• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control Hypocrisy

Bum

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
17,097
Reaction score
16,512
Location
In a box.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have often commented on the anti Second Amendment crowds repeated attempts to erode the RTKBA, and at the same time there appears to be no attempt to stiffen existing laws ( or even use them in some cases) to make firearms violators pay a harsher price for thier crimes rather than the current "catch and release" that seems to be so prevalent.

The links below are, sadly, not uncommon.....another repeat firearm offender is slapped on the hand and released; sometimes simply to kill again.

Another known wolf: Repeat gun felon let out of prison kills corrections officer - Conservative Review

But wait, there's more: Judge gave sweetheart bail agreement to man who served 8 years for federal gun violation |

Police oppose probation sentence given to buyer of gun used to kill Kerrie Orozco | Crime & Courts | omaha.com

Lake City Man Charged With Being a Felon in Possession of a Gun, Habitual Offender - 9 & 10 News

Repeat felon shot in Grand Rapids faces prison for third gun offense | wzzm13.com

https://cwbchicago.com/2019/06/repeat-gun-offender-free-on-bail-for.html

But, we really want to make our streets safer, so lets make it harder for the law abiding citizens to exercise thier Second Amendment right...not punish the actual criminals.


I have had this conversation with others in the forum....thier reply generally ran from "thats racist" to "Its too expensive to put criminals in prison".

So, we are all agreed its cheaper to shred the Second Amendment than it is to actually hold the criminals accountable? We should be pandering to the thugs on the street because that is the "easier option"?

The below links have led me to conclude there is no hope of having a rational discussion about criminal justice reform vs restricting the Second Amendment.....many here seem to favor Red Flag laws; removing a citizens firearms if that person is thought to be a danger.

Well, some politicians thought so as well....those that proposed the red flag laws.

Unless you are a gang member....nope, we cant have gang members on the red flag list.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...n-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-sh...dont-want-red-flag-laws-applied-gang-members/

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/de...-gang-members-in-red-flag-laws/#axzz64h2mQ7zh

https://www.independentsentinel.com...-flag-database-cannot-include-gang-databases/

https://patriotforamerica.com/2019/...-want-red-flag-laws-to-apply-to-gang-members/

https://nationalfile.com/democrats-want-red-flag-laws-for-everyone-except-gang-members/

https://www.westernjournal.com/demo...t-law-enforcement-cant-target-gang-databases/

Clearly the people behind the push for these laws, and those that oppose harsher prison terms seem to have an agenda that has nothing to do with making the streets safer.
 
The lack of enforcement problem is much the same as we see with our ridiculous "war on drugs" laws. Simple possession for personal use of a gun or recreational drug is a non-violent and largely victimless crime thus (too?) many folks oppose any jail/prison sentence for such a "petty" crime (even if it is listed as a felony by law). Nope, we (society) apparently must wait until that armed "prohibited person" or desperate drug addict actually kills or seriously injures someone before they deserve a "time out" in jail/prison or a secure rehab facility.

It costs loads of taxpayer funding to lock up folks so even repeat offenders are allowed to roam freely among us until they finally screw up so badly that they are deemed truly worthy of a "time out" in the pokey (or drug rehab facility). Why we even have a sentence of LWOP is puzzling - what possible purpose is served by caging someone forever at great expense and using the resulting "prison overcrowding" as reason to allow (most or all?) lesser (at present) criminals to roam freely among us to claim more victims?
 
CLAX1911 said:
We have prohibition of opiates so we should see no problem with opiates.

The problems are caused by people who break the law
Click to expand...

There is no Power to Prohibit since the Repeal of that Bad Idea, last millennium. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame less fortunate illegals.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
 
What's wrong with some common sense regulation?

For example: you have to secure your guns when not using them. This is to keep guns out of the hands of children and make it more difficult for burglars to steal. Burglars get around the armed home owner thing by waiting for when the house is unoccupied.
 
I'd never really thought about it, but I suppose you're right: a lot of heads would go boom if/when "red flag" laws are found to be disproportionately applicable to any given race, etc.

I personally have no issue with red flag laws so long as the flags are based on physical evidence or the testimony of two or more witnesses, and pertain to death threats and/or grievous physical assaults. I can sympathize with Americans who worry that governments will abuse such laws, however. Your national "No Fly" list is an opaque, police-state-esque disaster, for example.
 
swing_voter said:
What's wrong with some common sense regulation?

For example: you have to secure your guns when not using them. This is to keep guns out of the hands of children and make it more difficult for burglars to steal. Burglars get around the armed home owner thing by waiting for when the house is unoccupied.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. It is a management problem.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...
 
COTO said:
I'd never really thought about it, but I suppose you're right: a lot of heads would go boom if/when "red flag" laws are found to be disproportionately applicable to any given race, etc.

I personally have no issue with red flag laws so long as the flags are based on physical evidence or the testimony of two or more witnesses, and pertain to death threats and/or grievous physical assaults. I can sympathize with Americans who worry that governments will abuse such laws, however. Your national "No Fly" list is an opaque, police-state-esque disaster, for example.
Click to expand...

