concordtom said:wifeisafurd said:concordtom said:
Dear Wife:
Just at first blush here upon reading your thread title: "DC Mayor: DC crime rates drop. Dems: Outraged!"
I interpret this as if you are trying to criticize Democrats, perhaps in a mocking manner.
If this is correct, then I think this makes you look bad because in many other posts over the years you have come off as if "Oh, Trump? - I didn't vote for him". Yet in other posts, like this one, you seem to take the side of Trump the MAGA Republicans, and the crazy MAGA networks that take a similar stance.
I'd like to see you come here on OT and rip on Trump, the MAGA Republicans, and the crazy MAGA networks that do his bidding in brainwashing the population.
BTW: I'm currently watching news clips on the Minneapolis church shooting - and I'm thinking about the many other shootings we've had in America and the political debate that has ensued. That debate often involves the NRA gun lobby, the ease of gun purchase in this country, the type of weaponry used.
The only reason DC Crime is being discussed at this time (as in your thread) is because Trump has decided to take over its police and establish some sort of federal (Trump) control over municipal policing in this country.
But if you really cared about crime, maybe you'd like to focus your ire on how the Trump/Republican/MAGA policies on firearms needs to change. Otherwise, I think you are simply caught up in the crazy brainwashing tactics being employed upon your grey matter.
Have a nice labor day weekend.
Moving further on to the next stage of your Trump derangement syndrome is the issue of firearms and the usual hijack the thread attempt. You want to focus on how the Trump/Republican/MAGA policies on firearms needs to change. Why don't you tell me exactly what policies you think are doing that, and what you propose, so I can understand better what exactly are your concerns. Bear in mind this before you waste my time more:
The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom (sarcasm intended), has established the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to own firearms, not just for militia service, in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and applied this to state and local government laws in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). More recently, the Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen affirmed the right to carry firearms in public.
Again, I'll start by saying F O with your TDS slur. You shouldn't use that unless you wish to keep company with his lemming, brainwashed, kissasses.
Now then, things like bump stocks, automatic assault weapons, magazines.
Next, gun show immediate purchases, wrong.
Background checks.
And I'll throw one in there, which I believe is new:
Just because you may pass a sanity, stability test today doesn't mean you forever hold that right. Like a drivers license (cars). Old people lose their judgment.
Further, they say that gun violence often is the result of mental illness - well, someone sane today may not be tomorrow, so why not have some sort of test requirement every so often. I don't know how on earth this would be carried out, but guns in America is out of control, so….
I'll also add that we do not need guns in film, tv, video games. Why do we program ourselves this way? Dumb.
If we can pass a law requiring helmets for motorcycles maybe we can protect the brain via content corruption, too.
There. Waste of your time? Or saucy enough for a considered response ?
A lot of it is a waste of time. I'm not a gun owner and they can better defend their guns. My view to stop crime is to ban hand guns or similar firearms. I think you are going after mass shooting weaponry, which is a different issue. In any event, I don't think the Supreme Court will allow a handgun ban. I also don't think they will allow bans on bump stocks, automatic assault weapons, magazines, etc. The Second Amendment apparently protects weapons "in common use", and unfortunately there are millions of asset rifles and accessories out there. I'm not sure where you are going on the mental capacity ramblings, so I can't really comment, other than lawyers will fight you for stigmatizing those with mental issues that have been resolved.
There is no Second Amendment for helmets on motorcycles. I just don't see any of your solutions being a legal, practical way to stem gun crime. Moreover, there is an issue with raising the Billions of Dollars necessary to compensate people for their weaponry you outlaw and confiscate under the Fifth Amendment. This has all been litigated in past threads, and I'm reluctant to go down this rabbit hole again. Can we just stick to issues already raised in the thread?
