WTFV. I'm tired of your making statements based on no evidence.
White couple arrested for pulling gun on black woman
- Thread starter civvver
- Start date
- Status
You realize defending racist criminals is an extremely bad look, right? That couple probably wouldn't have pulled a gun on a white woman. In fact I'd bet my life they wouldn't. Of course they probably also would have just apologized like a normal member of society.
If a little bit of stress and being yelled at is enough to make you pull guns, you deserve to be locked up. It's the law.
I already had this argument with Synsensa, and we ended up taking it to PM. Been there, done that. I don't care what "look" you think I have - there is zero evidence that the minivan couple are racist. There is ample evidence that the mother is racist, based on what she screeched at the minivan couple.
All that happened is that the woman bumped into the daughter by accident, didn't apologize (as she says in the interview that she wasn't sure she had bumped the daughter or the door frame), and the mother went from zero to stark-raving nuts in about half a second - and did not let up for the entire duration of the video.
astrallite
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 67
I assume you mean "white gun culture." The moment non-whites started open-carrying the NRA decided to advocate for gun control. Let's not pretend the second amendment isn't inextricably tied to racial hierarchy in this country--in fact it was penned explicitly for the purpose of creating armed militias to go after runaway slaves.
Apparently you've never had to deal with anyone systematically disrespecting you, or you'd understand why it's a reasonable response to be on edge around impolite people who shove your daughter... and decide it's acceptable to pull guns on you when they get annoyed at your uppity-ness.
FFS, would you watch the damn videos - both of them? The daughter wasn't "shoved". The "uppity-ness" consisted of long minutes of being screeched at by the mother who you're defending based on your own presumptions and wild notions about drug use by people who drive minivans (seriously, all minivan drivers use cocaine?), being called "racist" while the accuser was throwing racist epithets and making physical threats, and then the accuser decided to interfere when the couple tried to leave - after they had tried, during all the screeching, to defuse the situation by speaking calmly.
As I said umpteen times before in this thread: I don't condone pulling a gun. But I understand why the couple were upset and angry. The only thing they did wrong in the beginning was that the woman hadn't apologized for accidentally bumping into the daughter. That's IT.
Do not presume to make assumptions about what kinds of discrimination/lack of respect I have faced/am facing in my life. There are more kinds of discrimination/lack of respect than race-based.
Citation required...
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,019
James Madison was a Virginia slave owner, as were President George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, Washington’s Secretary of State. Their great fear—a fear shared by all other Virginia planters and public officials—was a ruinous slave rebellion in which their families would be slaughtered and their property destroyed. This fear was especially acute when Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.
Battle at San Domingo, a painting by January Suchodolski, depicting a struggle between Polish troops in French service and the slave rebels and freed revolutionary soldiers.
When Virginia voted to ratify the Bill of Rights, a slave rebellion was in full force in the French West Indies Colony of Saint-Domingue (later Haiti).(9) The Virginia planters, including Jefferson, George Mason, and many other prominent Virginians, feared that this rebellion would swiftly spread to the slave holding states in the U.S. This was not just an idle fear, for Virginia had a long history of attempted and aborted slave uprisings.
A widespread slave rebellion in Virginia’s northern neck was crushed in 1687 and its leaders executed. Similar rebellions were also crushed in 1644, 1660, 1663, 1709, 1710, and 1730. The 1730 uprising was known as the Norfolk Conspiracy and encompassed five Virginia counties.(10)
Adding fuel to this fire was the Dunmore proclamation of 1775, in which the Royal Colonial governor of Virginia promised freedom for slaves of American revolutionaries who left their owners and joined the royal forces. The proclamation prompted a flood of slaves to run away and enlist with Dunmore on the side of England.(11) In 1779, British General Sir Henry Clinton issued the Philipsburg Proclamation, which freed slaves owned by revolutionaries throughout the rebel states, even if they did not enlist in the British Army. It is estimated that as a result of these proclamations over 100,000 slaves attempted to leave their owners and join the British. An underlying goal of these proclamations was to provoke a general slave insurrection in the hope of inducing the patriots to abandon the revolution.(12) These proclamations left slaves feeling that their best chance for eventual emancipation was with Britain, and the American victory in 1783 was no doubt a disappointment to many Virginia slaves.
