We may be missing a debate point

[Mas]

I respectfully submit that the public needs to be made aware of yet another element of the hypocrisy of the current spate of gun prohibitionists.

It became clear during the Democrat Presidential candidate debates that many of them decry "mass incarceration."

There are roughly two and a quarter million people currently incarcerated in our country.

Yet these same candidates want to criminalize the possession of semiautomatic rifles.

Perhaps they should be asked how they square their opposition to mass incarceration with their proposal that would turn tens of millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals.

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/overlooked-hypocrisy-from-gun-banners/

[blues]

Yet these same candidates want to criminalize the possession of semiautomatic rifles.

Perhaps they should be asked how they square their opposition to mass incarceration with their proposal that would turn tens of millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals.


it's okay...it's for the children



:rolleyes:

[farscott]

The argument illustrates the cognitive dissonance we often see with people who wish to re-frame society. We have "environmental activists" using private jets while preaching about carbon footprints, we have people who love freedom of speech until someone says something that violates a belief system, we see people equate opportunities with outcomes, we see people who say that all of the amendments except the second apply to individuals, and we see people whose answer to everything is other people's money.

My personal belief is that freedom moves like a pendulum. We see the swing to offering freedom without responsibility (one extreme) and then the weight swings to too much regulation (the other extreme) and back again. That sweet spot happens only for a brief time when the pendulum is moving the quickest.

[OlongJohnson]

If you look at historical trends, the "mass incarceration" seems to be significantly a consequence of the Clinton-era crime bill. It also correlates very well with the decrease in violent crime. So, while there are almost certainly occasional instances of individuals getting unjustly hosed by the system, overall, it seems to have been effective. At least it has if there is any causality to the correlation.

It astonishes me that I have NEVER seen any politician or media outlet put both sets of data on the same graph.

It's like when my sheep dog who didn't like water would be chasing a stick at the beach, and more than half of it ended up in the water. He would run right over to where it went, see it partly in the water, and then stand there, "looking around" for it and come back when he just couldn't find it. (Don't let anyone tell you shelties aren't smart animals.)

[wasserpistole]

One thing that has become very clear is that the law is enforced selectively. If one is an important, powerful individual, with the right friends, you can do literally anything with very little consequence other than public opinion.

[blues]

One thing that has become very clear is that the law is enforced selectively. If one is an important, powerful individual, with the right friends, you can do literally anything with very little consequence other than public opinion.

The law has always been selectively enforced but not always or only based upon money or power. There are myriad details that may tip the decision one way or another.

Your statement above is a gross generalization and oversimplification.

[BillSWPA]

Mas makes a good point.

Another point is that those pushing gun prohibition will also often be the first to point out that criminalizing drugs has not even come close to eliminating the drug problem. These same people will also point out the innocent people who, one way or another, become caught up in the enforcement effort.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mtnbkr]

I respectfully submit that the public needs to be made aware of yet another element of the hypocrisy of the current spate of gun prohibitionists.

It became clear during the Democrat Presidential candidate debates that many of them decry "mass incarceration."

There are roughly two and a quarter million people currently incarcerated in our country.

Yet these same candidates want to criminalize the possession of semiautomatic rifles.

Perhaps they should be asked how they square their opposition to mass incarceration with their proposal that would turn tens of millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals.

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/overlooked-hypocrisy-from-gun-banners/

The "public" doesn't care. Those that would call for incarceration for owning semiauto rifles have already "othered" those of us with those rifles. The victims of "mass incarceration" are mostly those they identify with (or think they identify with). Those "victims" are their tribe, we are not.

I'm "facebook friends" with a former coworker. Every time there's a mass shooting or other well publicized gun crime, he starts railing against gun owners, asking why the guns aren't banned, etc, etc (he's from the UK but is now a US citizen, so not surprising). He knows I'm a gun owner and hunter and I know his former manager (who has long since left the company all three of us work(ed) for) owns and shoots ARs. That doesn't seem to change his view of guns and gun owners. Effectively, he has "othered" the lot of us and any negative outcome as a result of a change is laws is "just desserts".

This, in my opinion, is the real problem. Both camps have successfully "othered" the opposition to the point that any outcome is acceptable. We can argue on whose fault it is, but I see it happening just as frequently on the right as the left, just over different subjects. That needs to change first or we'll continue to talk past each other.

Chris

[Bart Carter]

One thing that has become very clear is that the law is enforced selectively. If one is an important, powerful individual, with the right friends, you can do literally anything with very little consequence other than public opinion.

Except if you are Jeffrey Epstein.

[AZgunguy]

I respectfully submit that the public needs to be made aware of yet another element of the hypocrisy of the current spate of gun prohibitionists.

It became clear during the Democrat Presidential candidate debates that many of them decry "mass incarceration."

There are roughly two and a quarter million people currently incarcerated in our country.

Yet these same candidates want to criminalize the possession of semiautomatic rifles.

Perhaps they should be asked how they square their opposition to mass incarceration with their proposal that would turn tens of millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals.

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/overlooked-hypocrisy-from-gun-banners/

There you go using logic and common sense again.

[Crow Hunter]

I respectfully submit that the public needs to be made aware of yet another element of the hypocrisy of the current spate of gun prohibitionists.

It became clear during the Democrat Presidential candidate debates that many of them decry "mass incarceration."

There are roughly two and a quarter million people currently incarcerated in our country.

Yet these same candidates want to criminalize the possession of semiautomatic rifles.

Perhaps they should be asked how they square their opposition to mass incarceration with their proposal that would turn tens of millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals.

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/overlooked-hypocrisy-from-gun-banners/

I would also like to point out another elephant in the room, although I want to state emphatically that I am pro-LEO and respect all that LEO officers do.

There is always an exemption built into these laws for Active Duty LEO/Retired LEOs.

If these "weapons of war" that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible have no "place on our streets". I humbly submit that they definitely have no place in the hands of LEO officers and especially retired LEO officers. As their duty to the public is to "protect and serve" not go to war against the US population and "kill as many people as possible".

I know the real reason why these exemptions are built in. The weapons are tools and they are the best tools for the job and no LEO and by extension no politician (being protected by said police) would want to have less that adequate tools for the job of protecting themselves.

But this NEEDS to be brought up. If it is illegal for civilians to own a weapon because it is "military weapon and too dangerous", then it shouldn't be in the hands of LEOs either.

Again, I am not-anti LEO and I WANT LEOs to have these weapons but there is a tremendous glaring hypocritical element to these laws as well as the anti-incarceration.

[VT1032]

You would think they would have thought of that, given how much they oppose the "militarization" of police...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[farscott]

I would also like to point out another elephant in the room, although I want to state emphatically that I am pro-LEO and respect all that LEO officers do.

There is always an exemption built into these laws for Active Duty LEO/Retired LEOs.

If these "weapons of war" that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible have no "place on our streets". I humbly submit that they definitely have no place in the hands of LEO officers and especially retired LEO officers. As their duty to the public is to "protect and serve" not go to war against the US population and "kill as many people as possible".

I know the real reason why these exemptions are built in. The weapons are tools and they are the best tools for the job and no LEO and by extension no politician (being protected by said police) would want to have less that adequate tools for the job of protecting themselves.

But this NEEDS to be brought up. If it is illegal for civilians to own a weapon because it is "military weapon and too dangerous", then it shouldn't be in the hands of LEOs either.

Again, I am not-anti LEO and I WANT LEOs to have these weapons but there is a tremendous glaring hypocritical element to these laws as well as the anti-incarceration.

I think the above argument works against us because the response is/will be that most UK LEO do not have firearms and the number of "gun deaths" is low. The logical conclusion is, "no guns for anyone". Then no knives, etc. It also works against the court cases that protect weapons in common use. I think the argument needs to be reversed; if the guns are good for LE, they are good for other citizens, especially as the purpose of the armed militia is to resist tyranny by the majority.

[El Cid]

That will fall on deaf ears. The left and Dems are all about the double standard. They are immune to reason and common sense.

[BehindBlueI's]

I would also like to point out another elephant in the room, although I want to state emphatically that I am pro-LEO and respect all that LEO officers do.

There is always an exemption built into these laws for Active Duty LEO/Retired LEOs.

If these "weapons of war" that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible have no "place on our streets". I humbly submit that they definitely have no place in the hands of LEO officers and especially retired LEO officers. As their duty to the public is to "protect and serve" not go to war against the US population and "kill as many people as possible".

I know the real reason why these exemptions are built in. The weapons are tools and they are the best tools for the job and no LEO and by extension no politician (being protected by said police) would want to have less that adequate tools for the job of protecting themselves.

But this NEEDS to be brought up. If it is illegal for civilians to own a weapon because it is "military weapon and too dangerous", then it shouldn't be in the hands of LEOs either.

Again, I am not-anti LEO and I WANT LEOs to have these weapons but there is a tremendous glaring hypocritical element to these laws as well as the anti-incarceration.

The "good" news is many, if not most, of that political bend think the same thing and rail against "militarization" of the police. They think you can just "de-escalate" every situation and that cops are racist trigger happy thugs.

[BehindBlueI's]

It became clear during the Democrat Presidential candidate debates that many of them decry "mass incarceration."


They don't actually care about 'mass incarceration'. It's just another front in the culture wars to normalize drug use, along with the "non-violent drug offender" narrative.

[the Schwartz]

I respectfully submit that the public needs to be made aware of yet another element of the hypocrisy of the current spate of gun prohibitionists.

It became clear during the Democrat Presidential candidate debates that many of them decry "mass incarceration."

There are roughly two and a quarter million people currently incarcerated in our country.

Yet these same candidates want to criminalize the possession of semiautomatic rifles.

Perhaps they should be asked how they square their opposition to mass incarceration with their proposal that would turn tens of millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals.

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/overlooked-hypocrisy-from-gun-banners/

Considering that many of the Left/Democrats/Liberals are also pushing an agenda that would allow those convicted and incarcerated for felonies to vote (it is highly probable that the majority of these individuals would vote "D"), it makes perfect sense. It is the same motivation, at least in part, that has the Left/Democrats/Liberals so resistant on securing the southern border of our nation.

In any event, given the "propensities" of the present Democratic candidate field and politicians in general, I doubt that we'd ever get a truthful answer to your question.

Yeah, I am a pessimist.....or a realist.

[Crow Hunter]

The "good" news is many, if not most, of that political bend think the same thing and rail against "militarization" of the police. They think you can just "de-escalate" every situation and that cops are racist trigger happy thugs.

No doubt.

However, they always put in the exemption because they want to make sure their "protection details" have the best equipment possible AND they know that even the most anti-gun police unions and chiefs will throw a fit and oppose the legislation which will likely sway some of the publics opinion.

Kind of like this (emphasis added):


Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik is outraged by New Jersey's "crazy" magazine ban, but only because he worries that it could be enforced against off-duty police officers. The original version of the law included an exemption for "any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty," who was allowed to have a magazine holding up to 15 rounds. An amended version that Gov. Phil Murphy is expected to sign soon extends that exemption to officers who are off duty.


On Twitter last Friday, Kerik complained that Murphy "is endangering the life of every off duty NJ cop! Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don't give a damn about magazine capacity…So he takes the good guy's ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!" Last Sunday on Fox News, Kerik vented some more. "You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle," he said. "That's insane."

https://reason.com/2018/12/20/new-jerseys-gun-owners-do-not-seem-eager/

[Borderland]

Mas makes a good point.

Another point is that those pushing gun prohibition will also often be the first to point out that criminalizing drugs has not even come close to eliminating the drug problem. These same people will also point out the innocent people who, one way or another, become caught up in the enforcement effort.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Criminalizing illegal immigrants hasn't done a hell of a lot to eliminate the problem of hundreds of thousands coming into the country (and staying here) every year either. The holding facilities are way beyond capacity and the ability to process those people in the courts is a one to two year wait. I guess you could say that's at a crisis level or DEFCON 1.

We need to rethink a lot of what we're doing with drug, firearm and immigration law. Mostly all I see is people thumbing their noses at a good many of these laws. Irish democracy is alive and well in the US.

https://reason.com/2014/02/18/round-up-tens-of-thousands-of-gun-regist

[Joe in PNG]

We need to rethink a lot of what we're doing with drug, firearm and immigration law. Mostly all I see is people thumbing their noses at a good many of these laws. Irish democracy is alive and well in the US.

Americans really don't make Good Germans- and I really wish that people would stop trying to use Europe as some kind of guide. We left Europe behind for a good reason, dammit!

[JAD]

Americans really don't make Good Germans- and I really wish that people would stop trying to use Europe as some kind of guide. We left Europe behind for a good reason, dammit!

We didn’t leave Europe behind, we left it beneath.

[Baldanders]

Criminalizing illegal immigrants hasn't done a hell of a lot to eliminate the problem of hundreds of thousands coming into the country (and staying here) every year either. The holding facilities are way beyond capacity and the ability to process those people in the courts is a one to two year wait. I guess you could say that's at a crisis level or DEFCON 1.

We need to rethink a lot of what we're doing with drug, firearm and immigration law. Mostly all I see is people thumbing their noses at a good many of these laws. Irish democracy is alive and well in the US.

https://reason.com/2014/02/18/round-up-tens-of-thousands-of-gun-regist

The biggest fallout of about over 100 years of drug war (I would peg the start to the Harrison Narcotic Act), dumb immigration policy since the late 40s (when we stopped letting enough workers for agriculture in legally for seasonal work-who then left the country confident they could return to work next season) has been a general reduction in the public respect for laws in general in the U.S.

The only reason that gun laws have not done as much damage in the same vein is that the dumbest examples have been limited to the state and local level, and anti-gunners can claim their ideas would work great if only they were nationwide. A federal semiauto ban would probably make gun laws as ridiculous to much of the general public as our drug laws, as many formerly 100% law abiding types would find themselves in the same sort of extensive black market than has kept cannabis flowing for nearly a century. Utah, in particular, might become a really interesting hotbed of resistance. Most male (and some female) LDS members I have chatted with are pretty fond of their guns, and many are "daily carry" types.

BTW, is anyone under the delusion that the Venn diagram of "pot users" and "working class arch-Republican gun nuts" doesn't have substantial overlap? Keep in mind if you are LE, you may not have many of group one admit they are a member of group two to you. Studies I have seen don't show any relationship between use of illicit substances and party affiliation. And conversely, I know even my True Blue aunt who is one of those rich Cali elites (and I do mean quite well-off) voted against recreational marijuana. San Francisco seems to think they will be the harbinger of banning nicotine vaping. If that goes statewide, I can't wait for illegal nicotine cartridges marked as legal hash oil cartridges being the next big crusade in Cali.

In terms of legislation shaping public behavior, the biggest successes I can think of in the US are in terms of DUIs and public tobacco use. But the negative effects of intoxicated drivers and dealing with tobacco smoke in public places were things many people were actually passonate about.

[willie]

Exempting cops, retired or active, is a ploy. They dislike law enforcement even more than the rest of us.

We should not argue this point which would soon become divisive. We must stick together.

[Borderland]

Americans really don't make Good Germans- and I really wish that people would stop trying to use Europe as some kind of guide. We left Europe behind for a good reason, dammit!

I wasn't suggesting that we follow anything that Europe is doing in relation to immigration, firearms or drugs. They do have far fewer people in their prisons though. The prison population rate in the US is about 8x higher than in Germany.

Any ideas as to why that might be?

My point was that when the gov't decides a certain class of people like gun owners get cut out of the mainstream and have to deal with more restrictions/jail time it might be time to just start ignoring those restrictions in mass. I don't think Europeans in general would do that except maybe the Basque.

Looks like it may already be happening. I followed the Cliven Bundy dust up closely because it looked to me like the fed was about to fuck up bigly again with another Ruby Ridge/Waco type mistake.

[MGW]

I don’t think this is about gun control for Democrats. I think it’s about fracturing the Republican Party and their voter base. The democrats know that they can’t pass major anti gun legislation with out support from a several Republicans and the signature of Trump. The Democrats know if they pull that off the Republican Party is done and so is Trump.

I don’t honestly believe that the left cares about stopping violence or removing guns. It’s all about defeating the right. They don’t care about the cost and they’re not smart enough to imagine the consequences.

[Baldanders]

I don’t think this is about gun control for Democrats. I think it’s about fracturing the Republican Party and their voter base. The democrats know that they can’t pass major anti gun legislation with out support from a several Republicans and the signature of Trump. The Democrats know if they pull that off the Republican Party is done and so is Trump.

I don’t honestly believe that the left cares about stopping violence or removing guns. It’s all about defeating the right. They don’t care about the cost and they’re not smart enough to imagine the consequences.

One truism I learned in social psychology class: folks almost attribute their own morally questionable actions to "the situation," the reason other people do evil is "they're evil!" I think the same is true for political fights. It's easier to see your opponents as evil duplicitous dipshits than well-meaning and of normal intelligence but mistaken.

I am adamantly pro-choice on the subject of abortion. I don't assume everyone who labels themselves "pro-life" is a dumb religious fanatic who doesn't realize they are making our country ripe for theocracy. I think most pro-life folks do believe abortion is murder. Just because politicians move on a subject when it is politically expedient, doesn't mean people on "the left" or "the right" are just hiding their real agenda when they talk about their beliefs. Most anti-gunners really want to see virtually all firearms banned. They really think it's the only sane way.

It is always easier to view our adversaries as somehow less human than us than to assume they feel, think and struggle just like we do.

But the hard path offers a chance, however small, to have long term dialogues that change adversaries to allies.

The debate over firearms has been used to divide this country in much the same way as race. The easy path means more of this.

(Insert Yoda speech about the Dark Side of the Force here)

[Duelist]

There you go using logic and common sense again.

It’s a habit for some people.

[AZgunguy]

It’s a habit for some people.

Not for those with a "D" behind their name......

[Bart Carter]

...
But the hard path offers a chance, however small, to have long term dialogues that change adversaries to allies.

The debate over firearms has been used to divide this country in much the same way as race. The easy path means more of this...

There has never been an actual debate over firearms that would settle this issue. The gun-grabbers (no matter Dem or Rep) work the emotional card. They won't have a real debate. If they did, there would be no contest. They can't justify oppressive gun laws with logic, reason or our Constitution. They aren't above twisting facts and outright lying. I have witnessed police officials testifying that "guns are bad" in the face of well presented facts.

[farscott]

They don't actually care about 'mass incarceration'. It's just another front in the culture wars to normalize drug use, along with the "non-violent drug offender" narrative.

I would like to follow up on the quoted statement. Is this the extension of the "opiate for the masses" to literal opiates? What advantage does any politician hope to gain by normalizing drug usage when the cost to society is so easily visible (deaths due to intoxicated drivers and operators and overdoses in vehicles with kids present)? Is it a means to get a more compliant population?

[willie]

When we prepare to discuss issues facing us, we may have difficulty defending 100 round drum magazines. When the same tools--AR's and high capacity magazines--are being used repeatedly to carry out mass shootings, making a case for their value to society is becoming more difficult. I say this as a devil's advocate. Nobody has to convince me. However, I no longer step forward and argue the points. Wind has been taken from my sails.

In 1934 Congress decreed that federal law would restrict machine guns. Few today would say that citizens should have unrestricted access to full auto weapons. As a kid my brothers and I would buy firearms through the mail. Send money and receive a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. When Congress nixed this in 1968, I was outraged and spouted truisms about gun rights lost. Not all here would say that this right should be restored. I also opposed background checks. I no longer do. I am certain that we will face new restrictions. Unless gun owners pony up money to fund lobbyists, then we may find that we have draconian restrictions.

I sense that we have lost something. Is our will weakened? Are we tired of panics? Sometimes I think that the very large number of chl and license to carry holders have a subset of gun owners who fret less because they have licenses. Thus they have been approved. I hope I'm wrong.

Lesson 1. You will address your child's parent teacher organization. Explain how as AR-15 owner, a law banning 100 round drums and restricting you to 10 round magazines interferes with self defense.

Lesson 2. Get ready. Devise effective strategies.

[BehindBlueI's]

I would like to follow up on the quoted statement. Is this the extension of the "opiate for the masses" to literal opiates? What advantage does any politician hope to gain by normalizing drug usage when the cost to society is so easily visible (deaths due to intoxicated drivers and operators and overdoses in vehicles with kids present)? Is it a means to get a more compliant population?

The narrative is that enforcement of drug laws robbed a generation of their parents, created poverty by the drug users not being able to get a job once out of jail, etc. Nothing is ever anyone's fault and it's always "society" or "government" who's created every ill, never personal choice. Normalizing drug use panders to that narrative and to the youth vote who knows marijuana is not only harmless but cures most mental and physical illnesses. I'm not against decriminalizing marijuana use, mind you, but the narrative goes well beyond that. The Crack Epidemic wasn't because crackheads doing crackhead stuff, it was because .gov was involved....

[blues]

The narrative is that enforcement of drug laws robbed a generation of their parents, created poverty by the drug users not being able to get a job once out of jail, etc. Nothing is ever anyone's fault and it's always "society" or "government" who's created every ill, never personal choice. Normalizing drug use panders to that narrative and to the youth vote who knows marijuana is not only harmless but cures most mental and physical illnesses. I'm not against decriminalizing marijuana use, mind you, but the narrative goes well beyond that. The Crack Epidemic wasn't because crackheads doing crackhead stuff, it was because .gov was involved....

I've watched countless lives crash on the rocks that drug use and trafficking entail...and it's true, it's not easy to come back from. But some do and rebuild a life for themselves.
Everyone likes to point a finger at the government, the legal system, the cops, the laws, the penal system. Sometimes they even look at themselves.

There are no easy answers...that much I know for sure.

[LSP552]

it's okay...it's for the children



:rolleyes:

And “their” people won’t be the ones going to jail. Especially after “their” people are released and allowed to vote again. Dope is harmless, guns are bad...