• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the government help low income people buy guns?

EMNofSeattle

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
51,768
Reaction score
14,187
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, and since most quality firearms are expensive, and more and more Americans live paycheck to paycheck, to I suggest we start a program to provide ameicans with quality firearms who cannot afford them. I would think a system like the WIC checks, where one voucher would be for a handgun up to 500 dollars, a rifle up to 350, and a gun safe up to 700 dollars (we want to be safe after all ) and in addition the program should provide lawyers for jurisdictions like NYC, so when the PD is jerking the applicant around a US ATTORNEY can come to the police department and secure the licenses.

I'm not joking, if the second amendment is a rght, there shouldn't be unreasonable paywalls to it
 
If liberals read the second they way they read the rest of the constitution, yes, gun ownership would be an entitlement.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, and since most quality firearms are expensive, and more and more Americans live paycheck to paycheck, to I suggest we start a program to provide ameicans with quality firearms who cannot afford them. I would think a system like the WIC checks, where one voucher would be for a handgun up to 500 dollars, a rifle up to 350, and a gun safe up to 700 dollars (we want to be safe after all ) and in addition the program should provide lawyers for jurisdictions like NYC, so when the PD is jerking the applicant around a US ATTORNEY can come to the police department and secure the licenses.

I'm not joking, if the second amendment is a rght, there shouldn't be unreasonable paywalls to it
Click to expand...

Well, let's see: "gun welfare"... The government helps people with education, housing and health care, so personal protection should be up there as a right as well. I mean, personal protection IS a right isn't it?

The age of 18 seems fair as 18 is the age of majority and one can fight for his country at 18, so why not?
 
blaxshep said:
If liberals read the second they way they read the rest of the constitution, yes, gun ownership would be an entitlement.
Click to expand...

Well, why wouldn't gun ownership be an entitlement? I mean it's all about the right to personal protection isn't it?
 
training, especially about de-esculation of conflict, the laws of lethal force application, ammo, at least .22 and airsoft, should all be provided, in the name of general benefit. worth far more than a lot of the bs we are now taxed for. if it means closing down most of the military due to funding, that's GOOD, too. Works really well for Switzerland and has so worked for 500 years. Just give me the $700 and I'll provide the safety, by WEARING the gun, constantly. I slept many a night in Korea while wearing a holstered 1911. :-)
 
jet57 said:
Well, why wouldn't gun ownership be an entitlement? I mean it's all about the right to personal protection isn't it?
Click to expand...

Agreed... but rather than subsidize it.. it would make more sense to remove the regulations, restrictions and other useless infringements that make purchasing and owning a firearm cost prohibitive to people with low incomes.
 
jaeger19 said:
Agreed... but rather than subsidize it.. it would make more sense to remove the regulations, restrictions and other useless infringements that make purchasing and owning a firearm cost prohibitive to people with low incomes.
Click to expand...

Uh, nooo, I don't agree there, because those who are less capable should have those guidelines in order to know how to handle their weapons in public.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, nooo, I don't agree there, because those who are less capable should have those guidelines in order to know how to handle their weapons in public.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that poor people are too stupid to be able to handle firearms?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, and since most quality firearms are expensive, and more and more Americans live paycheck to paycheck, to I suggest we start a program to provide ameicans with quality firearms who cannot afford them. I would think a system like the WIC checks, where one voucher would be for a handgun up to 500 dollars, a rifle up to 350, and a gun safe up to 700 dollars (we want to be safe after all ) and in addition the program should provide lawyers for jurisdictions like NYC, so when the PD is jerking the applicant around a US ATTORNEY can come to the police department and secure the licenses.

I'm not joking, if the second amendment is a rght, there shouldn't be unreasonable paywalls to it
Click to expand...

If you can afford a home, a car, an Xbox, Air Jordans, and a cell phone, you can afford a gun.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, nooo, I don't agree there, because those who are less capable should have those guidelines in order to know how to handle their weapons in public.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about voting. Those less capable should receive mandatory instruction including instruction on where the government gets its money and who pays for the goodies so many voters want. and we should extend the same training to those who wish to procreate.
 
jaeger19 said:
Are you saying that poor people are too stupid to be able to handle firearms?
Click to expand...

Certainly not any more stupid that rich people: they need guidance too.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, and since most quality firearms are expensive, and more and more Americans live paycheck to paycheck, to I suggest we start a program to provide ameicans with quality firearms who cannot afford them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. You have a right to bears arms, you do not have the right to be given said arms.

Just like you have freedom of speech, but you don't have a right to be given a platform for said speech.

The government should absolutely not be using tax dollars to subsidize peoples purchases of guns. At best, the only thing I'd support is possibly making various equipment that is necessary (like gun safes) tax deductable. But I absolutely would be against any attempts to actually subsidize the purchase of firearms.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, and since most quality firearms are expensive, and more and more Americans live paycheck to paycheck, to I suggest we start a program to provide ameicans with quality firearms who cannot afford them. I would think a system like the WIC checks, where one voucher would be for a handgun up to 500 dollars, a rifle up to 350, and a gun safe up to 700 dollars (we want to be safe after all ) and in addition the program should provide lawyers for jurisdictions like NYC, so when the PD is jerking the applicant around a US ATTORNEY can come to the police department and secure the licenses.