In an apparent effort to relieve this disappointment and to hold out some hope of freedom to Virginia slaves, Virginia enacted the 1782 Slave Law entitled “Act to Authorize the Manumission of Slaves.”Under this act, a slave could be emancipated by his owner at his death or, during the owner’s lifetime, through a deed of manumission. The act required any owner who freed a slave to continue to be responsible for financial support.(13)
Many slaves were freed under this act, causing the number of black “freemen” in Virginia to rapidly expand. The number of free blacks in Virginia became so great that in 1806 Virginia amended the act to require all free black slaves to leave the state within 18 months or be taken back into slavery.(14) Free blacks were considered to present a threat to the established order because of the belief that they would be inclined to provide assistance to any slave uprising.
Virginia’s Management of Its Slave Problem
Virginia managed its slave rebellion risk in two ways. First, it deprived slaves of weapons. Second, it policed slave holding areas with militias directed to be on the lookout for slave conspiracies.
Regarding weapons, both slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning weapons from an early date in Virginia. For example, in 1640, a Virginia law imposed a total firearms ban, including for self-defense, on all “Negroes, slaves and free . . . .” Similar total bans were enacted in 1640 and 1712 (“An Act for Preventing Negroe Insurrections”). At some point, restrictions on possession of firearms was loosened for free blacks in some areas to permit them to possess a firearm for defense of their home, but only if they were able to obtain a permit from the county sheriff, which was revocable. Free blacks never had the same access to firearms as white men had in Colonial Virginia.(15)
The other means to manage the risks of slave rebellion used in pre-Bill of Rights Virginia, and the other southern slave states, was the militia. Generally, white males between the ages of 18 and 45 were required to serve in the militias. (In Virginia, free blacks could join, but only as drummers or buglers. In South Carolina, free blacks were not permitted to join.). These militias were known as “slave patrols” and made periodic inspections of “all Negro houses for offensive weapons and ammunition.” In the southern colonies “well regulated militias” kept slaves in their place. They were used to prevent and put down slave uprisings. White control of the militias was essential for the maintenance of the slave economies of the southern colonies.(16)
The Great Debate
When the Constitution was initially passed by the Constitutional Convention and submitted to the states for ratification, it did not contain a bill of rights. The twice elected governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, strongly opposed ratification because he believed, among other shortcomings, that the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, gave the federal government the power to control state militias which he was sure would be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias.
In part, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gave to the federal government the power:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Patrick Henry, popularly known for his “give me liberty or give me death!“ speech to the Second Virginia Convention in 1775, argued fervently against what he saw as federal encroachment on state’s rights.
At the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry, considered the most persuasive speaker in the Colonies, put his opposition to ratification in these words:
Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8] which gives Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . . By this sir, you see that their control over our last best defence is unlimited.(17)
The 10th section of the 1st article . . . says, that ‘no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded. . . .’
If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrection. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.(18) (Emphasis added)
Henry had many other objections to ratification of the Constitution and led the debate against Virginia ratification with the able assistance of George Mason.
James Madison led the debate in favor.(19) The debate took place over three weeks. It was without a doubt the most consequential debate in our history, because if Virginia declined to ratify the Constitution, at least three other holdouts, including New York, were expected to follow suit. Thus, the very existence of the United States of America, as we know it, was at stake in this debate.
Ultimately, Madison won the debate, and Virginia ratified (89-79).(20) Shortly afterward, Madison ran for election as a representative to the First United States Congress. Patrick Henry attempted to have him defeated by gerrymandering the district and running James Monroe to oppose Madison. Madison won the election, but only after making a campaign pledge to submit amendments to the Constitution to explicitly protect certain rights against infringement by the federal government, including the right of states to control their militias.(21)
Drafting the Second Amendment
In the first draft of what became the Second Amendment, Madison wrote:
James Madison, author of the Second Amendment.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. (Emphasis added).(22)
But Patrick Henry, George Mason and others wanted clear language preserving the state slave-patrol militias from federal interference. To accommodate them, Madison changed the language to read this way:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Emphasis added).(23)
This provision was included as the fourth of twelve articles submitted by Congress to the states for ratification. On December 15, 1791, in the midst of the largest and most violent slave insurrection in history, which was then underway in San Domingue (now Haiti),Virginia voted to ratify all of the proposed articles.Virginia’s vote brought the total number of votes for articles three through twelve to the number required to ratify those articles. As a number of states failed to ratify the first and second Articles the proposed fourth article became the Second Amendment in the final ten which became the Bill of Rights.
http://www.transpartisanreview.org/bear-arms/
Battle at San Domingo, a painting by January Suchodolski, depicting a struggle between Polish troops in French service and the slave rebels and freed revolutionary soldiers.
