Gun control that doesn’t annoy the NRA isn’t considered proper gun control at all. We could be putting violent criminals away for gun-related crimes for longer terms and monitoring them more aggressively through an improved parole system. We could do that before they graduate to murder — remember how many of those charged with possession offenses have prior arrests and convictions. But this isn’t on any gun-control agenda.
Why?
For one thing, it probably would mean locking up a lot of young black men in Chicago rather than hassling a lot of old white guys living out weekend-warrior Rambo fantasies in Tulsa. And for the Democrats, that isn’t an option. The enemy is the enemy, and, guilty or not guilty, he must be punished.
Kevin D. Williamson
June 17, 2016
Their fight isn’t about stopping shooters, it’s about identity politics.
[H/T to Glenn Reynolds.
I think the “old white guys in Tulsa” figured this out on or before November 8th this year. I also suspect “punishment” will turn out a little different than the Democrats had planned on.—Joe]
So is this another one of those; “We don’t need any more rights violation powers (which we tacitly concede are the legitimate way to fight crime). All we need is to act on the rights violation opportunities we already have”?
The NRA has been pushing that argument for decades. I’m not enthused.
Mostly this is about making it clear that the true objective of progressives is to punish people who want liberty. He does this by pointing out that if they were honest about their objectives they would advocate for something different.
Right. They are not for “gun safety”, else they’d recognize that the NRA has the only truly comprehensive, child-friendly gun safety education program around. They are not against “gun violence”, else they’d be marching in places like Chicago and Baltimore, where the “gun death” rate is orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the nation. They are not against criminals getting guns, else they’d be demanding the Fed.gov prosecute every current straw purchase and NICS denial to the fullest extent of the law. They are not against guns being carried in public (open or concealed), else they’d advocate disarming police and federal agents in the course of their duties as well as average citizens.
None of these describe their real position. If they were honest, they’d just come out and say it: “We’re not against guns, we’re just against you having guns.” That’s a much more accurate description of where they’re coming from.
I think you’re missing Lyle’s point, which is that the NRA is a gun control organization also.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Archer | The View From North Central Idaho