Comment: Our stance on mandatory minimums is identical to "their" cause

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "Embracing "THEIR" causes"??? (see in situ)

Our stance on mandatory minimums is identical to "their" cause

I think it's a matter of perspective and conditioning. What we view as the only fair stance on mandatory minimums (ban them), "they" are accustomed to viewing as something that would only matter to blacks.

While we view "state's rights" as protection against the possibility of bad federal legislation - they are accustomed to associating the term "state's rights" exclusively with attempts to keep slavery and discriminatory practices legal. That's not what we promote, but it's what they "hear".

While we might be concerned about ineligible, non-Americans voting in our elections, (possibly against the interests of American citizens), when they hear reference to "voter ID", they are hyper-aware that voting "requirements" have been used, in the past, to prevent them from voting at all!

Rand Paul is right about our need to recognize how and why some terms will offend others due to personal and historical experiences. In order to be heard, we need to find more accurate words for expressing our principles.

NJ