When Virginia voted to ratify the Bill of Rights, a slave rebellion was in full force in the French West Indies Colony of Saint-Domingue (later Haiti).(9) The Virginia planters, including Jefferson, George Mason, and many other prominent Virginians, feared that this rebellion would swiftly spread to the slave holding states in the U.S. This was not just an idle fear, for Virginia had a long history of attempted and aborted slave uprisings.
A widespread slave rebellion in Virginia’s northern neck was crushed in 1687 and its leaders executed. Similar rebellions were also crushed in 1644, 1660, 1663, 1709, 1710, and 1730. The 1730 uprising was known as the Norfolk Conspiracy and encompassed five Virginia counties.(10)
Adding fuel to this fire was the Dunmore proclamation of 1775, in which the Royal Colonial governor of Virginia promised freedom for slaves of American revolutionaries who left their owners and joined the royal forces. The proclamation prompted a flood of slaves to run away and enlist with Dunmore on the side of England.(11) In 1779, British General Sir Henry Clinton issued the Philipsburg Proclamation, which freed slaves owned by revolutionaries throughout the rebel states, even if they did not enlist in the British Army. It is estimated that as a result of these proclamations over 100,000 slaves attempted to leave their owners and join the British. An underlying goal of these proclamations was to provoke a general slave insurrection in the hope of inducing the patriots to abandon the revolution.(12) These proclamations left slaves feeling that their best chance for eventual emancipation was with Britain, and the American victory in 1783 was no doubt a disappointment to many Virginia slaves.
In an apparent effort to relieve this disappointment and to hold out some hope of freedom to Virginia slaves, Virginia enacted the 1782 Slave Law entitled “Act to Authorize the Manumission of Slaves.”Under this act, a slave could be emancipated by his owner at his death or, during the owner’s lifetime, through a deed of manumission. The act required any owner who freed a slave to continue to be responsible for financial support.(13)
Many slaves were freed under this act, causing the number of black “freemen” in Virginia to rapidly expand. The number of free blacks in Virginia became so great that in 1806 Virginia amended the act to require all free black slaves to leave the state within 18 months or be taken back into slavery.(14) Free blacks were considered to present a threat to the established order because of the belief that they would be inclined to provide assistance to any slave uprising.
Virginia’s Management of Its Slave Problem
Virginia managed its slave rebellion risk in two ways. First, it deprived slaves of weapons. Second, it policed slave holding areas with militias directed to be on the lookout for slave conspiracies.
Regarding weapons, both slaves and free blacks were prohibited from owning weapons from an early date in Virginia. For example, in 1640, a Virginia law imposed a total firearms ban, including for self-defense, on all “Negroes, slaves and free . . . .” Similar total bans were enacted in 1640 and 1712 (“An Act for Preventing Negroe Insurrections”). At some point, restrictions on possession of firearms was loosened for free blacks in some areas to permit them to possess a firearm for defense of their home, but only if they were able to obtain a permit from the county sheriff, which was revocable. Free blacks never had the same access to firearms as white men had in Colonial Virginia.(15)
The other means to manage the risks of slave rebellion used in pre-Bill of Rights Virginia, and the other southern slave states, was the militia. Generally, white males between the ages of 18 and 45 were required to serve in the militias. (In Virginia, free blacks could join, but only as drummers or buglers. In South Carolina, free blacks were not permitted to join.). These militias were known as “slave patrols” and made periodic inspections of “all Negro houses for offensive weapons and ammunition.” In the southern colonies “well regulated militias” kept slaves in their place. They were used to prevent and put down slave uprisings. White control of the militias was essential for the maintenance of the slave economies of the southern colonies.(16)
The Great Debate
When the Constitution was initially passed by the Constitutional Convention and submitted to the states for ratification, it did not contain a bill of rights. The twice elected governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, strongly opposed ratification because he believed, among other shortcomings, that the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, gave the federal government the power to control state militias which he was sure would be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias.
