 PM
All these measures get passed in the spirit of Depression-era programs, that at best, kept some people from flat-out starving to death (and at worst prolonged the Depression). We've conveniently forgotten that the CCC Works program was merely a scheme to move young, idle, frustrated men out of the cities where they would no doubt riot for bread and hang politicians, and into the Empty (unseen) West where they had a Hobson's Choice of remaining in the workcamps for the duration. "Well, you can always leave and thumb a ride back from Nowhere, Wyoming to fend for yourself, if you want" :rolleyes:.

I'm unsure about the program, because Gov handouts do have a way of making people shirk responsibility and turn into children. However, guns are durable, ammo is durable, and a person in need of protection would really only require an initial allotment; qty (1) gun, and qty (1) box of 100 rounds. That would be plenty to keep a safety-trained user protected for years and years. It almost seems like it could be something of a "teach a man to fish" thing rather than a stipend, which you can come to rely upon for your livelihood. Supporting a frequent shooter's ammo consumption, however...that's a welfare junkie in the making :D. This program would be a good use for all those PD turn-in S&W 10's that were super cheap a few years back; durable, reliable, safe, and worth so little people would be less inclined to pawn them for the fun of it (the real enemy of these programs). Full-size Plastic/pot metal 22LR revolvers would be a good match for these programs as well, for that reason (provided they can be made to actually work, of course :D).



And that my friends is why Atlanta will lead Georgia to enact prohibatory firearms legislation within a few years. In fact, they are already well on their way, and are projected to dominate state politics utterly (like NYC) within the decade. Fear of power parity in the hands of the unwashed masses has fueled every last piece of inner city gun control in history. If gun-owners make it more dangerous (less profitable) to rob random people's houses, and if gang-bangers have 9's already, how will this do anything but force them to leave for greener pastures with more opportunity for crime (or even legit employment :D)? You can't only have faith in the freedom of some of your fellow men, because others are unworthy. That's Jingoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism), a common philosophical bent among Big City Mayors, which compells them to change the heathen ways of the savages around them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all, even if he's broke, and I have yet to hear a good argument for why one's social status should dictate what fundamental rights they may enjoy.

TCB
I can't figure out if you are actually supporting my idea or condemming it. I suggested longer barreled revolvers early in the thread, but I am more inclined toward single barrel or pump shotguns in a gauge a women could handle. There is no program.

X-JaVeN-X
April 2, 2013, 11:04 PM
Communication is crucial in today's world. That's why the government provides computers in some cases (as I understand it), internet access, and cell phones with a minimal amount of use time. If they don't have the basic tools to look for a job, how can you expect them to get a job?

With guns, people have a basic right to self defense. If they can't provide for it themselves because the cost of firearms is too high, then the government coulld subsidize the purchase and perhaps some ammunition for basic home defense.

I would prefer you treat this subject with a little humor, but the government subsidizes many things already. Why not firearms to satisfy a generally accepted right to self defense?
These subsidized programs need to be gotten rid of...not used as a rationale to add more of them just because it's one you deem necessary.

If you can't afford a gun, then buy a knife until you can afford to get a gun. You make do with what you have. If you're not happy with that, then put plans in place to better yourself financially and then buy yourself a gun. With that said, there are always exceptions such as the disabled and other special needs circumstances (being lazy and/or complacent is not one of these such special circumstances).

This all goes back to the breakdown of the family in my mind. I've been in sticky financial situations plenty and depended on family...not the government. I have also opened my doors to family members who needed the same.

22-rimfire
April 2, 2013, 11:17 PM
These subsidized programs need to be gotten rid of...not used as a rationale to add more of them just because it's one you deem necessary.

If you can't afford a gun, then buy a knife until you can afford to get a gun. You make do with what you have. If you're not happy with that, then put plans in place to better yourself financially and then buy yourself a gun. With that said, there are always exceptions such as the disabled and other special needs circumstances (being lazy and/or complacent is not one of these such special circumstances).

This all goes back to the breakdown of the family in my mind. I've been in sticky financial situations plenty and depended on family...not the government. I have also opened my doors to family members who needed the same.
Just because I started a thread on a topic doesn't mean I support anything in terms of government assistance because it is so abused. But I will add a couple things below. Your comments seemed to be directed specifically at ME not the topic. I suspect I own more firearms than you do, but who really cares?

But, I said in another thread that I believe everyone who can qualify for assistance from the current govenment should do so just like they take advantage of any deductions that are available when preparing their tax returns. Is there really any difference? This change of heart occurred after the current president was re-elected as I just can't understand the American people any more. It made no sense.

I was unemployed a few years ago and didn't even apply for unemployment. Those were my principles and I stuck to them. Could have used the money. The fact is they are still my principles.

Double Naught Spy
April 2, 2013, 11:31 PM
Very good, X-JaVeN-X! Just because socialization that we don't like exists is not a good justification to then suggest it is a good thing for something we do like.

Explain to me why I should be embracing the notion of my taxes paying for providing firearms to people for which I don't think we should be providing other unemployment or underemployment benefits.

Note if you provide guns, by most or all state laws, you will undoubtedly then need to provide a means for the guns to be secured.

I am still trying to figure out why it would be a good idea to arm people who are desparately in need of money. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

VVelox
April 3, 2013, 12:28 PM
Problematic given the lack of general required training for the public. If a person sets out to acquire it on their own there is a greater chance they will do something stupid etc given they will more likely have taken the time to familiarize them self with the topic at hand.

What I would like to see is a mandatory training in the public education system(which would do away with the previously mentioned problem for the next generation) and then upon graduation them issued a matching .357 double action revolver and lever action rifle.

Brockak47
April 3, 2013, 01:31 PM
provide a free gun to low income people.

Man that's not too good of an idea at all(no offense). Some low income people are not the type of people I would want with firearms, let alone for free.

A <free> cell phone and a <free> firearm are too very different subjects and should not be compared in my opinion.
A cell phone can be used by a not so responsible person easily and not be too dangerous while I would not a firearm to be owned by an irresponsible citizen.

InkEd
April 4, 2013, 12:43 AM
I think charity should be handled by private charities. It is not right that I must pay for other people's phones, housing, food, children, et cetera.

22-rimfire
April 4, 2013, 06:11 PM
I think charity should be handled by private charities. It is not right that I must pay for other people's phones, housing, food, children, et cetera.
I agree. I have mixed emotions about these programs. You can add public schools to the list of things we all pay for whether or not we use public schools or not. As far as guns go, I don't really see it any differently than if one of these people acquired the firearm on their own. They would still have to do a 4473 and the NICs check. I would like to see most of these programs sharply curtailed by making qualification much more difficult. You loose your desire to help yourself when there is always big brother out there providing help for the asking.

If you enjoyed reading about "Free Cell Phones. Why not Free Guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!