We may be missing a debate point

[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/...m-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/...m-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-je...ot-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-...-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!