In part, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gave to the federal government the power:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Patrick Henry, popularly known for his “give me liberty or give me death!“ speech to the Second Virginia Convention in 1775, argued fervently against what he saw as federal encroachment on state’s rights.
At the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry, considered the most persuasive speaker in the Colonies, put his opposition to ratification in these words:
Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8] which gives Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . . By this sir, you see that their control over our last best defence is unlimited.(17)
The 10th section of the 1st article . . . says, that ‘no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded. . . .’
If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrection. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.(18) (Emphasis added)
Henry had many other objections to ratification of the Constitution and led the debate against Virginia ratification with the able assistance of George Mason.
James Madison led the debate in favor.(19) The debate took place over three weeks. It was without a doubt the most consequential debate in our history, because if Virginia declined to ratify the Constitution, at least three other holdouts, including New York, were expected to follow suit. Thus, the very existence of the United States of America, as we know it, was at stake in this debate.
Ultimately, Madison won the debate, and Virginia ratified (89-79).(20) Shortly afterward, Madison ran for election as a representative to the First United States Congress. Patrick Henry attempted to have him defeated by gerrymandering the district and running James Monroe to oppose Madison. Madison won the election, but only after making a campaign pledge to submit amendments to the Constitution to explicitly protect certain rights against infringement by the federal government, including the right of states to control their militias.(21)
Drafting the Second Amendment
In the first draft of what became the Second Amendment, Madison wrote:
James Madison, author of the Second Amendment.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. (Emphasis added).(22)
But Patrick Henry, George Mason and others wanted clear language preserving the state slave-patrol militias from federal interference. To accommodate them, Madison changed the language to read this way:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Emphasis added).(23)
This provision was included as the fourth of twelve articles submitted by Congress to the states for ratification. On December 15, 1791, in the midst of the largest and most violent slave insurrection in history, which was then underway in San Domingue (now Haiti),Virginia voted to ratify all of the proposed articles.Virginia’s vote brought the total number of votes for articles three through twelve to the number required to ratify those articles. As a number of states failed to ratify the first and second Articles the proposed fourth article became the Second Amendment in the final ten which became the Bill of Rights.
http://www.transpartisanreview.org/bear-arms/
Look, I don’t know why you’re getting so upset, but where I come from it’s common decency to apologize when you shove someone. Just say “I’m sorry my good sir or madam” and be on your way. Instead suburban minivan drivers who are probably on benzodiazepines refused to demonstrate an absolute minimum of common decency and a mother very rightfully became afraid for her daughter’s security. For all anyone knows the husband could have wanted to rape that daughter and that bump could have been a signal. And quite frankly the mother was vindicated when it was revealed that, yes, suburban minivan driver here was indeed a violent criminal in waiting who has to brandish steel against other citizens rather than apologize like a decent human being.
Lock them up. I have no sympathy for sociopaths. If you can’t handle apologizing to people without pulling out a gun first then you deserve the pokey.
Moderator Action: A little over the top maybe? Please don't troll other posters. --LM
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to suspect you are just trolling, cause the above is irrational.
But - like basking and begging - it's illegal in the CFC underground.
There's your problem, if you actually had bothered to see the video(s), you'd know it was the white woman who supposedly bumps into the black girl. Not sure what you are trying to prove by just posting about something without seeing it first
Not sure what you are trying to prove by just posting about something without seeing it first
I have a right to free speech. Also, quoted statement is factually incorrect.
Tbf, she could also be a T1000 from Skynet.
Kyriakos is correct. You are posting without having seen the videos. The "big, hulking man" isn't the one who bumped into the girl. Your posts are over the top nonsense, and by your "logic" I should scamper around accusing every motorcycle rider in the world of being a drug and sex trafficker because that's the variety of organized crime the Grim Reapers are into.
He's correct about the other point, as well. You and I are done here.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You must surely appreciate that most posters are not familiar with this sort of thing, and given the gravity of the topic, may ask that you fill in certain gaps before taking your word for it.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Isn't an expectation of watching the video something that should be appreciated too given the topic?
More black women have been raped by white men than white women by black men.
- Status
Similar threads
