August most violent month in Chicago in nearly 20 years

When I think of Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc, I think in terms of solving problems. It's what interests me.

In the short term, I think the governor ought to send the National Guard and at least temporarily stop the violence.

The long term solutions are the real challenge. But I've lived long enough to believe that this country can do anything it sets its mind to do.

 

I acknowledged that it was a simple question and I observed that you didn't ask me if I cared when Johnson or Carter were president.

I guess you're not up to the challenge of addressing this quote from Post #39:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.

Why is that, as if I need to ask?

 

You've lived the majority of your life during a time when non-white minorities didn't comprise a large enough percentage of the country to permanently skew elections towards liberal Democrats. It's a different ball game now. The country can now do anything the Hispanic 3rd world has ever been capable of doing, and that's becoming more true with every passing day.

 

If anyone wants to know what "alt-righties" are, ask this guy. He's the poster boy for the alt-right movement on this site.

 

Chicago is the inevitable result of decades of the same liberal policies the progressives think should be enacted everywhere.

 

Okay, so by your logic, in order to care about anything now, you had to care about it 30-45 years ago (or insert years) or else it doesn't count. Heck, I was born in '75 and have no memory of Carter being president and was fairly young with Reagan. However, I don't really care if they are killing each other in Chicago, I just like to point it out to show the idiocy of the groups that support BLM and the like. It's fun to watch dems stumble over their words and excuses when their constant double standard is pointed out to them.

 

As I see it, the problem is "won't do it", not "can't do it".

I think America is a great nation with great people. Our politics and politicians suck.

If the politicians stayed out of the way, better people than them could solve these problems.

Think about it ... The south side of Chicago is but a small enclave of America. America possesses the wealth and power and know-how to transform it.

It's "Won't do", not "Can't do".

 

I haven't even heard that term until earlier this week when the left-wing sites started sending out their daily talking point emails containing the term. Then, predictably, the little subscribers started posting it all over the board.

 

Those "great people" are the ones electing those politicians. Minorities prefer a bigger Government that provides more services, so guess what? They vote for one, almost every time. They get the Government they deserve. The bigger problem is that many get the Government they don't deserve.

 

No, by my logic, I think he only cares about it for a reason. I'm not going to say it because you get banned on this site for saying stuff like that. But it should be easily understood what I'm implying.

 

It's the new alt-left label to silence any opposition to dramatically failed progressive ideology.

 

I've never heard any conservative promise that if concealed carry were allowed in Chicago the violence would end. And that's for a very simple reason. You just made it up. But I will make you a promise. If you take all the blacks out of Chicago, the violence will end. And it will magically reappear wherever you move them to.

 

I lived in Kennesaw, Georgia in the early 80's where a law was passed requiring every head of household to own a gun and the crime rate did decrease significantly. Working evenings and nights in downtown Atlanta I always carried a gun and more than once had need to display it to ward off an attacker. Of course such events are never reported and made statistically available as it would incriminate the would have been victim. A pawn shop in Kennesaw had a neat item for sale once, it was a wallet with a thin 22 calibre pistol built in and a small hole to pull the trigger as you offered it up to your attacker. In my opinion, there will always be criminals and the only way to reduce crime is to make it more dangerous for the criminals. Perhaps the creation of a National law, without intent of enforcing it, 'requiring' all citizens to be armed would produce greater results in reducing crime? And accepting 'shoot to kill' justifiable in every case of protecting ones life and/or property would go a long way in reducing the criminal element of our societies, not to mention repeat offenders.

 

Agreed,
For the most part cc holders aren't out looking for trouble. The vast majority violent crime is committed by people doing the opposite.

http://heyjackass.com/