When the Supreme Court strikes down gun laws what effect will it have on DC?

[Anonymous]

"white-show" lawyers LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

Great. If siding with billionaires allows me to protect myself, I’m all for it.

Except the fact that your teenage son is 8x more likely to put that gun in his own mouth & kill himself, than my kid who doesn't have a gun in his home.

Well, with the ocean of guns being sold to everyone who comes along, without regard to age, criminal history, nefarious intent or anything else but cash in the barrel (at least according to DCUM), your sin should have no trouble getting one. End sarcasm.

And scare-images aside, the idea that the mere presence of a firearm somehow turns mentally stable people insane and drives them to suicide is frankly preposterous. There are many ways to commit suicide, and suicides happen all over the place. I get that you’re afraid of guns, even though they are inanimate objects, that you’re unwilling to learn anything about them that would relieve your emotionalist, symbolic fear, and that you’d never even consider actually learning to use a firearm safely and well and enjoying the satisfaction of doing that. I really get it. I feel the same way about chain saws. But I don’t think that gives me the right to control the lives of people who understand chain saws and know how to use them safely.

But your kid is still dead, while mine is alive. Suicide attempts with firearms are many magnitudes more likely to be "successful," than other forms of suicide. Of course, you knew that.

But at least you stood up for a principle? Congrats for pwning me, while burying your relative.

If you bothered to read the parts of the post that you don’t like, I assure you that any kid who really wants a firearm can get one. That part wasn’t 100% sarcasm. As for likelihood of success, driving a car into a highway abutment, jumping off a bridge and several other things I can think of but would prefer not to detail are mighty “effective.” As previously noted, the idea that firearms are somehow magical instruments of certain death is just more propaganda. People were killing themselves long before firearms showed up and have continued to do so with disturbing regularity all over the world since, including where firearms are generally available.

As for “my kid” and “your kid,” your personalization of the issue is extremely uncivil at the least and quite frankly disturbing.
Fantasizing about the deaths of particular individuals because you disagree with someone else’s political views isn’t something stable people do. Morbid reflection of that nature is a bad way to spend your time.

Awwww, does it feel uncomfortable when your decisions potentially have catastrophic consequences on your own family?

The Sandy Hook families say “Welcome to the club.”

Your kid is 8x more likely to die because you keep a firearm in the home. Continue to dwell on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

Great. If siding with billionaires allows me to protect myself, I’m all for it.

Except the fact that your teenage son is 8x more likely to put that gun in his own mouth & kill himself, than my kid who doesn't have a gun in his home.

Well, with the ocean of guns being sold to everyone who comes along, without regard to age, criminal history, nefarious intent or anything else but cash in the barrel (at least according to DCUM), your sin should have no trouble getting one. End sarcasm.

And scare-images aside, the idea that the mere presence of a firearm somehow turns mentally stable people insane and drives them to suicide is frankly preposterous. There are many ways to commit suicide, and suicides happen all over the place. I get that you’re afraid of guns, even though they are inanimate objects, that you’re unwilling to learn anything about them that would relieve your emotionalist, symbolic fear, and that you’d never even consider actually learning to use a firearm safely and well and enjoying the satisfaction of doing that. I really get it. I feel the same way about chain saws. But I don’t think that gives me the right to control the lives of people who understand chain saws and know how to use them safely.

But your kid is still dead, while mine is alive. Suicide attempts with firearms are many magnitudes more likely to be "successful," than other forms of suicide. Of course, you knew that.

But at least you stood up for a principle? Congrats for pwning me, while burying your relative.

If you bothered to read the parts of the post that you don’t like, I assure you that any kid who really wants a firearm can get one. That part wasn’t 100% sarcasm. As for likelihood of success, driving a car into a highway abutment, jumping off a bridge and several other things I can think of but would prefer not to detail are mighty “effective.” As previously noted, the idea that firearms are somehow magical instruments of certain death is just more propaganda. People were killing themselves long before firearms showed up and have continued to do so with disturbing regularity all over the world since, including where firearms are generally available.

As for “my kid” and “your kid,” your personalization of the issue is extremely uncivil at the least and quite frankly disturbing.
Fantasizing about the deaths of particular individuals because you disagree with someone else’s political views isn’t something stable people do. Morbid reflection of that nature is a bad way to spend your time.

Awwww, does it feel uncomfortable when your decisions potentially have catastrophic consequences on your own family?

The Sandy Hook families say “Welcome to the club.”

Your kid is 8x more likely to die because you keep a firearm in the home. Continue to dwell on that.

"These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American."

This was prescient. Indeed, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and the rest of their raised-in-a-Fed-Soc-test-tube buddies voted to put more guns on our streets.

