If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Down on your luck and unhappy with your place on the economic ladder? Here's a gun   (opposingviews.com) divider line 33
    More: Interesting, Americans, high crimes, Greenpoint  
•       •       •

9116 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-01 12:15:53 PM
3 votes:
Silly poor people, no 2nd Amendment rights for you. Go be victims somewhere else.
2013-04-01 12:12:23 PM
3 votes:

ChipNASA: rv4-farker: I assume blacks and hispanics need not apply?

They all already HAVE guns.


It's those damned Irish that need not apply!

/ I keed, I keed

// less fortunate people can have free phones; but, can't ever have guns. Because, guns bad and if you like guns, you're bad.

/ they're not just going to a street corner and just giving out guns
2013-04-01 12:06:37 PM
3 votes:
If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls
2013-04-01 04:51:02 PM
2 votes:
Yippee! Here's yet another Fark gun thread where the Farklibs spout off the same tired old crap:

Law abiding citizens simply cannot be trusted with guns.

The poor people need to simply rely on the local police for their protection; the same local police that Farklibs are quick to condemn if said police even look at someone the wrong way.

Nitpick the 2nd Amendment with every invented technicality to try to prove it's irrelevance.

Farkilbs are infinitely smarter than anyone with an opinion different than theirs, ESPECIALLY when the discussion is about guns.

About the only thing missing is how the streets of America's cities will become the "wild, wild, west" (which still hasn't happened) if you allow law abiding citizens to arm themselves. All the while pretending that the lawlessness in Chicago (with it's gun ban) is not happening.

You all need to just stop.
2013-04-01 01:04:01 PM
2 votes:
Let's get some federal dollars behind this and we can dub them Obamaguns and then the right wingers would hate it.
2013-04-01 12:40:56 PM
2 votes:
As someone who's been poor all his life and probably always will be, I think the problem with poor people is there are too damn many of us. Oversupply of labor makes us cheap, replaceable, interchangeable and damn near worthless as individuals to our society and so to ourselves. And it's troublingly ironic that better-off people persuade themselves that they're carrying us, as if their TVs come on and their goods are delivered by lucky accidents.

One answer is mass death among the bottom 47% or so. Withdrawal from the world of work provides value for those who process us -- bureaucrats of the welfare system, writers and politicians and those in "criminal justice," for example -- but a broad wave of us ceasing to exist as living breathing objects to be exploited and scorned would only provide value for grave-diggers and corpse-burners and then only for a short while.

Only when the spoiled brats of the bourgeoisie are reduced to digging their own coal, hauling their own trash, fighting their own wars and finding their own food will they realize that we were good for something after all. Ideally there will be enough of us left to command better pay and treatment (if we bother lifting a finger), but if they learn so late that their civilization collapses that's their own damn problem.

Perhaps a proletarian Masada would be a wonderful idea: perhaps the poor in America should set an example for the rest of the world of refusing to continue being trodden down. And as there's no surer way to off yourself than to stick a firearm in your mouth we should embrace this effort to arm us with both hands. Eliminating poverty would hurt the rich more than us.

/ I might be being "ironic" but I'm still too undercaffeinated to know for sure.
2013-04-01 12:27:24 PM
2 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.


I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?
2013-04-01 12:13:23 PM
2 votes:
I wish this were April Fools, but this idea has been going around for a while. The biggest flaw is that if you give poor people something of value that they really don't use all of the time, then they are going to pawn or sell if for cash pretty quickly. If you have a $500 pistol sitting in your drawer and rent is due, that gun is going to get exchanged for cash. A better strategy is to improve police service in these areas, especially response times. Even your hardcore gun nut is going to call the police first *if* that's an option. Pulling out the hardware is always a last resort - no one wants a homicide on their conscience, legally justified or not.
2013-04-01 12:11:43 PM
2 votes:

Bennie Crabtree: April Fool's?


My first thought too, but it's dated yesterday.  That being said, if they're giving out home defense shotguns to women with clean background checks who have gone through a training program it's not the worst idea ever.  Then again, unless they've checked out their boyfriends and family members as well, it might be.
2013-04-01 12:09:56 PM
2 votes:
"Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.
2013-04-01 06:10:32 PM
1 votes:

rv4-farker: I assume blacks and hispanics need not apply?


Of course.  What do you think gun control is for?
2013-04-01 05:47:56 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: That appears, to me, to be a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian purpose.


It's not an assault weapon, you can tell because assault weapons are black and scary looking.  This one has wood, and that's all that matters.
2013-04-01 03:13:04 PM
1 votes:
That's odd. I thought gun control groups were perfectly ok with trained, responsible, adults owning simple defensive shotguns.
2013-04-01 02:34:37 PM
1 votes:
Maybe, just maybe, we could try and look into the root causes of violence and focus on improving the situation of our poor communities (better education, youth intervention, access to fresh foods, etc.) and increasing police response time and presence as necessary.