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
 
COTO said:
I'd never really thought about it, but I suppose you're right: a lot of heads would go boom if/when "red flag" laws are found to be disproportionately applicable to any given race, etc.

I personally have no issue with red flag laws so long as the flags are based on physical evidence or the testimony of two or more witnesses, and pertain to death threats and/or grievous physical assaults. I can sympathize with Americans who worry that governments will abuse such laws, however. Your national "No Fly" list is an opaque, police-state-esque disaster, for example.
Click to expand...

In 2009 The US Dept of Justice IG report noted a 35% error rate on the watch list....As of June 2016, the Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities

Thats a lot of people wrongly placed on the list.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why we even have a sentence of LWOP is puzzling - what possible purpose is served by caging someone forever at great expense and using the resulting "prison overcrowding" as reason to allow (most or all?) lesser (at present) criminals to roam freely among us to claim more victims?
Click to expand...
Because while justice should be as simple as a $1.25 bullet to the back of the head two days after conviction, lawyers and politicians drunk on self-virtue have inflated the costs of executing a man into the millions or tens of millions of dollars. The appeals process can drag on for decades. Hence locking a man in a cage for 60 years at $90K per year, despite costing $5.4M, is actually the cheaper option.

But I do feel your pain. It would be nice to live in a society where justice was actually just--a life for a life. And I can only imagine the number of lives that could be saved using $5.4M, properly employed.
 
swing_voter said:
What's wrong with some common sense regulation?

For example: you have to secure your guns when not using them. This is to keep guns out of the hands of children and make it more difficult for burglars to steal. Burglars get around the armed home owner thing by waiting for when the house is unoccupied.
Click to expand...

but people who scream for "common sense" gun laws almost never want laws that actually punish criminals. Rather they want to criminalize someone who has a gun stolen or if a friend lends a guy his gun without a background check

COMMON SENSE-punishing objectively harmful behavior as opposed to banning 20 round magazines or semi auto rifles
 
Bum said:
In 2009 The US Dept of Justice IG report noted a 35% error rate on the watch list....As of June 2016, the Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities

Thats a lot of people wrongly placed on the list.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the standards are for the US DoJ watch list.

I agree that a 35% error rate is totally unacceptable for a law that would abridge a Constitutional right. Even 3.5% would be pushing it. But "reg flag" laws could, in theory, be proscribed in such a way as to have an acceptable error rate.

As I say, flags "based on physical evidence or the testimony of two or more witnesses, pertaining to death threats and/or grievous physical assaults" would be sufficient. This isn't because I believe all but 3.5% of all such flagged individuals will go onto murder somebody, but because somebody committing assaults and issuing death threats has advertised either i) true homicidal intent, or ii) egregious lack of self-control. Either is sufficient to justify revoking his access to arms that can kill people with the twitch of a finger. At least for a period of a decade.

I'll eat my hat if 35% of "red flagged" persons got erroneously put on the list based on this standard.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
but people who scream for "common sense" gun laws almost never want laws that actually punish criminals.
Click to expand...
Has to do with this concept of "preventing gun murders". Punishing them after the fact as priority #1 is the dumbest thing I've read this month on the forum.

"almost never"? That's some strong language.
 
COTO said:
Because while justice should be as simple as a $1.25 bullet to the back of the head two days after conviction, lawyers and politicians drunk on self-virtue have inflated the costs of executing a man into the millions or tens of millions of dollars. The appeals process can drag on for decades. Hence locking a man in a cage for 60 years at $90K per year, despite costing $5.4M, is actually the cheaper option.

But I do feel your pain. It would be nice to live in a society where justice was actually just--a life for a life. And I can only imagine the number of lives that could be saved using $5.4M, properly employed.
Click to expand...

I understand completely the valid concerns over the possibility, no matter how remote, of executing an innocent convict. However, the type of facility required to house LWOP prisoners should be a far more austere environment (e.g. no visitors except their lawyer, no entertainment halls/gyms and no snacks/commissary) than that required to "rehabilitate" prisoners who are intended for (eventual) release.
 
TurtleDude said:
but people who scream for "common sense" gun laws almost never want laws that actually punish criminals. Rather they want to criminalize someone who has a gun stolen or if a friend lends a guy his gun without a background check

COMMON SENSE-punishing objectively harmful behavior as opposed to banning 20 round magazines or semi auto rifles
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba to make a point]

your misrepresentation of the motives of those seeking reasonable gun control is nothing but bull ****
 
COTO said:
I don't know what the standards are for the US DoJ watch list.

I agree that a 35% error rate is totally unacceptable for a law that would abridge a Constitutional right. Even 3.5% would be pushing it. But "reg flag" laws could, in theory, be proscribed in such a way as to have an acceptable error rate.

