Missouri Democrat: Poor Too Irresponsible to Exercise Second Amendment
July 13th, 2009
Gun rights advocates scored a victory Thursday as the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects.
CQ Politics
July 13, 2009
The amendment, by Tom Price , R‑Ga., would bar any housing authority from restricting legal ownership of guns. It was adopted, 38-31, as the committee continued its markup of a housing bill (HR 3045) that the panel is expected to approve next week.
“Seniors and other individuals have the right to protect themselves,” said Joe Baca of California, one of 13 Democrats who voted for the amendment. “Those guns would be registered, and those individuals have a right, in public housing or any other place, to protect themselves.”
While the Department of Housing and Urban Development does not have a specific policy concerning guns in public housing, several local agencies have banned them in an effort to reduce violent crime in housing projects. Major urban centers began to adopt gun bans in the 1990s, and advocates of such steps argue that the bans have improved the safety of public housing.
“There was a time during the ’70s and ’80s when public housing developments were considered killing grounds,” said Emanuel Cleaver II , D-Mo., who grew up in public housing. “It is just foolhardy to place guns in developments of poor people, many of whom are unemployed, and place these guns around children. . . . Why would we try to put guns in the most densely populated areas in the urban core? It’s just unbelievable.”
No related posts.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“would bar any housing authority from restricting legal ownership of guns.”
You can’t bar a restriction that is illegal in the first place. We dont need amendments and laws to re-affirm what is already a right. People need to start going to jail for violations of the bill of rights, period.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
One ought to be allowed possession of a legally registered gun at their residence, regardless of where that residence happens to be. We aren’t talking about conceal and carry, which I think should require special training and knowledge of the law as to the instances where lethal force is allowed, just like the police training. God knows there are enough mistakes made by a well trained police force. I hate to imagine what kind of chaos would come from a bunch of idiots who were able to fill out an application, and have avoided conviction more often by a good attorney than any saintlike qualities, who are out waving guns without proper training, mimicing their heros from the big screen. I think, though, that a crime ridden neighborhood is the very place that a residence would have the BEST reason to keep and bear arms.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“One ought to be allowed possession of a legally registered gun at their residence, regardless of where that residence happens to be.” There is no law that overturns the Bill of Rights. No one can be not allowed to posses a gun. There is no such thing as a “legally registered gun.” Possession of arms is a God given right.
” We aren’t talking about conceal and carry, which I think should require special training and knowledge of the law as to the instances where lethal force is allowed, just like the police training.” We don’t care what you or anyone thinks! Our right to bear arms supercedes you or anyone’s opinion.
John, do you have a license for those words? I hate to think that anyone can go around saying those words without the proper sensitivity training.
\
July 13th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I’m a liberal and this crap makes me cringe. What makes this idiot politician think that the poor shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves? Any honest and good person, no matter if they’re a poor black guy in Dallas, a middle-class Chicano lady in West Covina, or a well-to-do white enterpreneur in Vermont, has a natural right to own a gun. No ifs, ands or buts.