Reply #51: I never said the cost should be lower for anyone [View All]

[1a2b3c]

If the costs associated with firearms must be LOWER for poor people / people of colour, in order to avoid adverse impact discrimination (or if the prices should simply be minimal for everyone, to achieve a substantially similar effect), then the costs associated with eating, for example, must ALSO be LOWER for poor people / people of colour in order to avoid the same adverse impact discrimination.


I did mention banning guns that could be affordable to a certain class of people. I also mentioned fees that are not needed that also price out the poor. As for the gas and food, dont we have government assistance for these? Dont we have food stamps and goodwill and salvation army's? That is what these things are for. To help those who cant afford to pay the high prices the rest of us pay.

Proving that the prices of other (essential) goods and services are THE SAME in both types of neighbourhoods would do nothing to bolster your position that the prices of the services associated with firearms ownership must be LOWER for poor people / people of colour in order for there to be equitable treatment.

I think you have me wrong here. I wasnt planning on proving the prices were the same or different. The thought never crossed my mind. I also never said the prices should be lower for firearms. What i did say is that poor people are being priced out of the self defense market when they live in neighborhoods that they probably need the protection the most. I also heard, but havent checked, that you need a $100 permit in MA to get pepper spray. Maybe im the only one who finds that a bit outrageous?

After all ... I thought that going after the root causes of violence, rather than "preventing people from defending themselves against violence", was the only real way to reduce that violence.

Very true, but i dont see the War on "SOME" Drugs ending any time soon. Shouldnt those in the lower class neighborhoods, who are right in the middle of this bullshit war, have a chance at self defense legally?

Seems to me that (further) subsidizing food, housing, childcare, schools, health care, and so on and on, is going to be a better investment of public funds than subsidizing firearms ownership

Again, i never said this. I never mentioned anything about subsidzing. I mentioned doing away with bans that only effect lower incomes and doing away the $300 or $400 in fees that you have to obtain to own a firearm. The food and the health care is all good but its all subsidization. Removing fees that you have to pay to exercise a constitutional right to self defense isnt.

And gosh, I'd expect a Democrat, who surely is supposed to both care about individuals' welfare and understand the connection between individual welfare and the public welfare, to be focusing his/her energies in those areas.

Can we knock off the youre not a democrat shit? This is about all ive read since ive been back. This is DemocraticUNDERGROUND. Underground meaning all moderates, progressives, liberals, libertarians, and whoever else hates conservatives, am i right? I fit in somewhere between the liberals and the libertarians if it makes you feel better.

I completely fail to see how multiplying the number of firearms in private hands, regardless of whose, while doing nothing about hunger, homelessness, ill health and unemployability -- or even while doing "something" about those problems, until what is done is even marginally sufficient -- is going to promote the general welfare of the people of the United States.

I fail to see this too.

And firearms are needs and incase of an emergency they also double as tools (the best tool for the job) that would provide you with food clothing and shelter, which you say are needs. Would you say i am correct on this?