Gun shots on 14th street tonight!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Same with Chicago - they have very strict gun laws but just a half hour east in Indiana you can still buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show with no background check and no questions asked. |
Anonymous
| What we need to do is outlaw murder. |
Anonymous
Banning handguns, as Canada effectively does, would get us to the low levels of gun crime that exist in Canada. However, banning handguns is not possible with our current Federalist Society/billionaire-handpicked court. Phil Anschutz, the billionaire who paid to help put Gorsuch on the court, knows that gun politics gets votes for tax cuts for Phil Anschutz. That is why the Fed Soc judges made up a view of the second amendment that prohibits handgun bans. It’s pure politics. Votes for rightwing billionaires. And the 2nd Amendment really is made up. We all know that Scalia and the Fed Soc made up an individual right, yes? The 2nd Amendment is about militias. Period. |
Anonymous
+1. If all murder was prohibited at both the federal and state level, we wouldn’t have these problems. |
Anonymous
|
Nixon’s super-conservative Chief Justice, Warren Burger, called Scalia’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, “One of the greatest frauds — I repeat the word fraud — ever imposed on the American public by special interest groups.”
Burger said the 2nd Amendment was clearly about militias. Both in its text and in the Founders’ clear intent. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment |
Anonymous
The second amendment was to grant the militia (and therefore the army/military) the right to keep guns, not every hillbilly and criminal. |
Anonymous
| If you lock up the criminals then there would be no need to find pubic housing or homeless, and crime would stop, it would be a big win,bigly |
Anonymous
Yep. This is what I just don't understand. These gun grabbers are more than eager to go after the law abiding citizens who own guns, but when it comes to locking up criminals who commit felonies with handguns, they are all about "criminal justice reform." Crazy. |
Anonymous
|
Saying "It's poverty!" or "it's guns!" is incorrect and overly simplistic. Both high poverty rates and high gun ownership exist in other parts of the country without the rates of violence we see in many cities like ours:
"Economic factors in general seem to have little impact on violent crime. Murder rates declined during the previous economic crash in 2007-08, then began an upward trend in 2014 even as poverty and unemployment hit record lows. Over the past six decades, annual changes in U.S. murder and poverty rates have moved in opposite directions more often than they have moved in sync. There are vast areas of immigrant poverty in the U.S. with low murder rates, and in parts of Appalachia, poverty combines with widespread gun ownership, yet gun violence remains rare." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-murder-spike-of-2020-when-police-pull-back-11626969547 |
Anonymous
|
If the gun worshippers hadn’t been bought off by the billionaires and made up the 2nd Amendment interpretation out of whole cloth, reasonable people wouldn’t have to take your guns that kill people.
But you did. You got suckered by the rich. And we do. Just like Australia did and Canada does. Ban handguns, federally. Then unpack the courts. Hell, fill them with a lot of Nixon conservatives if you want. Because everyone who’s not a Fed Soc bloodthirsty power grabber knows that the 2nd Amendment is about militias and handguns should be effectively banned in civilized societies. |
Anonymous
| The Murdoch WSJ has been captured by the same billionaires that fund the Fed Soc judges and the GOP. It’s not a reliable source and if you read it you’re getting fooled. Yea, the news section too. Google “Gerry Baker Murdoch helped Trump.” |
Anonymous
Yeah, you might want to research that some more. Standing armies were antithetical to the Framers. The militia was constituted of all the able bodied men in the community. Even cursory research shows that the Framers considered individual ownership of firearms an ordinary thing. |
Anonymous
Because you’re afraid of them? Or because you’re afraid of your own rage and what you might do with one. It is indisputable that firearms, including handguns, have legitimate social utility. It is likewise indisputable that the individual Constitutional right to keep and best arms was never “collective” and is not the product of packed courts, or anything like it. |
Anonymous
Yup. And if there's any question as to what they intended, read some of their other writings. Madison warned against "a disarmed populace," noting that it would enable a tyrant to oppress. Funny/sad thing is, that gun control was one of the few issues in which I agreed with Democrats. Now, with the hard-left turn toward socialism, I've reversed my stance. Right to bear arms, 100%! |
Anonymous
| As a few previous posters pointed out, there’s no simple solution. Programs aren’t enough. More punishment isn’t enough. (Federally banning guns may be enough but let’s just call that one a lost cause) But I do want to hear about city officials giving it the due it deserves. There is a program in DC focused on zero traffic fatalities. We have a “nightlife czar.” Where’s our program to focus on zero gun fatalities? Our gun control czar? We need to be doing all the things. We need to have programs that provide opportunity and create stability for our city’s youth. We also need to get repeat offenders off the street. We need a well-trained police force with good morale and good working relationships with the community. But we also need violent interrupters that have the community’s buy-in and social workers to deal with issues that police just aren’t trained for. It’s not a this or that question. That hasn’t worked. It’s a let’s throw the kitchen sink at it kind of problem. Because that’s the kind of problem it is. |