Certaindeaf
member
Facevote is not compatible with .38.
Free Cell Phones. Why not Free Guns?
- Thread starter 22-rimfire
- Start date
- Status
Texan Scott
Member
Amazing how most "poor" people own a TV, but apparently can't afford a phone. 
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.
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
Member
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.
Not saying poor people shouldn't have guns, but for free, hell no. That's just asking for trouble.
xfyrfiter
Member
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.
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.
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
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
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"
.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
. 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 ).miller.lyte said:
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
)? You can't only have faith in the freedom of some of your fellow men, because others are unworthy. That's 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
Member
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.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"
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
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
TCB
X-JaVeN-X
Member
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
Member
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.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked