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/...m-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

[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/...m-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/...m-gun-banners/

There you go using logic and common sense again.