The conservative legal decisions increase gun death, they increases the number of dead kids. Conservatives' gun obsession continues to get American kids killed.

In fact, Scalia and Thomas and Roberts have blood on their hands directly for a recent case in DC: Karon Blake's death.

Blake's killer would not have had the gun if not for the Fed Soc judges in Heller v DC.
Scalia DID THAT. He rolled back a gun law that a vast majority of DC wanted.
Rolling back that gun law put the gun in the killer's hands.
The killer then killed a kid, with the gun Scalia and the Fed Soc allowed.

Other countries look down on us; smart students and tech people are leaving America because of gun death.

And bloodthirsty conservative judges just want more guns, more guns, more guns.

More dead kids. All because the judges have been selected for slavish devotion to the pro-billionaire Republican agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

Great. If siding with billionaires allows me to protect myself, I’m all for it.

Except the fact that your teenage son is 8x more likely to put that gun in his own mouth & kill himself, than my kid who doesn't have a gun in his home.

Well, with the ocean of guns being sold to everyone who comes along, without regard to age, criminal history, nefarious intent or anything else but cash in the barrel (at least according to DCUM), your sin should have no trouble getting one. End sarcasm.

And scare-images aside, the idea that the mere presence of a firearm somehow turns mentally stable people insane and drives them to suicide is frankly preposterous. There are many ways to commit suicide, and suicides happen all over the place. I get that you’re afraid of guns, even though they are inanimate objects, that you’re unwilling to learn anything about them that would relieve your emotionalist, symbolic fear, and that you’d never even consider actually learning to use a firearm safely and well and enjoying the satisfaction of doing that. I really get it. I feel the same way about chain saws. But I don’t think that gives me the right to control the lives of people who understand chain saws and know how to use them safely.

But your kid is still dead, while mine is alive. Suicide attempts with firearms are many magnitudes more likely to be "successful," than other forms of suicide. Of course, you knew that.

But at least you stood up for a principle? Congrats for pwning me, while burying your relative.

If you bothered to read the parts of the post that you don’t like, I assure you that any kid who really wants a firearm can get one. That part wasn’t 100% sarcasm. As for likelihood of success, driving a car into a highway abutment, jumping off a bridge and several other things I can think of but would prefer not to detail are mighty “effective.” As previously noted, the idea that firearms are somehow magical instruments of certain death is just more propaganda. People were killing themselves long before firearms showed up and have continued to do so with disturbing regularity all over the world since, including where firearms are generally available.

As for “my kid” and “your kid,” your personalization of the issue is extremely uncivil at the least and quite frankly disturbing.
Fantasizing about the deaths of particular individuals because you disagree with someone else’s political views isn’t something stable people do. Morbid reflection of that nature is a bad way to spend your time.

Awwww, does it feel uncomfortable when your decisions potentially have catastrophic consequences on your own family?

The Sandy Hook families say “Welcome to the club.”

Your kid is 8x more likely to die because you keep a firearm in the home. Continue to dwell on that.

"These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American."

This was prescient. Indeed, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and the rest of their raised-in-a-Fed-Soc-test-tube buddies voted to put more guns on our streets.

The conservative legal decisions increase gun death, they increases the number of dead kids. Conservatives' gun obsession continues to get American kids killed.

In fact, Scalia and Thomas and Roberts have blood on their hands directly for a recent case in DC: Karon Blake's death.

Blake's killer would not have had the gun if not for the Fed Soc judges in Heller v DC.
Scalia DID THAT. He rolled back a gun law that a vast majority of DC wanted.
Rolling back that gun law put the gun in the killer's hands.
The killer then killed a kid, with the gun Scalia and the Fed Soc allowed.

Other countries look down on us; smart students and tech people are leaving America because of gun death.

And bloodthirsty conservative judges just want more guns, more guns, more guns.

More dead kids. All because the judges have been selected for slavish devotion to the pro-billionaire Republican agenda.

Actually, DC law before Heller (which sounds like the case you seem to think unleashed a torrent of firearms on theretofore sterile DC) allowed people who owned registered handguns before the unconstitutional ban on new handgun registrations went into effect to keep them; it also permitted ownership of long guns such as rifles and shotguns, including newly registered ones.

There is no public data regarding when the shooter in the case you cite obtained his handgun. He could easily have had it long before Heller. He likewise could have had a shotgun. Your assertion that the late Justice Scalia somehow created the circumstances that led to that particular individual’s death is completely unfounded. Your underlying assumption that DC had no criminal gun issues before Heller is equally fallacious. And your premise that existing guns could ever be made magically to disappear is delusional.