As I say, flags "based on physical evidence or the testimony of two or more witnesses, pertaining to death threats and/or grievous physical assaults" would be sufficient. This isn't because I believe all but 3.5% of all such flagged individuals will go onto murder somebody, but because somebody committing assaults and issuing death threats has advertised either i) true homicidal intent, or ii) egregious lack of self-control. Either is sufficient to justify revoking his access to arms that can kill people with the twitch of a finger. At least for a period of a decade.

I'll eat my hat if 35% of "red flagged" persons got erroneously put on the list based on this standard.
Click to expand...

The problem with that plan is that if someone is really that "extremely dangerous" then why remove only their 2A rights? How hard do you imagine it to be for a "prohibited person" to get a gun or other lethal weapon illegally if you "know" that they are "extremely dangerous"? After all, the Sandy Hook "mass shooter" killed his own mother to get the gun(s) that he "needed".
 
Bum said:
I have often commented on the anti Second Amendment crowds repeated attempts to erode the RTKBA, and at the same time there appears to be no attempt to stiffen existing laws ( or even use them in some cases) to make firearms violators pay a harsher price for thier crimes rather than the current "catch and release" that seems to be so prevalent.

The links below are, sadly, not uncommon.....another repeat firearm offender is slapped on the hand and released; sometimes simply to kill again.

Another known wolf: Repeat gun felon let out of prison kills corrections officer - Conservative Review

But wait, there's more: Judge gave sweetheart bail agreement to man who served 8 years for federal gun violation |

Police oppose probation sentence given to buyer of gun used to kill Kerrie Orozco | Crime & Courts | omaha.com

Lake City Man Charged With Being a Felon in Possession of a Gun, Habitual Offender - 9 & 10 News

Repeat felon shot in Grand Rapids faces prison for third gun offense | wzzm13.com

https://cwbchicago.com/2019/06/repeat-gun-offender-free-on-bail-for.html

But, we really want to make our streets safer, so lets make it harder for the law abiding citizens to exercise thier Second Amendment right...not punish the actual criminals.


I have had this conversation with others in the forum....thier reply generally ran from "thats racist" to "Its too expensive to put criminals in prison".

So, we are all agreed its cheaper to shred the Second Amendment than it is to actually hold the criminals accountable? We should be pandering to the thugs on the street because that is the "easier option"?

The below links have led me to conclude there is no hope of having a rational discussion about criminal justice reform vs restricting the Second Amendment.....many here seem to favor Red Flag laws; removing a citizens firearms if that person is thought to be a danger.

Well, some politicians thought so as well....those that proposed the red flag laws.

Unless you are a gang member....nope, we cant have gang members on the red flag list.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...n-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-sh...dont-want-red-flag-laws-applied-gang-members/

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/de...-gang-members-in-red-flag-laws/#axzz64h2mQ7zh

https://www.independentsentinel.com...-flag-database-cannot-include-gang-databases/

https://patriotforamerica.com/2019/...-want-red-flag-laws-to-apply-to-gang-members/

https://nationalfile.com/democrats-want-red-flag-laws-for-everyone-except-gang-members/

https://www.westernjournal.com/demo...t-law-enforcement-cant-target-gang-databases/

Clearly the people behind the push for these laws, and those that oppose harsher prison terms seem to have an agenda that has nothing to do with making the streets safer.
Click to expand...

Will you agree to double your taxes to keep violent felons in jail forever?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I understand completely the valid concerns over the possibility, no matter how remote, of executing an innocent convict. However, the type of facility required to house LWOP prisoners should be a far more austere environment (e.g. no visitors except their lawyer, no entertainment halls/gyms and no snacks/commissary) than that required to "rehabilitate" prisoners who are intended for (eventual) release.
Click to expand...

I favor banishment
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... like those who were deported 4 or 5 times? Where, exactly, should they be banished to?
Click to expand...

No no no. Think Papillion.


I know the perfect island in the aleutians.
 
swing_voter said:
What's wrong with some common sense regulation?

For example: you have to secure your guns when not using them. This is to keep guns out of the hands of children and make it more difficult for burglars to steal. Burglars get around the armed home owner thing by waiting for when the house is unoccupied.
Click to expand...

Because anyone who cares so little about their children that they would leave a loaded gun lying around is not going to be fixed by a law, any more than the speed limits stop people from speeding.

And requiring burglar-proof level security for guns is not reasonable. Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners for not spending $5000 on burglar-proof safes, instead why don't we lock people up for life if they steal guns?
 
Tlrmln said:
Because anyone who cares so little about their children that they would leave a loaded gun lying around is not going to be fixed by a law, any more than the speed limits stop people from speeding.

And requiring burglar-proof level security for guns is not reasonable.
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of repealing speed limits?
 
COTO said:
a $1.25 bullet to the back of the head
Click to expand...

A $1.25 bullet? You see, it's thinking like this that has put our country so far in debt. There's no way they should be spending more than a nickel on that bullet.
 
vegas giants said:
So you are in favor of repealing speed limits?
Click to expand...

No...

Were you trying to point out another example of the hypocrisy of gun-control proponents?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom