Everything the media omitted about the Zimmerman/Martin case.
Everything the media omitted about the Zimmerman/Martin case.
The white racist murderer whose name you’re thinking of is Roderick Scott. He gunned down poor innocent black child Chris Cervini.
A Greece man charged with shooting a 17-year-old to death testified at his own trial Tuesday.
Roderick Scott told the court he shot Christopher Cervini in self-defense.
Scott is charged with manslaughter in the April 4 shooting across the street from his home on Baneberry Way in Greece.
Scott told the court he confronted Cervini and other person as they broke into a neighbor’s car. The other person ran away, but Scott said Cervini ran at him.
Scott already had his gun drawn. He said he told Cervini to stop, but the teen kept coming, so he shot him twice.
Of course, unlike the Zimmerman trial, this one was hushed up, because there are hundreds of black children killed by white racist gun owners every day. This is Scott’s crazy ass cracka story:
Scott said on April 4, he was sleeping on the couch, because he and his girlfriend had a disagreement. In the early morning he awoke and heard voices. He looked out the front door to see what was going on outside.
He testified he saw three individuals who were in his driveway, saw them walk out and cross the street, then walk up to a neighbor’s vehicle, pulling on the latch and handles of the neighbor’s truck. He then went upstairs, told his girlfriend Tracy that someone was breaking into a vehicle, and told her to call 911. He grabbed his pistol, for which he has a permit, “to protect myself” then went outside.
Scott said his intent was “to stop or detain the criminals,” not to shoot anyone. He walked down the driveway and over to 39 Baneberry Way. He saw one person standing on a sidewalk, and some rummaging going on inside a vehicle, which had the dome light on.
At that point, Scott testified he pulled his handgun out of the holster, and chambered a round. “I wanted to protect myself and I intended to,” Scott said.
He walked toward the individual, who started to walk away toward Manitou Road. He did not tell that individual to stop. It’s believed that individual was Brian Hopkins.
At this point, Scott was a foot or so off the sidewalk, and he saw someone rustling around inside the vehicle at 39 Baneberry. He testified he clearly saw two individuals. He drew his pistol and assumed the a shooter’s stance. “I didn’t know what I was up against, or if they were armed,” Scott said.
He told the individuals to stop, that his girlfriend had called 911, and that he had a gun. The individuals stopped, and a few seconds passed. Scott says the teens were talking, then one of them ran around the front of the truck. The other ran down the driveway toward him, screaming. Scott warned him he had a gun, then shot him.
He assumed the boy may have been armed.
“I felt if he got to me he would try to kill me or hurt me,” Scott testified.
Just one thing. This is Roderick Scott:
But that’s only because while he was a black man, he only shot this poor black child who no one cared about:
Justice can never be done when crazy ass crackas like Roderick Scott walk free while honor student black children like Chris Cervini are shot down in cold blood, murdered only for the crime of defending themselves against racist white men like Roderick Scott who walk around their neighborhoods gunning down black children like Chris Cervini and claiming self-defense.
The law must change! Justice for black child Chris Cervini! Roderick Scott needs to go to jail and be tried for hate crimes like the white racist murderer he is.
Sarcasm over, this is actually in the story:
Cervini’s family members say justice wasn’t served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he’d never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner.
“The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.”
Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.
Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.
“How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, ‘Please don’t kill me. I’m just a kid,’ and he just kept on shooting him.”
Cervini charged screaming at Scott in the middle of the night while Cervini and his two friends were stealing from people’s cars.
Could Scott have called the cops and waited for them to show up an hour after Cervini and his thug friends left? Sure.
Does Scott have a right to protect his property? Damn right he does.
Does Scott have a right to defend his neighbor’s property? Yup. Sounds like a good neighbor to me.
Does Cervini have a right to charge Scott in the middle of the night screaming, while in the middle of committing a theft? That’s at least menacing, and probably assault – even before he touches Scott.
Does Scott have a right to blast an attacker in the middle of the night in self defense, even though that threat turns out to be a thieving white kid? Damn right.
Do I care that Cervini was white and Scott was black? Nope. The only reason it matters is to prove a contrast to the racist left’s accusations against Zimmerman. It proves again, with colors reversed, the very concept of self-defense that allowed Scott to defend himself against what would’ve been not one but three white attackers. Cervini’s friends would’ve come to his aid and the story would’ve been “three white teens engaged in car theft kill black resident”.
Right now, with Eric Holder and leaders of the NAACP calling for a destruction of self-defense laws, they’re asking to put the law on Cervini’s side. They’re asking to put the law on the side of three white kids burglarizing a black man’s neighborhood, and terrorizing him when he comes out to defend his property.
They’ve ignored the facts of the Zimmerman case and glorified Martin as a saint and martyr for the cause of civil rights, when his actions – assaulting Zimmerman, actually proved Zimmerman’s superficial assessment of him as a “f*cking punk”. Martin’s assault led to Zimmerman’s response, just like Cervini’s assault led to Scott’s response.
Had Cervini tackled and beat Scott to death, the headlines would’ve screamed for the blood of Cervini and his white friends. Had Zimmerman been pounded into the pavement, Trayvon Martin would be paraded around as a thug who bashed the brains out of a Hispanic Peruvian-descended man who mentored black children, took a black girl to prom, saved a black man from assault in the past, and was thanked for it by having his skull smashed into the pavement – a neighborhood watchman whose only crime was looking out for his neighbors. The headlines would scream “Teenage Thug Kills Pillar of Hispanic Community”. Every day on Univision would show Zimmerman’s blood in the streets, and La Raza would be marching demanding justice.
The DOJ has declared war on pobre Jorge.
Sounds kind of like the witch hunt that imprisoned John McNeil, huh? (Note that link is from the NAACP.)
Last fall, a judge ruled that he deserved a new trial because his original attorney did not inform jurors they could acquit him if he shot in defense of his home or his son. Stand Your Ground can apply to the defense of someone else as well as himself.
Sadly, he pled guilty to manslaughter to get out of jail, which is nonsense, because he should be a free man completely.
The left’s take on the McNeil case wasn’t that justice wasn’t served, it’s that justice was just wrong, and that self defense needs to go away completely.
Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins agrees and has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Georgia’s stand your ground law because the law is not applied equally to African-Americans. He accuses the courts of accepting “the race of a victim as evidence to establish the reasonableness of an individual’s fear in cases of justifiable homicide.”
That wasn’t fighting for McNeil’s freedom, it’s fighting against the codification of natural law that should’ve left him free. Had leftist tyranny-supporter Hutchins instead pushed for McNeil’s defense, he wouldn’t have pled guilty to manslaughter, he would be a free man.
But of course, it’s about destruction of the natural right of self defense, not about justice. It’s not about protecting the individual black man, it’s about “racial justice” and leftist power and reducing the individual to a ward of the state. It’s about making individuals into masses who have a duty to retreat, into cowards who are legally obliged to not stand up for themselves. It lets their betters, who create this great new society, decide who is good and who is bad.
Ultimately, the question of self defense in many of these cases is a deeper ideological worldview expressing itself as a hatred for individual freedom. I’d say “as always”, but… well… okay, it’s as always.
Update: This examiner link confuses a quote with commentary:
The teen’s father described his son as a “gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble,” as reported by the internet news portal YNN Rochester (of New York) on Dec. 18, 2009, as well as the right-of-center news portal The Patriot Perspective on July 17, 2013.
I quote the story – as seen above. Try CTRL+F and type in the word “gentle”. I don’t describe the thieving white kid as a “gentle child”. When not sarcastically mimicking the media’s coverage of the Zimmerman trial by taking the same tone where races were reversed and describing him as a “black child” and Scott as a “racist white man”, I describe the kid as what he was found in court to be – the attacker of Roderick Scott.
Not a huge surprise that one would pop up.
But apparently this is the response FB users are getting if they report it for threats of violence:
Pretty indicative of what the FB community standards are.
Update: Looks like Breitbart found it didn’t violate community standards for “hate speech” a week or so ago. Though in light of the verdict, it’s kind of a surprise it’s still up and is noted as officially reviewed as a page that “doesn’t violate community standards” for violence.
Update 3: As more people report it, more people are getting the same “doesn’t violate community standards” response. At Jawa Report.
Your daily does of leftist stupidity, courtesy of the Washington Post opinions page:
Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.
Um, for starters, that is going on. It’s just in ones and twos. Even Juan Williams was talking about this a couple days ago (his solution was half-addressing the societal problems, but he still took the leftist idea of banning tools, too). People who discuss crime rates in the black community (as well as other ethnic communities – including poor whites) look at demographics of violence and do try to address them.
Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago is rife with violence (despite banning guns for good citizens). Every week is another series of murders. There is no “imagine if” – it really is the case.
