In a Race to be the Toughest on “the Blacks” Trump May Lose if the Feds Recognize the Rights of Black People to Carry Guns b/c Liberals Have Filled DC Jail w/Blacks Charged for Merely Possessing a Gun

While Pretending to be Political Allies of Blacks, White Liberal Authorities in DC are Cramming Black People Into Jails/Prisons (Over 90% Black). DC has the Highest Incarceration Rate in the World

Can racist suspect federal authorities recognize the 2nd Amendment rights of Black people to Carry Guns for Self Defense while they also try to appear more punitive than racist suspect liberals? The concealed reality here is that the racist suspect elite, white liberals who control DC are not soft on crime. They have already crammed the overcrowded DC Jails with Black people arrested for mere gun possession. In fact, liberals in Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, Atlanta etc are also filling the jails with Blacks charged with mere gun possession while simultaneously making very few arrests of persons who used guns in violent crimes. [MORE]

When authorities prevent individuals from being able to defend themselves the government become accomplices to crime and partly responsible (in addition to the criminals themselves) for victimization. [MORE]

Another concealed truth here is that the murder rate in DC is low relative to what it was. According to DOJ data, the district had 274 homicides in 2023 and 187 in 2024. Yet this is nothing compared to what it was; in 1991 there were 482 murders and 443 and 454 murders respectively in 1992 and 1993. These numbers are on a substantial downward decline in general. Nevertheless, people’s perception of the crime rate is always at odds with reality because propaganda serves a greater in purpose in the system of racism/white supremacy. Looking at the numbers outside of their historical context is part of racist propaganda programming for the racist mind and manufactured mentacidal Black mind.

ACCORDING TO DR. AMOS WILSON, Black criminals function as a negative reference group vital to maintaining the White American self-image. The Black criminal is used to support the White American community's self-serving, self-justifying judgments of itself. White America's preoccupation with Black criminality betrays its own need for reassurance; betrays its own basic insecurity regarding its projected moral purity. Consequently, the higher the incidence of reported Black criminality, the more exceptionally righteous White America feels itself to be. The more righteous it feels itself to be the more intensely and guiltlessly it promulgates and justifies its domination and exploitation of African peoples at home and abroad. [MORE]

During this bullshit emergency the president deployed nearly 2,000 law enforcement officers into a city supposedly teeming with criminals. And yet the effort netted some 380 arrests in 10 days, and many of the charges the administration has bragged about are for low-level nonviolent offenses, such as possession of narcotics or carrying a pistol without a license.

"Congrats on cracking down on crime, but…carrying a pistol without a license isn't a crime, it's a constitutionally protected right," Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) wrote in posts on X. "In high crime areas like DC, people rely on their right to keep and bear arms to keep them safe. I do." [MORE]

Massa media can’t stop bullshitting enough about gun rights. Although, the Supreme Court has made it plain that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in public, liberal puppeticians and PropaGandhi are working tirelessly to make said inalienable right illusory. Said ruling was not confusing. The court clearly stated;

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in- fringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant else- where. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.