Nah, lets just hand out guns because, hey owning a gun means you have your freedoms and no one will mess with you now (unless they also own a gun.)
2013-04-01 02:28:55 PM
1 votes:
Back in the 1980s, I knew of a family court judge who was sick of women who had restraining orders against abusive men appearing before them repeatedly, often progressively more injured each time, by men who just ignored the orders.  So he decided to issue bench orders *requiring* the women to be armed when in public, and to show the order to any policeman if asked about their gun.

And, being a righteous individual, he told the women if they were too poor to buy a gun and ammo, he would do so out of his own pocket.  After a few years, his big brag was that the number of women appearing before him two or more times dropped to zero.  And, he added, that there were no known instances when an abusive male was actually shot by the woman they had abused.

Once they heard about his new policy, the local police took up a collection to help the judge defray the cost of buying guns and ammo, them not liking domestic abuse cases either.

Unfortunately, after his retirement, the judge's replacement discontinued the program, and the status quo of beaten women appearing in court repeatedly returned.
2013-04-01 02:24:36 PM
1 votes:
FTA: At a time when the goal seems to be getting guns off the streets...

If the website's goal was taking lawfully-owned guns away from citizens, I can see why they have an issue with giving more lawfully-owned guns to citizens.

That was, however, neither my goal nor desire.
2013-04-01 01:46:19 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.


Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.
2013-04-01 01:25:16 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.

No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.

I would also reference explicit advocacy of confiscation by elected officials in the United States of America.

I would like to point out the following:
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom:
1) Do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2) Do not have anywhere near our epidemic rate of people suffering from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs).

The firearms being confiscated in New York and Chicago are NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.

Confiscation from lunatics and criminals? No problemo with that.
Confiscation of specific weapons? 1) That will never pass. 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.


The guns in NYC were properly registered in the 60s. The NYPD used that list in the 90s to go to door to door to make sure that the weapons on NYC's AWB were rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were taken from the owner if they had not been.
2013-04-01 01:14:43 PM
1 votes:
I don't begrudge the ownership of a defensive weapon to anyone unlucky enough to live in high-crime areas of our cities.  The group is training them on firearms safety including legal discussions (I'd assume regarding castle doctrine, collective defense, et cetera) and looking to generate some hard data about arming the good guys in a bad-guy place.

There's a lot of patronizing attitude in this thread about the residents of Greenpoint, TX, their mental state, and ability to listen to instruction.  I don't view the poor as supermen, but they are adults with rights.  As long as they get the whole "keep in a secure place safe from children and thieves" lesson down, I say give the experiment a try.
2013-04-01 12:57:32 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.


[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.
2013-04-01 12:52:22 PM
1 votes:
I have to agree with subby, all poor people are criminals. And in the same way that the right to bail only applies if you can afford it or freedom of the press only applies if you can afford a press then the right to bear arms should only apply if you can afford a gun. If you can't then you can just go ahead and get raped.
2013-04-01 12:47:15 PM
1 votes:
iheartscotch:

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

They sure as hell ought to.
2013-04-01 12:43:21 PM
1 votes:

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: FTFA: ""Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

Holy shiat. Can this guy be any more of an arrogant elitist asshole? And (if we are discussing minorities) a racist? Wow. Just... wow.


Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".
2013-04-01 12:37:41 PM
1 votes:

iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?


Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.
2013-04-01 12:37:26 PM
1 votes:
slurmed.com
2013-04-01 12:34:48 PM
1 votes:

Godscrack: What a genius plan by NRA and right wing authorities. Give poor people and minorities free guns to kill each other off.

Everyone profits:
The prison industry will boom
Hospitals and big pharma will triple their business
Mortuary businesses
And police will have plenty of things to do. And more opportunities to try out their toys.


You too, Alice. GUN CONTROL! NO GUNZ FOR TEH POORS! Oh, yeah, but it's OK if my bodyguards are armed with Uzis.....

Newsflash, asshole: poor people that need self-protection even more than rich ones. Read the farking stats.

You sound well off, white, and self-satisfied.
2013-04-01 12:26:46 PM
1 votes:

Yes please: Bennie Crabtree: April Fool's?

My first thought too, but it's dated yesterday.  That being said, if they're giving out home defense shotguns to women with clean background checks who have gone through a training program it's not the worst idea ever.  Then again, unless they've checked out their boyfriends and family members as well, it might be.


static2.businessinsider.com
2013-04-01 12:15:31 PM
1 votes:
On the positive side, pawn shops in the area will receive an influx of new guns.
2013-04-01 12:14:08 PM
1 votes:
1)
Who is going to fund this? Gun nuts are mostly motivated by fear of urban minorities

2)
If it gets funding, racist gun nuts will abuse the program like they do the gun buy-backs
2013-04-01 12:06:11 PM
1 votes:
I assume blacks and hispanics need not apply?
2013-04-01 12:03:52 PM
1 votes:
Best. Idea. EVAR. America, fark YAH!
2013-04-01 12:00:03 PM
1 votes:
There is no possible way this could backfire...
2013-04-01 11:38:56 AM
1 votes:
What a genius plan by NRA and right wing authorities. Give poor people and minorities free guns to kill each other off.

Everyone profits:
The prison industry will boom
Hospitals and big pharma will triple their business
Mortuary businesses
And police will have plenty of things to do. And more opportunities to try out their toys.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report