• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

'Reasonable' restrictions on gun ownership the poor can't meet

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
America's gun-control laws owe their genesis to the post-Civil War era, when white southerners moved to disarm freed slaves. The former Confederate states' successful efforts to restrict gun ownership had disastrous long-term consequences for black Americans' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion recognized this historical context. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. framed the McDonald decision in terms of black Americans' struggle for equality - and survival. He highlighted the court's Cruikshank ruling after the Colfax Massacre, a genocidal slaughter perpetrated in 1873.

This is one of the biggest reasons I ****ing hate gun control. Authoritarians always go after us minority groups first.

FARAGO: Racist pols go straight back to disarming blacks - Washington Times
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Chicago handgun-licensing laws enacted just four days after the Supreme Court ruling include four hours of mandatory training and testing (at the prospective handgun owner's expense), tri-annual licensing fees and registration with the Chicago Police. (That's in addition to existing federal requirements.) The new regulations prohibit gun ranges within Chicago; applicants will have to travel outside the city for training.

While Chicago's laws will be applied equally, regardless of race, it's clear that crime-plagued, low-income black Americans will find it hardest to satisfy their requirements. By both intention and design, the city of Chicago will prevent handgun ownership by the municipality's poorest, least educated and most vulnerable inhabitants.
So what is it about being black that keeps someone from meeting requirements? Why can't a black person travel outside the city?

What is it about being "un-educated" that keeps someone from meeting these requirements?

The only point I see is the financial-issue . . . which, if I lived in Chicago, would affect me, too - seeing as how we're not 'rich' by any means.

So if finances are really in question then kindly tell me just HOW someone can even AFFORD to buy a firearm if they can't even afford the extra expenses that go along with that ownership?
Last I shopped - they weren't CHEAP.

So where are the people advocating for free firearms since they're a 'god given right'
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You always go after the easiest targets first. That's how you build momentum to tackle the harder challenges.

Gun control is an abomination wherever it is practiced and however it is implemented.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So where are the people advocating for free firearms since they're a 'god given right'
Right here. I think JROTC should be mandatory in high school and that students should be issued a rifle and sidearm at graduation.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Right here. I think JROTC should be mandatory in high school and that students should be issued a rifle and sidearm at graduation.
Why on earth you'd think that's a good idea is beyond me.

But whatever . . . I won't even debate.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why on earth you'd think that's a good idea is beyond me.
A well-armed, well-trained citizens' militia is a benefit to any nation. High school graduates are adults and should be expected to exercise their responsibilities as adults. It would also go a long way to ensuring that prospective recruits are prepared for military service.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
A well-armed, well-trained citizens' militia is a benefit to any nation. High school graduates are adults and should be expected to exercise their responsibilities as adults. It would also go a long way to ensuring that prospective recruits are prepared for military service.
Well, I favor education and solidifying a future over requiring them to become killing machines :shrug:

But that's just me.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, I favor education and solidifying a future over requiring them to become killing machines :shrug:

But that's just me.
Being in the military labels you a killing machine?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Being in the military labels you a killing machine?
A snide at Korimyr from a previous debate.

But yeah, sure, why not - is that bad? My husband's a qualified sniper - I'm quite proud of that - as well as his vis a vis fighting abilities - he's a full blooded killing machine. Yet looking at his experiences I think it's ideal to receive a full education sans required military activity. Maybe not for everyone, but for quite a few. You should go where your abilities and strengths are - and the military isn't for everyone.
 

Sov

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
471
Reaction score
89
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why on earth you'd think that's a good idea is beyond me.

But whatever . . . I won't even debate.
Why don't supporters of gun control support disarming the police and military first? Government thugs are responsible for far and away more violence than street criminals. Even most of the violence by street criminals is a result of the idiotic 'War on Drugs' and other campaigns waged by the government.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why don't supporters of gun control support disarming the police and military first? Government thugs are responsible for far and away more violence than street criminals. Even most of the violence by street criminals is a result of the idiotic 'War on Drugs' and other campaigns waged by the government.
On that note - in order to become an officer or service member of some nature you MUST go through rigorous training and prove you're capable of performing your duties before they asign you a weapon. Far more rigorous requirements and standards than that enacted upon civilians.

Now - WHEN those duties aren't performed properly . . . that's when the bureaucratic tape takes over and causes far many more problems than it solves. . . this is where the problems are and where things need to be fixed.

In this regard I think there's more rigorous control and stipulation over military than there is over the police force - the police force is widely unchecked and just out of control with no one willing to step in and regain constraint and enact policies.

Now - until someone shows me that the majority of young adults are capable of maturely handling a firearm I'll be against the notion because I firmly believe that they're not. . . just like everything else that requires self restraint, common sense and a level of maturity (driving, drinking, etc) - time and time again the young in heart and mind prove that they're incapable of handling the freedoms that come with adult-hood when they arrive there and abuse those privileges.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
On that note - in order to become an officer or service member of some nature you MUST go through rigorous training and prove you're capable of performing your duties before they asign you a weapon. Far more rigorous requirements and standards than that enacted upon civilians.

Now - WHEN those duties aren't performed properly . . . that's when the bureaucratic tape takes over and causes far many more problems than it solves. . . this is where the problems are and where things need to be fixed.

In this regard I think there's more rigorous control and stipulation over military than there is over the police force - the police force is widely unchecked and just out of control with no one willing to step in and regain constraint and enact policies.

