Gun shots on 14th street tonight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Where murder is low, suicide is high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We also need parents to do their job or all of the above ain’t going to work. It’s parents being decent parents plus the above for a good outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gun control has to be done on a federal basis. It is useless on the state level---particularly in DC, where guns just flood in from Virginia. Throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s, DC had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and it had no effect on gang violence/underclass culture of shootouts.

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.

Gang bangers hit gun shows? Who knew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we need to do is outlaw murder.

+1. If all murder was prohibited at both the federal and state level, we wouldn’t have these problems.

You joke, but in reality many, many murders go unsolved and the perpetrators go on to kill again. I used to have faith in police but not anymore. They sit in their cars, target poor people, drain our tax dollars. They no longer interact with the community and solve crimes when they happen. When my family member was killed I was told they had no responsibility to bring justice, only to "keep the community safe" which obviously they failed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gun control has to be done on a federal basis. It is useless on the state level---particularly in DC, where guns just flood in from Virginia. Throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s, DC had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and it had no effect on gang violence/underclass culture of shootouts.

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.

Gang bangers hit gun shows? Who knew.

Pretty much everyone who ever studied gun violence knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen says he hasn't commented on any of this because his Twitter account got hacked, because that's the only way to communicate?

https://twitter.com/CMCharlesAllen/status/1419034932790321154?s=19

Going to guess his advisers are telling him that each time he opens his mouth about crime he loses voters.

So how to get him and his sympathizers off our city council?

Stop electing only liberal Democrats. There needs to be some checks and balances on the council to hold back this woke stampede to the bottom.

This.

Totally agree. I'm thinking of forming a political committee to start distributing some shirts & signs about Charles Allen supporting crime. Let me know if you're interested. I think step #1 is for us to show a viable challenger there is support for getting rid of Allen and others. If anyone else is interested I'll be starting a thread and group on this.

This is either sock puppetry or the Qnon bat-signal went out for trumptrolls to start disrupting this thread. I’ve reported all your posts.


There is one, and ONLY ONE, solution to this problem: getting rid of every single gun in this country. Period. End of discussion. That’s the only thing that stops this. There iso need to discuss any other factors but that. It’s the guns. Nothing else. Full stop.

First of all, this isn’t true about guns any more than it’s true about drugs, hammers, knives, poisons, pots and pans, fire, automobiles, toilet tank covers or any other inanimate object criminals misuse.

Second, this will never happen. It cannot be accomplished lawfully, and even if it could, it cannot be accomplished practically.

Continuing to advocate for a fantasy solution does nothing to address the problem.

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.

There certainly are “rights” that are very popular and highly advocated on DCUM that have no textual or other basis in the Constitution and hence are “made up” from “penumbras” and “emanations.” The Second Amendment is not one of them. It is a specifically enumerated right, without which the States refused to ratify the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gun control has to be done on a federal basis. It is useless on the state level---particularly in DC, where guns just flood in from Virginia. Throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s, DC had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and it had no effect on gang violence/underclass culture of shootouts.

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.

Gang bangers hit gun shows? Who knew.

Sorry you are not politically bcorrect, DC doesn't have gangs, they have crews involved in neighborhood disputes, similar to hoa problems

[Anonymous]

The Washington Post: Joel Castón: DC's first incarcerated commissioner.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/07/25/joel-caston-dc-incarcerated-commissioner/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No “blood” is “on the hands” of anyone but the person who commits unlawful violence.

Further, I’m sure you have no intention of banning handguns from police or military. What about security personnel? What about business owners subject to robbery and assault? What about people facing threats to their lives? What about professionals at high risk of assault because they, for example, have access to narcotics? What about elderly, weak or small statured people, especially women? What about judges? Political office holders?

Magical solutions sound great until one examines the fact that firearms have specific utility for plenty of decent people.

And from a practical standpoint the more “illegal” guns are the more incentive there is for illicit manufacture, smuggling, theft from government stockpiles and so forth. Criminals import actual tons of unlawful drugs every year. Do you really believe anti-firearm legislation will stop them? Felons are already prohibited from possessing firearms. It is already unlawful to carry a firearm without a license. Armed robbery, assault and murder are already unlawful.

The “magic magnet” doesn’t exist and wouldn’t work if it did. Focus on the criminals, not inanimate objects.

Blood is on the hands of every single person who fought to make it easier for criminals to get guns, starting with the NRA and gun lobby. We need, at a minimum, complete accountability and traceability of all guns. Maybe that should start with mandatory registration and documentation for every gun transfer and periodic verification that the guns are still in their owners possession. Also, there should be limits on how many guns people can buy, to reduce the pipeline feeding criminals. You DO NOT need to buy 20 glocks a year.

No one, ever, least of all the NRA (which you critique but obviously know nothing about) has ever “fought to make it easier for criminals to get guns.” Well, except maybe a certain administration with its “Fast and Furious” program.

Mandatory registration. Why? What does that get you? Other than a confiscation list? Surely you don’t think criminals will register anything.

Documentation for every transfer. Because criminals will do that?

Periodic verification? Gosh, no Fourth or Fifth Amendment problem there.

Fantasy solutions. Juvenile list-making without reference to reality.

Lock up the criminals.

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.

+1. Well said. Also I don’t think most gun control folks are ready to acknowledge that if we imprison everyone who possesses illegal guns, then we will be imprisoning lots more African Americans.

[Anonymous]

The gun reformers are too scared to go after those committing crimes with illegal guns in cities, so they take it out on people with legal guns in rural areas. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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%!

It was collective. The Fed Soc and NRA made up an individual right. For money and votes.

Here’s Nixon’s conservative Chief Justice — Burger, who was installed to roll back the liberal Warren court’s decisions — saying you’re wrong.

I mean, just listen to the guy’s words. This isn’t hard.
You got conned about guns. For money. To cut your government services to enrich the billionaires who pay the Fed Soc and GOP.

[Anonymous]

Watch the video. Listen to Nixon Judge Burger’s words.

[Anonymous]

More shots today on Q ST

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch the video. Listen to Nixon Judge Burger’s words.

Reportedly, Warren Burger was affectionately referred to by his clerks as “doughnut,” because his head was white in the outside and had nothing in the middle. His ill-informed, unsupported (and unsupportable) emotionalist private opinion is not some holy grail of Constitutional interpretation. The “collective” right interpretation of the Second Amendment is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the text, has been thoroughly discounted by researchers and has in so many words been rejected by the Supreme Court.

In short, who cares what doddering “Doughnut” thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watch the video. Listen to Nixon Judge Burger’s words.

Reportedly, Warren Burger was affectionately referred to by his clerks as “doughnut,” because his head was white in the outside and had nothing in the middle. His ill-informed, unsupported (and unsupportable) emotionalist private opinion is not some holy grail of Constitutional interpretation. The “collective” right interpretation of the Second Amendment is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the text, has been thoroughly discounted by researchers and has in so many words been rejected by the Supreme Court.

In short, who cares what doddering “Doughnut” thought.

I see. You want to listen to “Selected By Billionaires” Scalia, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito, and Roberts instead?

Good luck with that. The Fed Soc judges are driving this country into autocracy to reward the donors that selected them.

And you’re attacking a Nixon hardcore conservative Chief Justice who is merely echoing what 95% of America thought, even the NRA, before Selected By Scaife Scalia took over the court.