One of the things the GOP has embraced is using class or race grievances to support their policy agenda (as if they give a damn about the rights of minorities or the poor).🤨

So now, the idea of making gun ownership more costly through taxes, licensing or other measures becomes
discriminating against the poor.


First of all, a gun is NOT a necessity in any way. The Constitution may guarantee a right to bear one, but it does NOT guarantee that all guns or any guns will be at a price point that all can afford.

Nor does to guarantee
that basic measures to ensure public safety, such as licensing, come in at a price point everyone can afford. Many states have license fees in excess of $200.

If you cannot afford to pay for the things that mitigate the risk of your gun ownership, you cannot afford a gun.
The same is true about driving, and pretty much every other endeavor.

Health care is a right and a necessity. People who are truly worried about the well being of poor people are offended by the idea that they can’t afford medications or doctor visits.

Not that they can’t
afford a Glock.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Pam Keith, Esq.

Pam Keith, Esq. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PamKeithFL

21 Feb
Excellent question! Thanks for asking Jenny. They are all pernicious propaganda, but CM is far the most dangerous because of its reach.

It is also by far the most profitable because of its fee arrangement with cable providers. Cable companies put FN in their basic cable package
which means the overwhelming majority of people get it, even if they would never watch it. About $2.50 a month goes to FN from every subscription.

The providers then won’t let customers opt out of FN because it’s in a “bundle.”

That was effective when we had no alternatives.
Now, we have streaming which competes directly with and cannibalizes cable revenue.

So we TELL cable they will drop FN from our basic package and STOP charging us for it, or we drop cable altogether and go to streaming.

If enough of us do it, the other networks will chime in
Read 4 tweets
21 Feb
I love NCAA sports.

I do NOT love the NCAA.

I think the draconian rules curtailing what athletes can earn from their own talent & hard work is complete BULLSHIT!

I have listened to &heard arguments about amateurism & the value of a free education etc..but I am NOT persuaded
In what way does it make sense that Simone Biles can’t be a college gymnast because she made money after the Olympics?

This entire concept evolved from a time when amateurism was “gentlemanly,” and only the poor made money off of sport.

As I’m sure you can guess, that worked
out great for rich kids. Not so much for those who had to earn to support their families.

Nowadays, it’s a way of making sure that the athlete is loyal to the monetary interests of the institution, rather than developing revenue elsewhere from his/her talent.

If you got a full
Read 5 tweets
20 Feb
Dear Black People: In this critical time, it is VERY important that you NOT fall for the dangerous chicanery of « Black Voices for White Supremacy. »

It may not be labeled exactly that way, but that’s what it is.

It starts with a recitation of all the frustration &
disappointment with Democrats and the Dem party. It makes valid, cogent points about how Black people voting for Democrats hasn’t materially changed our struggles & communities.

It points out inequities in how Black issues and Black candidates have been treated on the left, and
can quickly garner agreement, because a lot of that is just true.

But then it flips to, «and that’s why I support Trump, » or « that’s why I’m not voting » or « that’s why I vote Republican. »

THAT is the switch that lets you know the speaker is not serious.

Or, is serious
Read 14 tweets
20 Feb
I hope you are grasping the concerted, tactical, aggressive approach that the GOP takes to winning elections. They are single-minded in it,and NOTHING is a bridge too far.

So here is a bold declaration: DEMS have to view EVERY component of winning elections as a critical mission
that requires total, thoughtful, coordinated, focused, tactical and aggressive action.

We can take NOTHING for granted. We can be passive about NOTHING!

We are STILL, in fact even more so, in a war to defend democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

We do NOT need
to be like Republicans to win.

We cannot and need not turn into evil-doers to win. And we don’t have to.

But we do NEED to be as ruthless and relentless as they are. MORE SO!

And we sure as heck need to fully understand what we are up against.

I’m fine that some of us will
Read 4 tweets
20 Feb
THIS is why I consider the GOP San enemy combatant. Not because I advocate violence or am even discussing violence.

I’m NOT.

I’m talking about understanding and framing the threat. This is NOT about a difference of opinion. This about encumbering the citizenship rights
of Black people with impunity.

The instinct and justification to do this is EXACTLY the same as for every other Jim Crow law.

Anyone who votes for this is telegraphing naked ANIMUS towards Black people that cannot &MUST NOT ever be ignored.

There is ZERO examples of ANY Dems
anywhere trying to do this to Republicans.

What they don’t understand is the more they come at us, the more we push back.

We’ve been here before. Hell, we’ve been here all along.

We’re WAY better at navigating the clap back than they can comprehend.

What they do to Black
Read 4 tweets
20 Feb
I think every gun owner should have to carry liability insurance (like drivers do) for each weapon, and have proof of insurance before they can purchase a gun

The idea is that insurance companies are in the risk assessment business. It’s what they do. And it makes perfect sense
for them to do a risk assessment of each owner before they can get a gun.

Like with driving, insurance rates go up with the more risk posed, and in some cases, a person is uninsurable.

But that proves that they are too much of a risk to the public, like someone with 5 DUIs.
Requiring insurance for each weapon would dramatically reduce cross-state weapons trafficking.

It would promote safer gun ownership practices, just like insurance drives safer driving habits.

It would provide a pit of money for those who are injured or harmed by the gun owner
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!