Now - until someone shows me that the majority of young adults are capable of maturely handling a firearm I'll be against the notion because I firmly believe that they're not. . . just like everything else that requires self restraint, common sense and a level of maturity (driving, drinking, etc) - time and time again the young in heart and mind prove that they're incapable of handling the freedoms that come with adult-hood when they arrive there and abuse those privileges.
I've trained quite a few young people in the use of firearms. I have found that almost all children of average intelligence and reasonable discipline are capable of learning safe gunhandling and marksmanship. The age at which they are capable of shooting at a public range may vary... some are perfectly competent at 6 or 7, others not until 10-12. I've watched my friends' six-yr-old at a range, handling a .22 carbine with proper care and hitting 3" targets at 30 yards. The age at which they are competent to handle firearms without immediate supervision will vary more widely, and is far more dependent on character and upbringing.

I was allowed to keep a loaded gun in my room at 13. I had been learning to handle arms since age 5.

The only children I have declined to teach firearms skills to were those who clearly had not been brought up properly: lacking in discipline or the capacity to understand that this was a serious endeavor. In almost all such cases I blame the parents, not the child's fundamental lack of capacity.

My son's training in firearms and hand-to-hand fighting began at age 4. He learned to operate a Bobcat front-end loader solo at age 8. He learned to drive a pickup truck around the farm at age 10. At 14 now, you could dump him in a wilderness area in January with a handful of basic tools, and pick him up a week later and he'd be alive and well and not all that hungry. No, not all children are capable of these things...because they haven't been RAISED to be capable of them, in most cases.

It's more-or-less how I was raised. It hasn't stopped me from being educated in matters other than guns, fighting, survival and whatnot. I also read poetry and write prose, in addition to being able to shoot a running fox with a handgun at 25 yards. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A well-armed, well-trained citizens' militia is a benefit to any nation. High school graduates are adults and should be expected to exercise their responsibilities as adults. It would also go a long way to ensuring that prospective recruits are prepared for military service.
What you seem to be implying is a return to a form of National Service (I believe you yanks called it the draft or draught or some such name).
To blindly issue a graduate with an armament without suitable training in it's use and upkeep is the height of irresponsibility.
Apart from that, it has long been proven that the (draft or draught) was notoriously unfair, was riddled with corruption and was economically unviable.
It has been resoned that a volunteer fighting force is better than an involuntary fighting force.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What you seem to be implying is a return to a form of National Service (I believe you yanks called it the draft or draught or some such name).
To blindly issue a graduate with an armament without suitable training in it's use and upkeep is the height of irresponsibility.
Apart from that, it has long been proven that the (draft or draught) was notoriously unfair, was riddled with corruption and was economically unviable.
It has been resoned that a volunteer fighting force is better than an involuntary fighting force.
You may not be familiar with certain aspects of American history.

In our early days, we had almost no standing army. The closest thing we had was a "Select Militia" much like the modern National Guard or Army Reserve. Most military force was in the "unorganized militia", which basically meant every man capable of bearing arms. In most cases they brought their own muskets or rifles. This was the backbone of American national defense for quite a long time.

Korimyr is, imo, alluding to that original use of "militia", in that every American of fighting age is technically part of the "unorganized militia", and subject to the call to national defense in time of need. In acknowlegement of that civil duty, he suggests that some basic ROTC type training and the possession of a suitable weapon should be considered a civic responsibility. I agree with him.

This is still no small factor in our national security. Admiral Yamamoto, talking with the Japanese high command about starting a war with the USA, advised against invading mainland America after Pearl Harbor. His reason? "Behind every blade of grass would be a rifleman." He had been educated in America.

In reaction to your assertion that issuing an 18yo with a rifle, without some sort of extensive training, is some kind of irresponsible silliness, reflect on the fact that the USA is a culture of arms; many of us grow up from childhood hunting and target shooting and handling weapons. An 18yo in the US may purchase a rifle or shotgun on his own, and is subject to no restrictions other than not being able to buy a handgun until he is 21. In many or most states, there are no particular requirements other than a clean record... yet gun accidents have dramatically declined for over a century and are a minescule fraction of other accidents (like automobile fatalities).

Frankly letting a 16yo drive a car isn't really any more likely to end in tragedy than letting him handle firearms... less so, statistically.

I refer you to my post above, where I discuss children I have trained in the use of firearms, and my own son's upbringing very similar to my own... nor is my case at all unique, a good many American young men are still brought up to learn survival skills, including firearm skills, as a simple fact of growing up.

I daresay I could easily introduce you to a couple dozen teenagers who are as adept with firearms as the average soldier... yet they are vanishingly unlikely to criminally abuse a firearm because of how they were brought up and taught a strict code of morality, ethics and honor.

Your concerns might be more valid in a European country, where the average 40 year old has never touched or fired a gun. In America, it is not unusual for a rural child to shoot his first deer at 13 or 14.
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What you seem to be implying is a return to a form of National Service (I believe you yanks called it the draft or draught or some such name).
I'm not opposed to it, but that's not what I'm suggesting. Even if I were, I would propose a proper form of National Service in which every fit citizen serves for a period of time-- wartime or peace-- rather than a lottery system where citizens are chosen at random during wartime and a laundry list of exceptions are granted for the sons of families who can afford them.

To blindly issue a graduate with an armament without suitable training in it's use and upkeep is the height of irresponsibility.
Who is proposing such a thing? I suggested that before students are allowed to graduate, they should be required to receive and succeed at suitable training in the use and upkeep of arms.

Apart from that, it has long been proven that the (draft or draught) was notoriously unfair, was riddled with corruption and was economically unviable.
It has been resoned that a volunteer fighting force is better than an involuntary fighting force.
I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, in the event of foreign invasion or widespread civil unrest, I believe every citizen should have at least a basic level of combat training and understanding of military discipline.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,970
Reaction score
21,725
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Government thugs are responsible for far and away more violence than street criminals.
I'd love to see a statistic for this.
 
Top Bottom