What on earth would possess you to resurrect a necro-thread for a completely incoherent rant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully. Then ordinary law abiding citizens will have the same ability to defend themselves as criminal and the police.

This.

Perhaps finally murders and robberies start going down?

[Anonymous]

I don’t plan to own guns, but I do hate the the criminals know we’re sitting ducks in our homes in DC. Just the fact that any random house could have a gun owner it it would protect all of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully. Then ordinary law abiding citizens will have the same ability to defend themselves as criminal and the police.

This.

Perhaps finally murders and robberies start going down?

I have some bad news for you about timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC already has what is essentially a shall-issue permit system for qualified applicants. The SC case for NY wouldn’t change a single thing here.

I easily got a permit to carry in DC. But I can’t get one in my home state of Maryland.

Hopefully this case will bring an end to that, and I can enjoy the same right to self protection in MD that I now have in DC and 46 other states.

Sorry but I hope you do not get "the right to self protection" as you define it.

The right to self defense is a natural right, not something granted by the State.

So is the right to bodily autonomy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC already has what is essentially a shall-issue permit system for qualified applicants. The SC case for NY wouldn’t change a single thing here.

I easily got a permit to carry in DC. But I can’t get one in my home state of Maryland.

Hopefully this case will bring an end to that, and I can enjoy the same right to self protection in MD that I now have in DC and 46 other states.

Sorry but I hope you do not get "the right to self protection" as you define it.

The right to self defense is a natural right, not something granted by the State.

So is the right to bodily autonomy

A lot of the people in the school swimming thread would appear to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.

It really helps if you have even a tiny bit of an idea what you are talking about before you comment on something. DC already has shall issue carry permits. The process is burdensome and expensive in a way that would never be tolerated for any other enumerated civil right. The scope of permits is highly restricted at the whim of non governmental agents in a manner that would never be tolerated in any other context involving public accommodations.

good?

No, not at all. The people who suffer the most from DC’s completely ineffective “let criminals roam free and punish everyone else” gun laws are minorities who live in terror in their own neighborhood because DC won’t get violent criminals off the street, but who until recently could not ordinarily have firearms even in their own homes as a last resort to protect themselves. The same people are prejudiced by the high costs of two full workday training classes and all of the fingerprint, background check, registration and other fees involved in applying for a carry permit. This is unsurprising, given that the genesis of gun control laws in the US was in the desire to disarm free African Americans in the South after the Civil War. But that doesn’t make it right, just or anything else positive.

BS. More guns, more killings. The self defense argument is an illusion.

The report, The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, cited by the notoriously anti-gun CDC, indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. Hardly an illusion.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Nope. 2.5 million is a completely fake number that's been floating around for far too long. There are no corresponding police reports or other things that could ever even remotely corroborate numbers that high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

“These decisions put my kids at risk.”

Sorry. This is an emotionalist, phobic reaction. Lawful firearm ownership and use makes people safer, unless they are criminals. The Supreme Court did not invent anything. You need to stop getting your information from anti-gun fear porn sites and do some actual research. The individual right to bear arms has a long foundation.

+100 It's like for some people, the constitution does not exist.

Or it’s like for some people who didn’t drink your NRA kool aid, the Supreme Court’s conservatives’ belabored interpretation of the second amendment is ahistorical and absurd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will erode them. DC will then try and find other ways to restrict guns while trying to stick to any Supreme Court ruling. New York said they won't ban gun ownership, you just aren't allowed to carry your guns anywhere. DC will try something similar. Maybe have a high price for a gun license, or other burdens.

It really helps if you have even a tiny bit of an idea what you are talking about before you comment on something. DC already has shall issue carry permits. The process is burdensome and expensive in a way that would never be tolerated for any other enumerated civil right. The scope of permits is highly restricted at the whim of non governmental agents in a manner that would never be tolerated in any other context involving public accommodations.

good?

No, not at all. The people who suffer the most from DC’s completely ineffective “let criminals roam free and punish everyone else” gun laws are minorities who live in terror in their own neighborhood because DC won’t get violent criminals off the street, but who until recently could not ordinarily have firearms even in their own homes as a last resort to protect themselves. The same people are prejudiced by the high costs of two full workday training classes and all of the fingerprint, background check, registration and other fees involved in applying for a carry permit. This is unsurprising, given that the genesis of gun control laws in the US was in the desire to disarm free African Americans in the South after the Civil War. But that doesn’t make it right, just or anything else positive.

BS. More guns, more killings. The self defense argument is an illusion.

The report, The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, cited by the notoriously anti-gun CDC, indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. Hardly an illusion.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Nope. 2.5 million is a completely fake number that's been floating around for far too long. There are no corresponding police reports or other things that could ever even remotely corroborate numbers that high.

