Liberal Politicians believe that poor people cannot be trusted with firearms.

[The_Outlaw]

Can poor people be trusted with guns? Overwhelmingly, Republicans thinks so. But while Democrats fight against taxes on the poor and oppose voter photo IDs because they impose too much of burden, they seem to be doing everything possible – from fees, expensive training requirements, and photo IDs -- to make it next to impossible for the poor to own guns.

Indeed, legislation in at least 17 states around the country is aimed specifically at making it more costly to own a gun. Democrats are voting in mass against exempting the poor from fees when it comes to guns. New Yorkers aren't alone facing everything from registration fees to buying liability insurance.

That's too bad, because many law-abiding citizens, particularly minorities in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. There is little doubt that the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crime – again, overwhelmingly poor blacks in urban areas -- are also the ones who benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.

Can poor people be trusted with guns? | Fox News

[tattedupboy]

Guns are already expensive enough without additional taxes and fees being added on top of the purchase price. Leave it up to those on the far left to use taxation as a tool to influence behavior or to price "undesireables" out of the gun market.

Sent from my Acer Iconia A200 tab using Tapatalk HD

[fuhr52]

More proof for those that wish to see it , gun control has nothing to do with violent crime. It has everything to do with people control. People that loose the means to protect themselves are doomed to be controlled by a tyrannical government and the left wing socialists party knows it.

[UATKP]

I have exhausted every way that is within my power to contact our so-called "Reprehensatives" and will make no other attempt. They will not listen to us, and therefore, I will never again listen to them. They care nothing about those who elected them into office, nor anyone else who is "beneath their status". They have become scum to me.
I'm glad that I've got the guns that I want right now. I'm too old and set in my ways, I guess. I will not be gouged for higher prices on anything. I will not register anything that I have now, nor anything that I acquire in the future.
I will no longer obey an illegal law. And I will not be forced to comply. I have reached the point in my life, that I will not be obedient to any liberal request or command. To hell with liberals. Molon Labe!

[GB-Boater]

They are close to finding out how far the general public can be pushed.
It would be wise on their part to listen to what the people want.

[fuhr52]

They are close to finding out how far the general public can be pushed.
It would be wise on their part to listen to what the people want.

Here lies the problem, to the socialist liberals the people aren't capable of knowing what they want. Our socialist liberal leaders do know what is best for us.

[Warrior1256]

The answer is obvious. The liberals DON"T WANT ANYONE TO OWN GUNS!!!! They will use any means to disarm all segments of the population, one at a time or all at once, whichever is easier. Of course they will exempt themselves from these laws as usual.

[The_Outlaw]

The answer is obvious. The liberals DON"T WANT ANYONE TO OWN GUNS!!!! They will use any means to disarm all segments of the population, one at a time or all at once, whichever is easier. Of course they will exempt themselves from these laws as usual.

Correction....
The Elitist Liberals do not want CONSERVATIVES to own firearms.

Just ask Feinstein, She has a CHL and she carries a concealed handgun.
It's okay for her and her Fascist CRONIES to own firearms for self defense, but it's not okay for the rest of us 'peasant citizens' to own firearms.

[father-of-three]

I was thinking that the original statement is even more telling without using the word "poor." I say this because one of the many, many things that liberals (and sometimes conservatives too!) refuse to do are to define terms like "middle class" and "poor," making it all quite ambiguous. American poverty is somewhat unique, but that's a conversation for another discussion thread! It makes the situation much more telling, because the American Revolution was about much more than being poor. A well defined question is the first step to a well defined answer and liberals know this all too well.