Comments on: D.C. and Crime

By: SayUncle » Quote of the day

SayUncle » Quote of the day — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:04:52 +0000

[...] Radley Balko on gun laws in DC: It

By: e. brown

e. brown — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:36:08 +0000

since balko continually skewers ussc justice scalia for his political take on copping, i gather then that the liberal members of the court, ginsberg and stephens and whoever, are routinely and publicly blasting the *democrat* DC political machine for these authoritarian tactics?

are they regularly taking public stands that the illegally disarmed law-abiding citizens of DC (and chicago, it must be noted) should have their constitutional right of firearm possession and proven means of self-defense restored?

no?? how very strange. ah, well. SUREly obama will make things right!

By: e. brown

e. brown — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:49:13 +0000

sure thing, darlin’. just tell me which fact i got wrong. we can argue about the interpretation of facts all day, but tell me which fact i got wrong or which direct quote was incorrect in my above comment.

By: pam

pam — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:36:47 +0000

OMG give me a break Browny

By: e. brown

e. brown — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:04:49 +0000

saaaay, apropos of nothing, what political party does mayor fenty belong to? is it the same political party that historically favors disarmament of law-abiding citizens while simultaneously fighting for the rights of criminals? and opposing the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crime? and happily resorting to fascist & unconstitutional police-state tactics such as those described above?

is it the same party that the anointed one, the messiah obama (pbuh) belongs to? has obama (pbuh) spoken out against D.C.’s sinister policies? no? think he’s ever likely to? no?

yet we’re supposed to believe that libertarians are gonna vote for the guy? we’re supposed to believe he’s ever gonna give a rat’s ass about john & jane america? he’s already on record as being for expanded gun seizures/control, is he not? his own wife admits he has an authoritarian control-freak side. (“obama will make you work.”) hell, he HIMself has already demonstrated it. (“you can’t drive your SUV’s and eat as much as you want and keep your thermostats at 72 degrees. **that’s not going to happen**.”) (sounds remarkably like a threat, does it not?) we have good reason to believe that obama (pbuh) will do his best to implement *precisely* the same sort of policies now on display in washington throughout the whole country if he gets elected, no?

so how exactly do his views on this sort of thing differ from those of mayor fenty? are we allowed to criticize him now?

By: MacK

MacK — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:15:34 +0000

That was a great point akromper!

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:36:57 +0000

In California, they’d just shoot him Dave. Most of our cops in PA are a little more enlightened than they are out there. The DA would probably throw him in jail, but I don’t think our cops would do anything.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:31:48 +0000

#7 Jim Collins
Try that crap in a state like Pennsylvania and somebody with a deer rifle in their car trunk would pot them in about 30 seconds.

Assuming the they didn’t shoot him, the cops would probably arrest the deer rifle guy for discharging a weapon inside city limits.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:39:38 +0000

I love how they keep referring to that robbery in California as a reason to upgrade their weaponry. The stupid thing is California is probably the only place a robbery like that could have happened. Try that crap in a state like Pennsylvania and somebody with a deer rifle in their car trunk would pot them in about 30 seconds.

By: CitizenNothing

CitizenNothing — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:52:46 +0000

Someday, in some city, somewhere, it’s going to occur to someone that one way to reduce the crime rate is to reduce the number of crimes.

I think they intentionally do the opposite. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand

By: akromper

akromper — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:41:02 +0000

“Lanier said it is not unusual for criminals to have body armor and higher-powered guns in street robberies, bank heists and drive-by shootings. Police said the rifles would be useful when officers respond to bank robberies or hostage situations..”

Isn’t that what SWAT is for? Maybe they could free up some time in between drug warrants.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:13:28 +0000

Someday, in some city, somewhere, it’s going to occur to someone that one way to reduce the crime rate is to reduce the number of crimes.

By: Eric Ogunbase

Eric Ogunbase — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:01:23 +0000

I heard a quote once that stuck with me.

“The Constitution is just a crackwhore’s promise without the enforcement of the Second Amendment. Armed citizens keep politicians honest”.

Why do you think they don’t want us to have them? It will get worse with Obama in office.

By: Suetonius

Suetonius — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:40:40 +0000

To be fair to the morons who run this town, they did rescind the door-to-door approach to combat drugs and guns. Instead, they decided that they would allow residents call-in and request the police to come to their home and search it in front of their neighbors.

How many extra phone operators do you suppose they should hire for this?

By: FWB

FWB — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:21:44 +0000

The DC Council cannot constitutionally pass ANY laws. The Constitution for the United States explicitly states that Congress has exclusive legislative power in the district, that is exclusive of all other legislative bodies, but not exclusive of the Constitution because wihtout the Constitution there would be no authority granted. To be an exclusive authority, ONLY Congress may exercise the power. If the authority is delegated (after it has already been delegated and in abrogation of the trust attached to the original delegation), then Congress cannot exercise exclusive legislation because the group to whom the power was re-delegated is exercising such authority. Because the Constitution is explicit is its command, the only Constitutional application of the power is for Congress itself to exercise the power.