Use some of the gun lobby money slushing around to hand out free guns to people without criminal records who live in high crime areas, along with appropriate training and security (e.g gun safes). It shouldn’t cost too much in a targeted area, it will be a boon for the industry, and when crime inevitably drops there they can rub it in Democrats’ faces.
(Amazingly, after typing this up, I checked google…)
“High crime areas” usually means “minorities.” No way either the NRA or the Republicans are going to spend money on them under any circumstances, much less arming them.
Oh come now. First of all, I wouldn’t dare question the conviction of Republicans on gun rights. Secondly, everyone knows that Democrats are the real racists, since we keep trying to stop law abiding minorities in high crime areas from defending themselves. Now, I know Republicans aren’t a big fan of handing out freebies, but surely they’d be willing to make an exception in this case in order to score a political point, which they are big fans of. Plus, you know, saving lives.
There are lots of high crime urban areas nestled in deeply red states where they could easily make this happen.
If they start handing out guns, every Bubba south of the Mason Dixon line, is gonna believe they’re entitled to one!
Count on it!
As an NRA member, I support the local Pink Pistols chapter by offering free training in firearms.
Unfortunately - tough to get others to participate.
If the NRA was smart, they WOULD go into the inner city and offer self defense courses with the local gun shop.
Let me introduce you to the Pink Pistols.
Um, silenus is talking about the demographics of minority groups with respect to the notion of “gun welfare” in high crime areas.
I don’t think that offering free gun training to LGBT people via the Pink Pistols, laudable as that may be in its own right, is particularly relevant to this issue.
This is a strawman.
It’s a strawman so blatant that the OP, when reminded that Republicans generally don’t favor such free handouts, simply replies that they should surely make an exception in this area.
Because they don’t do that which runs counter to their sincere principles, he then invites the reader to conclude that they don’t have sincere principles.
Can it be a strawman when a Republican actually suggested it?
[QUOTE= Tom Tancredo]
“If we can afford food stamps and housing subsidies, why not gun stamps to help urban citizens survive the next Islamist assault?”
[/QUOTE]
Well, we already know that Republicans often do support and promote policies which run counter to their stated principles, such as various forms of crony capitalism, corporate welfare, expansion of government intrusion into individuals’ private lives, and dependence on federal subsidies.
Based on past performance, we can see that “it’s against conservative principles” is not necessarily an adequate explanation when we’re trying to figure out why Republicans aren’t doing something.
[QUOTE=Tom Tancredo;
“If we can afford food stamps and housing subsidies, why not gun stamps to help urban citizens survive the next Islamist assault?”
[/QUOTE]
But, what if conservatives use the guns in a terrorist attack? . The worst terrorist group we have ever seen in the US is not Al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is the KKK. A group composed of white, conservative, christians. The same people who often commit terrorist attacks against women(abortion clinic bombings).
The NRA can’t go into inner-city neighborhoods. Those places are dangerous!
Suppose I were to argue that we cannot vest elected power in the hands of the Democrats because of their obvious lack of knowledge about the world – why, Democrats believe that it’s possible for the island of Guam to tip over and capsize if too many people are on it.
Is that a strawman argument? After all, a Democratic congressman said it.
Ok. But since that argument applies to both major political parties, it’s equally unavailing in defense of Democrats. Moreover, it legitimizes strawman attacks in political discourse.
And I don’t see your point in using the term “strawman” in this instance, either. Irrespective of what one thinks of Republicans’ political sincerity or consistency in general, there is not AFAIK even a nominal Republican principle opposing the exercise of private charity, which is all that the OP appears to be suggesting.
In other words, even if it would be theoretically “un-Republican” to use government money to provide guns for the needy, that surely doesn’t apply to the idea of using voluntarily donated lobbying money for that purpose. So, no strawman at all.
Can we get a new anecdote about Democratic ineptitude?
The repetition of the Guam thing makes it seem like there isn’t some new idiocy every week, as there is with the GOP.
You’re absolutely right. I did not read the OP carefully enough.
I was wrong.
There’s plenty of ordinary ineptitude on a weekly basis. But this one was such weapons-grade ignorance, and so immune from defense, that it’s a perfect example.
So, if we’re going to use mutually-assured dumbassery as our guide, the Democrats have at least one thermonuke, stockpiled in 2010, and the Republicans crank those out on a daily basis.
It was kind of inevitable - whichever party more dearly embraces both religion and racism will have a shakier grip on reason. Pre-Southern Strategy, that was the Democrats. A comparable mass realignment may bring it back to them someday.
Flyer, I hope you and Algher are joking and not being purposefully obtuse. You know full well when silenus referred to “minorities” he means blacks, and he is correct, there is no way on Earth Republicans or the NRA will voluntarily supply or promote supplying arms to black people on a mass scale. I’ll see pigs fly first.
And anyway, since when do gays typically live in high crime areas?