But when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.
Not really. Maybe to a racist.
Here’s the pitch for stupid…
Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.
…and it’s a high fly ball out to deep left field!
Let’s look at those mentioned. Newtown, Aurora, Tuscon and Columbine were done by white kids and guys with varying mental problems. “Not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine have been committed by white men and boys”…
…and it’s in the stands!
The Fort Hood shooter, was a psychiatrist named Nidal Malik Hasan, fully cognizant of what he was doing – committing jihad, yelling “Allahu Akbar!” as he gunned down the soldiers that he, as a “Soldier of Allah” wished dead. And he wasn’t a white guy. (Unless the authors are truly archaic racists/racialists who divide people only by caucasoid, negroid & mongoloid… which actually wouldn’t surprise me from the left.)
Meanwhile, the murders at Virginia Tech, the most prolific mass shooting murder in US history, were committed by an Asian kid of Korean descent.
And maniac cop Chris Dorner, who wrote a manifesto and started his killing spree by killing an Asian gal and her black fiance and was the subject of news coverage for days until he burned to death in a cabin in Big Bear, CA, was also a black man mass shooter murderer.
Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.
No, actually white guys are used to being singled out by the left. The last several decades of leftist rewriting of history have been an attempt not to recognize accomplishments of all ethnicities, but to drag down the accomplishments of the white man in an effort to make the world “fair” at best, and at worst as an attempt at subversion of the good done in large part by white men in America’s past. It insults the achievements of men and women of all races. It makes both the heroes and villains of history less colorful in all ways when not seen through an objective lens, but through one that demands “social justice” against the white man. Diminishing one man diminishes them all – especially by contrast. Of course, the left’s hate for “dead white men” has become parody by now, so I’m not going to belabor the point.
When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.
Just to prove a point, I’m going to go to rifle manufacturer John Noveske’s last facebook post before he died (under odd circumstances) – you’ll probably get the point pretty quick and scroll on down, though:
Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.
Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)
Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
(Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)
Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.
Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”
Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.
Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his
New York high school.
Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….
What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az
What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado
What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or
What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven’t heard about being on drugs of some kind.
John Noveske, at this point, has sadly become one of those “dead white men” of history, but I think that pretty well blows the “mental health isn’t an issue – it’s the white man!” argument all to hell.
But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers.
I’d guess the writers mean “non-American guy” by “immigrants” since they like breaking down other ethnic groups, but in fact they’re wrong again: Sulejman Talović murdered 5 people and wounded four at Trolley Square until he was shot by a white man with a gun. Some people classify those who live in southern Europe as some kind of non-white ethnicity because they’re non-Anglo, but either way, it’s still meaningless. Lee Boyd Malvo, is a black dude from Jamaica and was one of the two DC Snipers (the other a US-born black dude).
As for Latinos… Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people in 1990 in the Bronx, NY. And there are plenty of “latinos” killing plenty of other people, but it’s mostly drug and gang related, so just like run-of-the-mill black killers listed at the beginning, they’re ignored because it’s usually in ones and twos… except when they kill dozens, but it’s okay because it’s a mile away from the US. And sometimes it’s not, but those don’t make the news.
Each of us is programmed from childhood to believe that the top group of our hierarchies — and in the U.S. culture, that’s white men — represents everyone, so it can feel awkward, even ridiculous, when we try to call attention to those people as a distinct group and hold them accountable.
No, what feels awkward is that there are people who really think there’s a “hierarchy” based on race.
For example, our schools teach American history as the history of everyone in this nation. But the stories we learn are predominantly about white men. To study the history of other groups, people have to take separate classes, such as African American history, women’s history or Native American history. And if we take “Hispanic American History,” we don’t expect to learn “Asian American History,” because a class about anyone but white men is assumed not to be inclusive of anyone else.
To the first part, that’s because there were a lot of things done by white men. And to study the history of other groups seperately is insulting to other Americans. Ignoring Crispus Attucks because you’ve shoved him into February alone is stupid, seperatist, leftist racist nonsense. To ignore Buffalo Soldiers when talking about the Old West (or that 1 in 3 cowboys were black), or ignoring Goyathlay or King Mike is absurd. They are all Americans and part of the American story. Cutting them out for a “special month” makes them seem to be aberrations, not an instrinsic part of the whole history of the nation. It’s both separate and unequal.
That’s a failure of educators and a failure of the writers of the WP piece, who think in racist terms.
