WTF . . . crazy number of shootings today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But but but is it walkable?

Yes, it is. And I who rather have that, warts and all, than some soulless existence out in the boonies.

Lolz. Yeah, no thanks. If gunshots, rampant street crime and police sirens day and night are how you define "soul" in a neighborhood, then I'm happy here in the boonies.

I'm totally content with my two mostly wooded acres, English garden, koi pond, chickens, ducks and other nature.

You can keep your city warts. I wouldn't trade places with you for any amount of money.

Come on. You have to admit most people that live in the burbs can not afford to live like that. It sounds nice though!

I live in PG, 5 minutes from the beltway. I can be at my office on 7st SW in 23 minutes if there's no traffic. We paid $179k in 1999.

What does your time machine have to do with the question at hand? And why would you quote time to your office without traffic? That’s a fairly meaningless figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The country is full of crazy paranoid gun loving idiots! What else is expected... no other country is this psycho.

I am surrounded by people with assault rifles in VA, and nobody is getting slaughtered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The country is full of crazy paranoid gun loving idiots! What else is expected... no other country is this psycho.

I am surrounded by people with assault rifles in VA, and nobody is getting slaughtered.

Yeah. Plenty of us in the City of Falls Church, and we manage not to kill anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other problem is that some of the self-styled SJWs on the DC Council have told the police to back off from enforcement of “minor” crimes. This gives the criminals license to think that the cops won’t aggressively police, and crime swiftly moves up the chain from smash and grab to mugging to stabbing and shooting.

+1

People get away with fare evasion, public intoxication and marijuana use, littering, eating and listening to devices on full blast without headphones, etc. because it’s “racist” to call anyone out on it.

It is racist because the only people called out for such conduct are minorities, generally poor minorities. It give cops almost unfettered opportunity to harass minorities (cop claims he saw a black kid drop a wrapper or eating on the metro, e.g.) and, as we have seen repeatedly, when that happens it leads to even worse and more dangerous conduct. This cycle leads to mistrust of cops in the communities and makes it even harder to catch and prosecute the people who are real dangers. And it contributes to the overall sense of hopelessness felt by poor minority youth, giving them even less of a reason to try to break free from the violence that racks their neighborhoods and they have lived with their whole lives.

Actually, it’s racial stereotyping which may or MAY NOT be racist.

So, officer Krumpky repeatedly commits racist acts by harassing minorities for conduct he wouldn’t bother a white person about, but that doesn’t necessarily make him, as an individual racist?

I mean I guess I can see the theoretical distinction and maybe if there were mass peer pressure on the force to commit racist acts that could lead a non-racist cop to participate. But, you seem to be splitting some mighty fine hairs there.

Lol. Officer Krumpky...perhaps you mean Officer Krupke? Either way, you lose some credibility if you’re going to engage in prejudicial stereotyping of all police officers.

The distinction between “racism” and “racial stereotyping” is not splitting hairs, and your response is such a clear example of how the pejorative terms “racist” and “racism” are sloppily applied these days by people who don’t really know what the terms mean.

Both racism and stereotyping are wrong, but they are not one in the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But but but is it walkable?

Yes, it is. And I who rather have that, warts and all, than some soulless existence out in the boonies.

Lolz. Yeah, no thanks. If gunshots, rampant street crime and police sirens day and night are how you define "soul" in a neighborhood, then I'm happy here in the boonies.

I'm totally content with my two mostly wooded acres, English garden, koi pond, chickens, ducks and other nature.

You can keep your city warts. I wouldn't trade places with you for any amount of money.

Come on. You have to admit most people that live in the burbs can not afford to live like that. It sounds nice though!

HAHA so you paid that 30 years ago? Extremely relevant.


I live in PG, 5 minutes from the beltway. I can be at my office on 7st SW in 23 minutes if there's no traffic. We paid $179k in 1999.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The country is full of crazy paranoid gun loving idiots! What else is expected... no other country is this psycho.

You clearly need to detox from the mainstream media. I suggest at least a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The country is full of crazy paranoid gun loving idiots! What else is expected... no other country is this psycho.

I am surrounded by people with assault rifles in VA, and nobody is getting slaughtered.

Yeah. Plenty of us in the City of Falls Church, and we manage not to kill anyone.

