What do the D's have against poor people?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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…
 
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].
 
Lo-Fi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
There was already a round of legislation to get "Saturday Night Specials" off the street. They were so shoddy as to be dangerous.
Click to expand...

That was actually about disarming minorities. Gun control at it's roots is racist and anti-poor.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
Saying that gun control legislation is done out of malice against low income americans is absurd.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like targeting high crime areas.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

If it looks like a duck....
 
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
 
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.
 
AtlDave and JustinJ both seem to think anti-gunners are simply misguided. I'm not willing to be that generous.
 
Saying that gun control legislation is done out of malice against low income americans is absurd.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top