Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.
Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.
He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.
“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.
Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.
No it’s not what the public thinks of a mass shooting. You can stop pretending it is.
In countries with sensible gun laws …they never had 400+ million firearms in civ hands to start…they also aren’t running a war on drugs that creates gangs like ours…we literally created the cartels from our war on drugs.
The gangs in other Western countries are like bikers gangs that go to ihop here in the states… they’re a fuckin joke.
So you claim the public doesn’t count gang members as people. Or gang victims, because gang related shootings don’t always result in just gang members being injured, quite often innocent people are caught up in it.
But rather than being a racist jackass, let’s just accept the given definition of a mass shooting, Four or more people injured, not counting the gunman.
See how simple that definition is? And no need to let racist bias pretend that some people aren’t people just because a gang member was somewhere near the shooting.
Four or more people injured or killed, not including the gunman. That’s a mass shooting, and we had over 600 of them last year,
Then you pretend that some gangs are worse than others. No, they’re just better armed.
And the old “we have too many guns to implement gun control” bullshit. The vast majority of mass shootings are done with new guns, so simply stop selling new guns (and throw the CEOs of the gun companies in jail, but that’s not for their reckless disregard for human life, all CEOs of major corporations should do a few years in jail)
Also, you’re ignoring things like Australia, where they had more guns than people, and after a mass shooting, they said fuck this, and did a huge gun buyback coupled with actual gun control. Now Australia doesn’t have mass shootings. Amazing how that works.
No the public assumes a mass shooting is a random act. Not a gang shooting.
The fuck? No where did I bring race into this discussion, you just did…sounds like you’re assuming only minorities make up gangs…
Or not, because there isn’t really one.
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-considered-a-mass-shooting/
Lol you’re grasping here buddy. The majority of our shootings are gang related, meaning it was gangs doing the shooting. Not near the shooting, but you keep up that racism stick…
Again, that’s what the GVA uses and it’s how the numbers get pumped.
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-considered-a-mass-shooting/
Congress goes with 3 or more killed even, not just injured.
Lol not how that works…you seem to think gangs are all the same, when they’re not. Our gangs aren’t hanging people under bridges like in Mexico, but sure it’s the arms they have.
The majority of them are had via straw purchases, which …are illegal.
Australia never had more guns than people, they also had a 60% turn in rate. And now they have more guns than before the forced confiscation. I’ve talked about this plenty before. 60% still leaves over 100 million guns in civ hands. Of which the majority will be kept by criminals.
Injured is still shot, does it make it any less of a shooting if the person survived?
Are you seriously arguing that we don’t have a gun problem because people survive?
The rest of you nitpicks seem to be just random nonsense.
First it was that some shootings don’t count because a gang was involved. Are the victims any less shot due to a gang being involved?
Then you say, but that’s not the definition of a mass shooting, people have to die for it to count. But are the survivors any less shot?
Then you ignore the fact that Australia implemented Gun Control. Say it again here, Gun Control. And look, no new mass shootings, regardless of the definition.
Buybacks and seizures to reduce the number of guns, and then strict controls on new purchases. A blueprint for functional gun control.
Unless that somehow doesn’t count, like all the people who have been shot that you just don’t seem to care about.