All it will do is buy you a newspaper - please visit a local library to read it 
The government will indeed buy you a gun. They gave me one right after I enlisted - could have kept it too, but I decided to go back to grad school.
Couldn’t that be considered a straw purchase?
jtgain, you only get your free lawyer if the government charges you with a crime where the punishment is months or years of your life. If you never get charged with a crime, you never get a lawyer, even though you always have a right to a lawyer.
If you think the government providing a lawyer means the government should provide a gun, you still need a predicate for when the government should give you the gun. (And the circumstance when it takes the gun away - you don’t get to keep the free lawyer). Maybe you shouldn’t get the gun until it is clear Canada is about to spring its invasion plan.
This link I really want to see :smack:
Is there a threshold for how many additional shot people, in the neighborhood, it will take before they call off the experiment?
I seriously hope the guns are loaners they can recall if the experiment has the result most existing public health gun studies would predict.
Wait, why holsters?! Stick it in your waistband like a poor person!
So is the word “enjoy” determinative?
I don’t see how it could be that way. If I have a right to counsel, and that means that if I can’t pay for it out of pocket that the government must do so, then why if I have a right to keep and bear arms, but can’t afford it, then government shouldn’t likewise pay.
I’m not trying to be hard-headed. I understand the distinction, but the text doesn’t support the different treatment. And even your earlier example of providing a publishing company for a poor person isn’t that much of a stretch from the text if one subscribes to the idea that a right to counsel means that the government must pay for that counsel if a person cannot afford it.
I guess I limited my question. Must the government pay for cab fare to church if I can’t afford a car? Must the government buy me a house if I cannot afford one not to be searched under the 4th? I guess I question the whole idea of “must pay for a lawyer” under the 6th.. Not that it isn’t a good idea, but if it’s mandated for one right, why not all?
I suppose it might reduce the number of poor people.
In the sense that if you cannot get counsel during a criminal proceeding, your right to have counsel while on trial is being violated- yes.
The problem here is that you’re avoiding the rest of the text of the amendment. The Sixth Amendment applies in a specific situation: “in all criminal prosecutions.” The First Amendment says Congress cannot restrict the freedom of the press or freedom of religion. It doesn’t say anything about your specific ability to find and join a church or get to any individual political protest. The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms can’t be infringed. If says nothing about your right to own a gun right this minute. If you can’t afford a gun today, you could get a new job or sell some possessions and buy one tomorrow. Whether you can actually afford a gun today or not, you have the right to own one (with some restrictions). The right applies regardless of how you choose to exercise it today. If you’re put on trial and you don’t have access to legal counsel, your rights at that time are not being respected and the problems that creates can be severe.
The SC has also stated if an offense has no jail imposed by law, the person is NOT entitled to Counsel.
They have also ruled IF an offense is punishable by jail time, BUT the Prosecution will not seek any time if convicted, the defendant is NOT entitled to Counsel.
Hamilton wanted to call the BoR, the “Bill of Prohibitions”, iow, the govt is prohibited from denying the citizen the protections afforded them under 1-8.
Also some states require a defendant to bear part of a defense cost, even if indigent, the 6th notwithstanding.
If I remember right, Florida is one.
Okay, to attempt to answer the OP in a serious manner.
You have the right to hire counsel for a trial or to own a firearm. However, for financial reasons, some people cannot afford to exercise these rights. So the state provides representatives who will perform these duties for you.
The government doesn’t give you money to hire a lawyer - it appoints a lawyer to appear in court on your behalf. So the second amendment equivalent is not the government giving you money to buy a gun. It’s the government appointing somebody to bear weapons on your behalf - ie the police and the military. Law enforcement agencies and the armed forces represent the state supplying its poor citizens with the benefits of gun ownership they cannot afford to secure for themselves.
I don’t think this follows; the government doesn’t pay for people to practice religion on my behalf, or to peacefully assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I think Marley has it, there is a clear textual difference between “shall enjoy the right to” and “the right…shall not be infringed”. The former is a command; the latter is a prohibition.
I think the key text here is that the Constitutional says I’m supposed to “enjoy” my rights. So it’s not enough for me to just have due process - I have to have a good time also. In light of this, I feel the state should not only provide me with an attorney but also some Quaaludes.
I think the OP is brilliant.
The point, at least in my interpretation, is that a literal interpretation of Bill of Rights platitudes leads to absurdity.
Why is is that a $2.00 poll tax violates everyone’s voting rights, but a $50,000+ capital case legal assistance bill for lower middle class defendants is consistent with the right to counsel? There’s only one reason that counts. The Supremes said so.
The OP has stated his point: he doesn’t understand why the Sixth Amendment is interpreted to mean the government has to provide criminal defendants with lawyers but doesn’t have to provide poor people with guns. The answer is that the amendments apply in different situations and guarantee different things.
That and the history of poll taxes as a tool to disenfranchise black people, yes.
No, he is clearly buying the guns for distribution to people who are otherwise allowed to own guns. Straw purchase implies the purchase of guns for people that are not legally allowed to own a gun.
I saw it either on the john Stewart Show or the Colbert Report.
It is in Houston not Atlanta:
http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/Home.html
We will see if it has any effect on crime. Or if it just results in people accidentally their kids.
Do you have a cite for the predictable result from those studies?
According to your links, the guns are being given in multiple unnamed neighborhoods. And the number of guns given out to date seems quite low. On the YouTube video, the number one is mentioned, although it is promised that there soon will be 100. On the blog, “Reverend Kyle X, Exalted Chief, Armed Citizen Project” says that he went to a gun store to buy nine shotguns, and they declined his patronage after learning of his plan.
I don’t think we will ever hear if the Armed Citizen Project has an effect on crime, because, even if Rev. Kyle AKA Kyle Coplen was inclined to conduct his project in a scientific manner, I doubt he has sufficient funding to buy enough shotguns so that any change in crime rates (or accidents, or suicides) could plausibly be attributed to a dramatically increased gun ownership rate.
You may or may not recall that I have been posting on the risks of gun ownership, in Great Debates, since late January. Absent finds like Kyle Coplen, I’m not sure how much I have to say that’s halfway fresh. Rather than provide another in-your-face link, I’ll just suggest googling the Harvard Injury Prevention Project.
Let’s face the reality. If somebody is distributing fire-arms to poor people, the likeliest result is all those fire-arms will show up in pawn shops within a few days. So the experiment isn’t really going to go anywhere.
I haven’t looked deeply into it, I just saw it on the Colbert report but it was my impression that they have distributed guns to particular neighborhoods and to women generally. I think they should just focus on a single neighborhood and see if it turns into a bloodbath or if it affects crime in the area.
A single shot 20 gauge shotgun should cost less than $100. I think this guy probably had enough to arm a neighborhood already and got distracted.
Do you know how many of those deaths are caused by shotgun? Very few. You are conflating the risk of handguns in the house with shotguns in the house.
The pawn value of a single shot shotgun is maybe $20. But maybe you are right.
Because it would be a bad idea and everybody knows it. Also, I think Little Nemo hit the nail on the head.