That would be entirely consistent with Rudy Guiliani's understanding of the 2nd amendment: That the excercise of the right of arms is justification for police intervention resuling in the overal reduction in crime.

Except, of course, for there being some right of arms, or any discernable reduction in crime.

So basically she wants to convict people of crimes without any due process. When you break her argument down, that's basically what she is saying. She knows that someone is violent, but cannot prove said violence in accordance with the protections of due process. So being the typical governmental employee she wants an easy button allowing her to convict someone of being violent without having to actually do her job.

Enter the D.C. gun ban. Now, with simple gun possession carrying the same penalty as many actual violent crimes, Ms. DA doesn't have to be bothered by the petty requirements of due process. She can convict anyone whom she thinks is "violent" under the possession statute.

And guess what happenes when someone is arrested who doesn't have any "knowledge of crime in the area" to offer for a plea bargain?

I'll take the protections offered by the founding fathers over her version of protection any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Prosecutors are pretty much all like that. I never met one, and I know a bunch of them, who ever admitted to disagreeing with a criminal statute. They are all Company Men/Women, in my experience.

There is no prosecutor who does not aspire to higher office. They will do anything to anyone to pad their resume'. They view success by only one yardstick. Convictions.

Justice has no place in their calculations. They are remakably psychologically similar to the criminals they should be prosecuting.

Anyone know where she is licensed?

MIKE NYFONG--- thats all i need to say