Free Cell Phones. Why not Free Guns?

[22-rimfire]

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.

 

[Torian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Arizona Gun Proponents Launch Free Gun Program

 

[Speedgoat]

I would be completley happy with some complimentary surplus ammo...

 

[Tirod]

"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]

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]

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

 

[22-rimfire]

Providing a link to the Communist Manifesto is a wonderful thing, but you really need to demonstrate how it relates to the topic.

 

[Torian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[22-rimfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. )