Cite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

“These decisions put my kids at risk.”

Sorry. This is an emotionalist, phobic reaction. Lawful firearm ownership and use makes people safer, unless they are criminals. The Supreme Court did not invent anything. You need to stop getting your information from anti-gun fear porn sites and do some actual research. The individual right to bear arms has a long foundation.

+100 It's like for some people, the constitution does not exist.

Or it’s like for some people who didn’t drink your NRA kool aid, the Supreme Court’s conservatives’ belabored interpretation of the second amendment is ahistorical and absurd

Belabored interpretation?

Hmmm. Let’s see….something about….what’s the word? Oh yeah - CONTEXT!

You have a collection of ten amendments, nine of which very expressly grant rights and protections to the individual - EXCEPT for the second one on the list - “which establishes the right of the govt to arm its soldiers”.

Now tell me - in what possible contextual sense does that sound plausible?

It’s akin to you writing your grocery list down, and at item #5, you wrote a Haiku instead. Then at item #6 you were back to groceries again.

No one does that. And the Founders didn’t either.

[Anonymous]

Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and the Federalist Society REWROTE the 2nd amendment to flood our streets with guns.

The 2nd amendment is about militias. Period.
This is widely known by real historians, real constitutional scholars, and even rightwing lawyers before 1980 or so.
(Nixon’s hard right chief justice, despite the F Soc efforts to smear him today, called Scalia’s rewriting of the 2nd amendment “a fraud on the American people.”

Today we’d call them MAGA Republican judges.
They did this to get votes for right wing billionaires’ agenda.
And they don’t care if it gets kids killed.
MAGA Republicans did this. The Federalist Society did this.

Change the 2nd amendment back, control guns strictly, end child death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-death rightwing conservative Supreme Court made up an individual right to carry arms. They did this to get votes for their billionaire-fueled agenda. And enrich gun CEOs, too.

Gorsuch’s patron is rightwing billionaire Phil Anschutz.
Scalia died at a billionaire-funded gun junket, and Koch billionaires gave money to GMU to name a law school after him.
Roberts hobnobs with the billionaire-funded Fed Soc, which pulls in money from both Koch billionaires and Heritage billionaires.
Alito: same.
Amy Barrett was a little-noticed law prof, a radical at a conservative Christian law school, who got her first seat from Trump and her second seat from Trump too, both backed by billionaire-funded ads through JCN.
Kavanaugh: billionaires at Fed Soc, billionaires through JCN.

Is it any wonder this SCOTUS decides for billionaires 90% of the time?

These decisions put my kids at risk. And these mediocrities do it for power and to help GOP donors. It’s disgusting and un-American.

Great. If siding with billionaires allows me to protect myself, I’m all for it.

Except the fact that your teenage son is 8x more likely to put that gun in his own mouth & kill himself, than my kid who doesn't have a gun in his home.

Well, with the ocean of guns being sold to everyone who comes along, without regard to age, criminal history, nefarious intent or anything else but cash in the barrel (at least according to DCUM), your sin should have no trouble getting one. End sarcasm.

And scare-images aside, the idea that the mere presence of a firearm somehow turns mentally stable people insane and drives them to suicide is frankly preposterous. There are many ways to commit suicide, and suicides happen all over the place. I get that you’re afraid of guns, even though they are inanimate objects, that you’re unwilling to learn anything about them that would relieve your emotionalist, symbolic fear, and that you’d never even consider actually learning to use a firearm safely and well and enjoying the satisfaction of doing that. I really get it. I feel the same way about chain saws. But I don’t think that gives me the right to control the lives of people who understand chain saws and know how to use them safely.

But your kid is still dead, while mine is alive. Suicide attempts with firearms are many magnitudes more likely to be "successful," than other forms of suicide. Of course, you knew that.

But at least you stood up for a principle? Congrats for pwning me, while burying your relative.

If you bothered to read the parts of the post that you don’t like, I assure you that any kid who really wants a firearm can get one. That part wasn’t 100% sarcasm. As for likelihood of success, driving a car into a highway abutment, jumping off a bridge and several other things I can think of but would prefer not to detail are mighty “effective.” As previously noted, the idea that firearms are somehow magical instruments of certain death is just more propaganda. People were killing themselves long before firearms showed up and have continued to do so with disturbing regularity all over the world since, including where firearms are generally available.

As for “my kid” and “your kid,” your personalization of the issue is extremely uncivil at the least and quite frankly disturbing.
Fantasizing about the deaths of particular individuals because you disagree with someone else’s political views isn’t something stable people do. Morbid reflection of that nature is a bad way to spend your time.

+1