Columnists writing pieces that purport to be pro-gun but are meant to try to portray Second Amendment advocates as hypocrites are definitely a thing these days, though typically it’s something along the lines of “if you want to see conservatives embrace gun control just start arming minorities,” because to the left, you can’t be a Second Amendment supporter unless you’re a racist white person… nevermind the fact that the only people I see freaking out about an increase in minorities exercising their Second Amendment rights are lefties themselves.
Eric Kuhn of the Connecticut Mirror has put a new spin on this bit of progressive projection with a column suggesting that for some reason, lower-income Americans and the homeless shouldn’t be able to exercise their right to armed self-defense. Of course Kuhn couches his argument in an attempt at Swiftian satire, but his intent is as clear as his contempt for those less fortunate than himself.
For the sake of argument, let’s go with the new flow for a minute. So: guns are essential to ordinary life in America. There are more guns than people in the country, and once the Bruen decision is applied in the states, basically everyone will have the right to pack heat basically everywhere. The unarmed will be sitting ducks.
This being the case, merely giving the unarmed the right to a gun isn’t enough. If they don’t happen to have the budget for a gun and ammunition, do we throw them to the wolves? It seems plain that the government (we can debate which level of government) has an affirmative duty to see to it that everybody in America has a gun, not just the right to a gun. In the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, you need one!
Like other government relief programs, we will not be aiming to supply the gunless with weapons that will make the neighbors jealous. Welfare guns should be like food stamps or public housing: enough to keep body and soul together. Just a simple pistol you can rely on for self-defense. Hey, we manufacture them right here in the USA!
As with government programs of any kind, there will be devilish details and gray areas. Just how broke does a person need to be to qualify for a government-issue handgun? How will we ascertain the aforesaid brokeness so as to prevent fraud and abuse? Public welfare programs are always a bear that way. So let’s start with the low-hanging fruit: America’s homeless.
These are people in dire need of personal protection on a day-to-day basis: they are exposed 24/7. They are unlikely to have spare cash for a gun and bullets, being the half-million most destitute Americans. If the Second Amendment applies to them, they need welfare guns. Let’s make it happen!
Seeing to it that the homeless are suitably armed would be a first step towards acknowledging that guns are indispensable in American life, and a good start down the long road to eliminating gunlessness in America.
I know this is supposed to be a joke, but I wouldn’t have any issue with the government providing surplus firearms at no cost or with a modest fee for those who might not be otherwise able to purchase a firearm for self-defense. That would be a much better alternative than simply melting them down, frankly.
And yes, even the homeless have the right to defend their lives, as amusing as Kuhn finds that concept. Of course, that population of Americans also has its fair share of those with mental health or substance abuse issues that might make them prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights, but simply being homeless doesn’t negate any of your constitutionally-protected rights.
Lefties love to try to play “gotcha!” when it comes to support for the Second Amendment, but every time they do they simply demonstrate once again that they’re the ones who have a problem with disfavored groups of Americans exercising their civil rights. Homeless people are still people, and while the Second Amendment doesn’t require that they be given arms for self-defense, it does protect their right to keep and bear them.