Im surrounded by guns! Big, scary, BLACK guns!!!!

Except they're clearly all lazy.


They won't even move unless I pick them up. That's why I'm not too worried about them going rogue - they have ZERO ambition, lolz!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other problem is that some of the self-styled SJWs on the DC Council have told the police to back off from enforcement of “minor” crimes. This gives the criminals license to think that the cops won’t aggressively police, and crime swiftly moves up the chain from smash and grab to mugging to stabbing and shooting.

+1

People get away with fare evasion, public intoxication and marijuana use, littering, eating and listening to devices on full blast without headphones, etc. because it’s “racist” to call anyone out on it.

It is racist because the only people called out for such conduct are minorities, generally poor minorities. It give cops almost unfettered opportunity to harass minorities (cop claims he saw a black kid drop a wrapper or eating on the metro, e.g.) and, as we have seen repeatedly, when that happens it leads to even worse and more dangerous conduct. This cycle leads to mistrust of cops in the communities and makes it even harder to catch and prosecute the people who are real dangers. And it contributes to the overall sense of hopelessness felt by poor minority youth, giving them even less of a reason to try to break free from the violence that racks their neighborhoods and they have lived with their whole lives.

Actually, it’s racial stereotyping which may or MAY NOT be racist.

So, officer Krumpky repeatedly commits racist acts by harassing minorities for conduct he wouldn’t bother a white person about, but that doesn’t necessarily make him, as an individual racist?

I mean I guess I can see the theoretical distinction and maybe if there were mass peer pressure on the force to commit racist acts that could lead a non-racist cop to participate. But, you seem to be splitting some mighty fine hairs there.

Lol. Officer Krumpky...perhaps you mean Officer Krupke? Either way, you lose some credibility if you’re going to engage in prejudicial stereotyping of all police officers.

The distinction between “racism” and “racial stereotyping” is not splitting hairs, and your response is such a clear example of how the pejorative terms “racist” and “racism” are sloppily applied these days by people who don’t really know what the terms mean.

Both racism and stereotyping are wrong, but they are not one in the same.

I never said all officers were racist, engaged in racist acts or racially stereotyped. But I am glad you knocked down that straw man.

I do not consider arresting or harassing minorities for conduct that I white person could do freely mere racially stereotyping. Those are racist acts. And at some point, if someone is committing racist acts it is fair to call them a racist. That word doesn’t lose meaning merely because it is applied to people beyond those who lead the local Klan chapter.

[Anonymous]

This is so weird, who could have expected this, it was the GOP, it was Virginia, the guns got up on their own little gun legs and did it, etc.

*votes Bowser*

[Anonymous]

Every spring, the guns spread their wings and fly north, like the salmon of Capistrano. They fly and fly and fly, until they spot a young black man, and then attack him, wedging themselves into his hand, forcing his finger to pull the trigger while they point themselves at another young black man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every spring, the guns spread their wings and fly north, like the salmon of Capistrano. They fly and fly and fly, until they spot a young black man, and then attack him, wedging themselves into his hand, forcing his finger to pull the trigger while they point themselves at another young black man.

This /\

It takes amazing powers of denial to avoid this simple truth.

[Anonymous]

VA gun ban defeated with bipartisan support! Six Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against the bill, 5 Democrats voted for the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VA gun ban defeated with bipartisan support! Six Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against the bill, 5 Democrats voted for the bill.

There'll be another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VA gun ban defeated with bipartisan support! Six Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against the bill, 5 Democrats voted for the bill.

That bill was nuts. No sane person who actually understood the subject matter would have voted for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VA gun ban defeated with bipartisan support! Six Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against the bill, 5 Democrats voted for the bill.

That bill was nuts. No sane person who actually understood the subject matter would have voted for it.

PP is right though that they'll try it again unless we vote them out of office. The motion actually does not terminate the bill, sends it to the crime commission for analysis, and they'll look at it again in the 2021 session. Here are the votes to continue:

YEAS--Edwards, Norment, Obenshain, McDougle, Stuart, Stanley, Chafin, Deeds, Petersen, Surovell--10.

NAYS--Saslaw, Lucas, McClellan, Boysko, Morrissey--5.

ABSTENTIONS--0.