I'm not joking, if the second amendment is a rght, there shouldn't be unreasonable paywalls to it
Click to expand...

Not an appropriate role of government.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, and since most quality firearms are expensive, and more and more Americans live paycheck to paycheck, to I suggest we start a program to provide ameicans with quality firearms who cannot afford them. I would think a system like the WIC checks, where one voucher would be for a handgun up to 500 dollars, a rifle up to 350, and a gun safe up to 700 dollars (we want to be safe after all ) and in addition the program should provide lawyers for jurisdictions like NYC, so when the PD is jerking the applicant around a US ATTORNEY can come to the police department and secure the licenses.

I'm not joking, if the second amendment is a rght, there shouldn't be unreasonable paywalls to it
Click to expand...
I like the idea, but I would rather see the low income folks get 15 hour so they could afford to buy their own guns without any Government help..

White Cons, and the Jesus freaks always babble on about their 2nd amendment's rights, so I would love to see as many folks of color owning as many guns as they want, Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Native Americans, Muslims, Etc...
 
Zyphlin said:
Absolutely not. You have a right to bears arms, you do not have the right to be given said arms.

Just like you have freedom of speech, but you don't have a right to be given a platform for said speech.

The government should absolutely not be using tax dollars to subsidize peoples purchases of guns. At best, the only thing I'd support is possibly making various equipment that is necessary (like gun safes) tax deductable. But I absolutely would be against any attempts to actually subsidize the purchase of firearms.
Click to expand...

what about public shooting ranges? in Ohio, the DNR has a couple state funded shooting ranges that anyone with a hunting license can use for "free"

and before the clinton administration privatized it, the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship was a government agency that allowed qualified (no record, proof of marksmanship activities and membership in a affiliated club) to buy surplus Garand and MI carbines and ammo
 
TurtleDude said:
what about public shooting ranges? in Ohio, the DNR has a couple state funded shooting ranges that anyone with a hunting license can use for "free"
Click to expand...

I would likely not support my state doing it, but if the citizens of a state are absolutely fine with it then I see nothing wrong with a state deciding to do such a thing. Indeed, it's something I can see being far more feasible and reasonable in my mind at a state level than at the federal level. These kind of programs are the type of things that I think states should look at as a means of attracting people to their states or finding ways to differentiate themselves, but are not the type of thing I think should be occuring on some kind of mandated federal level.
 
Zyphlin said:
I would likely not support my state doing it, but if the citizens of a state are absolutely fine with it then I see nothing wrong with a state deciding to do such a thing. Indeed, it's something I can see being far more feasible and reasonable in my mind at a state level than at the federal level. These kind of programs are the type of things that I think states should look at as a means of attracting people to their states or finding ways to differentiate themselves, but are not the type of thing I think should be occuring on some kind of mandated federal level.
Click to expand...

seems like a sensible position. I think if state DNRs want to use hunting license fees for such practice ranges for hunters-it makes sense

Off to shoot trap BBL
 
TurtleDude said:
seems like a sensible position. I think if state DNRs want to use hunting license fees for such practice ranges for hunters-it makes sense

Off to shoot trap BBL
Click to expand...

Yeah, even if I'm not a fan of a specific proposal, I'm a BIG fan of allowing...and actually having...states doing a wide range of off the wall type of programs and initatives like this. I think it helps differentiate each state, provides a wonderful "testing ground" for various things, and gives citizens in this country a wider set of factors to consider when determining where they'd like to live.

A law like this in the midwest for example would make sense, but I'd hate to see it enforced on the likes of those in let's say the northeast who would have a majority that wants no part of it. Or even worse, to have said northeast PAYING for the midwest to have it. These kind of localized cultural differenecs between states are wonderful examples of stuff individual states should be doing, instead of trying to get a slim majority across the nation in an effort to enforce it across the board.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, and since most quality firearms are expensive, and more and more Americans live paycheck to paycheck, to I suggest we start a program to provide ameicans with quality firearms who cannot afford them. I would think a system like the WIC checks, where one voucher would be for a handgun up to 500 dollars, a rifle up to 350, and a gun safe up to 700 dollars (we want to be safe after all ) and in addition the program should provide lawyers for jurisdictions like NYC, so when the PD is jerking the applicant around a US ATTORNEY can come to the police department and secure the licenses.I'm not joking, if the second amendment is a rght, there shouldn't be unreasonable paywalls to it
Click to expand...
The government is already required to furnish a militia-suitable firearm (modern M4/M16 assault rifle) to every capable citizen:.
US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..........To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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;....
Click to expand...
The fact that the government does not provide personal firearms to citizens is a human rights violation.
 
Adding to the original post, the elderly on fixed income cannot defend themselves physically against a much younger punk so how should gun ownership be addressed for them? I am 67 and carry for the very reason that if attacked I will not be able in most cases, to win a one-on-one confrontation. Many assaults on the elderly and poor are done by more than one punk.
 
Hi Point pistol starts at $139.

/thread
 
Mark F said:
Hi Point pistol starts at $139.

/thread
Click to expand...

for an extra 3 dollars you will get a ski mask (northern states) or half a pair of pantyhose (southern states)
 
Here's an idea based on Obamacare. The govt should charge you a tax if you don't own a gun. Imagine the revenue pouring in! :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom