Gun Control Debate -  Disarming the poor (483 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
From: Glock221 DelphiPlus Member Icon3/14/13 1:04 PM 
To: All  (1 of 8) 

[content moved to existing discussion]

Zero tolerance for guns in schools


Can poor people be trusted with guns?
 by John R. Lott

Indeed, legislation in at least 17 states around the country is aimed specifically at making it more costly to own a gun. Democrats are voting in mass against exempting the poor from fees when it comes to guns. New Yorkers aren't alone facing everything from registration fees to buying liability insurance.

That's too bad, because many law-abiding citizens, particularly minorities in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. There is little doubt that the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crime — again, overwhelmingly poor blacks in urban areas — are also the ones who benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.

While police are the single most important factor in reducing crime, the police themselves recognize that they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has been committed. But criminals are deterred by the possibility that victims have guns. And if indeed a criminal does strike, threatening to shoot is the safest course of action, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey

But Democrats seem to think that waiting for police to arrive from a 9-1-1 call is good enough for the poor.

Next week Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will introduce legislation that will ban the production of inexpensive guns in the United States. While it is true that some criminals use these guns, these smaller, lighter handguns are also ideal for self-defense. And of course they are particularly helpful for poor would-be victims who can't afford more expensive guns.

Just a few weeks ago, the Obama administration made the extremely unusual move of lobbying state House members in Colorado for a bill that would charge people a fee when they purchase a gun. Democrats voted down Republican amendments that would have exempted poor people from paying the fee and capped the fee at a maximum of $25.

In Maryland, Democrats have also refused to exempt poor people from fees for their new gun licensing proposal. The $25 fee is the least of costs facing poor people. Getting a license will require 16 hours of training is something that could easily cost over $300. Do Democrats seriously think that poor people are going to be able to afford these training costs?

The bill passed this week by the Maryland state Senate appears to allow only one office in the state for filing for the license — the current state police headquarters in Pikesville, Maryland. Kempton, Maryland in the western part of the state is a 4 hour drive away from Pikesville. Crisfield, Maryland in the east is over 3 hours away. Do Democrats seriously think that poor people are going to be able to afford this travel?

If you want to see the impact of these fees and training requirements on the ability of the poor to defend themselves, people need to look no farther than Washington, D.C. and Chicago, where only two and three thousand people, respectively, have gone through the licensing process.

Despite major Supreme Court victories that technically allow people to own handguns, it is something clearly beyond the reach of poorer citizens. For Chicago, there is a $100 city license fee plus another $15 per gun. Illinois adds another state license, though that only costs another $10. Then there is the five hour training classes that frequently cost around $150.

While gun ownership nationally varies very little with income, there is a huge difference in Chicago: zip codes with a median family income of $120,000 have twice the handgun ownership rate as those with a median family income of $60,000 and those families are in turn twice as likely as those at $30,000.

The impact of fees and training is no different with concealed handgun permits. Texas has four times Indiana’s population, yet it has issued only slightly more permits, 584,000 versus 450,000. The difference is not because Texans like guns less. It is simply that Texans have a more difficult time getting permits. The fee for getting a 5-year permit in Texas is $140, but only $65 in Indiana. Similarly, Texas requires 10 hours of training and Indiana doesn't require any.

Massachusetts shows the possible fate of increasing the costs of gun ownership. Since its licensing law went into effect in 1998, the number of registered gun owners in the state has plummeted from 1.5 million to just over 200,000 today. Meanwhile Massachusetts’ murder rate soared from 70% of the average rate for its neighbors to 130%.

Democrats want poor minorities votes, they just don’t want them to be able to defend themselves. Apparently, Democrats believe that the right to self-defense is something that only belongs to the wealthy.

  • Edited 3/15/2013 5:07 pm by EdGlaze
 Reply   Options 

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host3/15/13 5:23 PM 
To: All  (2 of 8) 
 1192.2 in reply to 1192.1 

Glock221, notice that I moved your post to an existing discussion and substituted another article you may be interested in.



Here are videos associated with the previous article posted on FoxNews:

Gun ownership mandatory?

Is America's gun debate off target?

Would you support arming teachers with guns?



Related discussions:

Gun Control: The Bureaucratic Method

Disarm employees on company business?

"Gun control" isn't charity, it's theft

Disarming veterans

Racist roots of gun control

Disarming stressed bankrupted people?

Disarming the elderly?

Weather emergency… so disarm people?

  • Edited 3/15/2013 5:24 pm by EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/22/13 2:46 PM 
To: All  (3 of 8) 
 1192.3 in reply to 1192.2 

Click here or on the graphics to read the source article.

  • Edited 9/22/2013 2:49 pm by EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/28/16 8:00 PM 
To: All  (4 of 8) 
 1192.4 in reply to 1192.3 

Hillary's plan to restrain the poor from their gun rights
by Frank Miniter
July 28, 2016

In 1993 Hillary Clinton said she’s “all for” a 25-percent tax on guns and a “raise [in the] the dealer’s fees [on guns] from $30-$75 to $2,500.” Americans for Tax Reform has put a video up showing Clinton saying this before a Senate committee on Sept. 30, 1993. More recently, during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” last month, George Stephanopoulos played the footage of Clinton’s 1993 gun tax endorsement and asked her if she still held this position. Even given the opportunity, Clinton didn’t retract her endorsement of these onerous taxes on guns.

This doesn’t set Hillary apart from many other politicians who would like to ban and/or deeply restrict Americans’ access to their Second Amendment-protected rights. Actually, despite these liberal politicians’ protests against the costly burdens of requiring voters to show IDs at polling places, these same politicians are often doing everything they can to make buying a gun or obtaining a permit a time-consuming and expensive enterprise — that is, when they are forced to stop impeding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in the first place.

Why do they pretend to care about the poor when it comes to voting (even when state IDs are given free of charge to low-income individuals), yet do all they can to make getting a gun expensive?

This has happened in New York City; Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and in many other places controlled by liberal politicians. The fees might not seem like much for a middle- or upper-middle-class person, but they are a lot for lower-income individuals. In 2013, for example, Maryland Democrats pushed through legislation that requires $205 to $230 in fees and training expenses for those who want to get a handgun. “When Republicans tried to exempt poor individuals from paying the government fees, the Democrat-controlled state legislature wouldn’t even let the amendment come up for a vote,” says John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.

After courts forced local governments to stop infringing on the people’s Second Amendment rights, elected officials in Washington, D.C., and Chicago created licensing schemes that few can navigate. You have to take time off work to complete paperwork and get forms notarized, to take tests and to have fingerprints taken at a police station. All of these costs often add up to more than the actual price of many guns. In 2011, the Washington Post, hardly a pro-gun newspaper, ran a story under the headline: “Since D.C.’s handgun ban ended, well-heeled residents have become well armed.”

The lead paragraph of the story said: “In the 2½ years since the U.S. Supreme Court ended the District’s handgun ban, hundreds of residents in Washington’s safest, most well-to-do neighborhoods have armed themselves, registering far more guns than people in poorer, crime-plagued areas of the city, according to D.C. police data.”

After the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that ruled that state and local governments were also restricted by citizens’ Second Amendment-protected rights, Chicago passed a $100 license fee, plus $15 per gun. The state’s mandatory five hours of training classes also cost around $150; and, to take the classes, you’ll likely have to drive if you live in Chicago, which means you’ll need access to a car or have to hire a taxi. Illinois now charges $150 for a new handgun license application.

These fees and paperwork might not be deal breakers for many with adequate incomes, but for the poor they can be extremely burdensome. For those who live paycheck to paycheck, these fees and associated costs can be insurmountable. Imagine a single mother with two or more mouths to feed who lives in a poorer area of Chicago, and has to navigate its crime-infested streets and fear a break-in each night. Now consider how she might, on a limited income, find the money for these fees, taxes, and more so she can protect herself and her loved ones.

In truth, politicians like Clinton aren’t just failing to help such people, but are actively making it harder for them to succeed and stay safe.

  • Edited December 18, 2016 7:53 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/13/17 8:22 PM 
To: All  (5 of 8) 
 1192.5 in reply to 1192.4 

Democrats: No Guns For The Poor
Guns for the rich, but no guns for the poor.

by Kevin Felts
7 Aug 17

Ask voters to have a free government issued ID card, and Democrats will oppose the measure. According to Democrats, how dare the government oppress the poor by asking them to get a free government issued ID card

However, when it comes to gun rights, Democrats approve of just about every regulation and fee that could be imagined. Even if the fees disproportionately affect the poor, state legislators vote to keep the fees in place.

The Chicago Tribune has an article that lays bare the facts about Democrats and their oppression of gun rights —  How Democrats keep guns in the hands of the rich.

In some states, the poor need not apply even if they are willing to pay these costs. In the Democratic-leaning states of California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, as well as the District of Columbia, people have to demonstrate need for a permit to a local public official.

Los Angeles County illustrates how this discretion results in only a select few wealthy and powerful individuals getting permits. If Los Angeles County authorized permits at the same rate as the rest of the country, it would have around 600,000 permit holders. Instead, only 226 permits have been issued within a population of about 7.9 million adults, and many of them have gone to politically connected individuals, including judges. Indeed, former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca earned a reputation for awarding permits to people who gave him campaign donations or generous gifts.

One statistic I find interesting:

  • Los Angeles County, 7% of concealed carry permit holders are women.
  • National level, 36% of concealed carry permit holders are women.

If only 7% of the women in Los Angeles County were registered to vote, Democrats would want to know why so few women were voting. There would be studies, investigations and public hearings to find out why so few women were registered to vote. Democrats would go door-to-door asking women to register to vote. The same can not be said when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

While Liberal leaning news outlets cry foul on equality in the workplace and pay equality, there is no outrage when it comes to the right to own a firearm by women, the poor or minorities.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick had this to say about concealed carry license fees,

No Texan should be deprived of their right to self-protection because of onerous licensing fees imposed by the state,


We should treat gun rights just like voting rights. The ACLU states, “Voter ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote.” Gun owners should demand the federal government treat gun rights just like all other rights.

No ID required to vote, then no ID to buy a firearm.

No fee to vote, then for a firearm carry permit fee.

Before voting, citizens most attend a training class. The cost of the class could exceed $1,000.

Citizens have to explain to a government official why they need the vote.

The federal government should take action against states who have laws prevent the poor from owning a firearm. Any new gun law passed by a Democrat controlled state should be reviewed by the federal government before the law takes effect.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We all know voting rights are held to a very high standard. The same can not be said about gun rights. Sooner or later people will have to say enough is enough. Just say no to more gun control laws.


From: Glock221 DelphiPlus Member Icon8/29/17 2:25 PM 
To: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon  (6 of 8) 
 1192.6 in reply to 1192.5 

So when people vote Democrat they vote to disarm themselves


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host2/11/18 5:24 PM 
To: All  (7 of 8) 
 1192.7 in reply to 1192.5 



From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by hostAug-13 7:01 PM 
To: All  (8 of 8) 
 1192.8 in reply to 1192.7 

Anti-2A Politicians Target Lower Income Americans With Taxes, Fees
by Cam Edwards
13 Aug 19


San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo believes residents in his city should have to pay for the privilege of exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, a measure that’s not only patently unconstitutional but would also cause some lower-income Americans to lose their rights, not because of a felony conviction or mental adjudication, but because of the balance of their bank account.

Plus, Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon joins the program to talk about how the 2020 presidential candidates are moving even further to the left on gun control issues, and we’ve got your daily armed citizen story, a 12-time offender who’s still free and allegedly engaging in domestic abuse, and an alert officer who saved the lives of two women sleeping in their burning home.

If you prefer your “Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co.” in podcast form, you can listen here, as well as on Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play Music and, in the near future, iTunes. Thanks as always for listening and sharing!


First Discussion>>

Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.