If life were equitable, white male gun-rights advocates would face some serious questions to assess their degree of credibility and objectivity. We would expect them to explain:
What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?
The same facets that create asian mass shooters and black mass shooters and every other sub-ethnicity’s mass killers. It’s not based on relative melanin levels.
Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?
You realize black, red, yellow, brown, green and purple people all play video games, right?
Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?
Because black people were targeted for systematic disarmament by the racist Democrats of the South after the Civil War. If more black people had been NRA members – like Robert Williams was in Monroe, NC – the civil rights movement would’ve looked different, too. Oh, and because Amerind tribesmen were targeted for disarmament by racist expansionist progressives in the past. If they hadn’t been disarmed and massacred at places like Wounded Knee, the American West might be composed of states that would be represented in large part by Amerind tribes who peacefully would’ve decided to join the US. Because progressive leftist racist Democrats have managed to convince them that self-defense is racist and that they should roll over and die.
The Democrat leftist think they know what’s best, the media thinks they know what’s best, and they’re all groups that have subjugated groups “for their own good” beneath the heel of the state for decades. Democrats are anti-gun and racist, that’s why – and they’ve beaten into the people they’ve shoved into their “great society” the idea that they should be disarmed and that the wonderful state will take care of them. While limousine liberals are the ones who think they’ll be doing the “taking care” and thus they hate guns as well, as those are tools of free men, not slaves or subjugated, infantilized sheep.
Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?
White isn’t all they are, and they aren’t all white. The congressmen leading the fight against gun control can go back to that previous paragraph and see that disarmament leads to oppression. The hard-fought gains made by the Country Class – which is made up of people of all ethnicities – should not be tossed away and handed to dictatorial white male politicians like Shumer and Durbin and Lautenberg who are the same Ruling Class oppressors who targeted non-whites and whites who were of different sub-groups in the past.
The right to keep and bear arms is a color blind issue. God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.
If Americans ask the right questions on gun issues, we will get the right answers. These answers will encourage white men to examine their role in their own culture and to help other white men and boys become healthier and less violent.
The answers the clueless writers intend to get are predicated on the idea that you believe their bias to begin with. If you aren’t a racist who views society as having a race-hierarchy, you don’t see things their way – and that’s important, because America isn’t a race-based hierarchy.
Juan Williams has this piece at the Wall Street Journal. I’ll start with Juan’s ultimate opinion and work back:
One thing you don’t hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.
That is an astonishing omission, because race ought to be an inescapable part of the debate…
I support gun control.
He’s a leftist, even if he’s one who’s on FOX news as a contributor, and even if he did get blackballed for saying some things the left didn’t approve of.
He doesn’t understand, however, that gun control is inherently racist. Juan Williams must not know the racist history of gun control:
Disarming blacks made blacks unequal, despite freedom from slavery. This contributed to the societal problems that led to crime and led to the opportunity to be oppressed later on.
Williams spends the rest of the article looking at the destruction of the black family, which is the effect of things like the Great Society, which replaced the family unit and the father with government. He blathers for a bit about how black and hispanic folks favor gun control “because they’re the victims of gun crime” he says, while ignoring that they’ve been chopped into ethnic Democrat voting blocs that typically fall in lock-step – all due to the same effects of programs like the Great Society that foster dependence on government.
That same subjugation by dependence on government and subjugation by racist gun control led to communities which could not defend themselves. Individuals had to rely on police for protection, often the same police that would oppress them, or otherwise ignore their communities and thus individual cries for help. Disarmed, only the criminals could defend themselves, while the law-abiding were left at the mercy of both gangs and racists. Due to being only a couple generations from slavery, the individual may not have been properous enough to escape a bad community; but again, the only reason the community was as bad as it was was because of government deciding what was best for black folks.
Every cause that Williams looks at for violence in the black community is the direct result of government interference.
Thomas Sowell wrote a few years ago about how Oakland, CA, used to have a thriving black community with thriving black-owned small businesses in the 1950s. Rather than improve when social programs were implemented in the 1960s, the entire community began to decline. He also notes that leftist judicial policies contributed heavily to the decline.
In short, it’s not the guns. The lack of guns made individual blacks defenseless and the black community less safe – criminals in armed communities know that someone may resist, whether those criminals are black gangs or white night rider terrorists. The interference by government in the form of gun control undermined safety, and the interference by government in social and economic aspects of life destroyed the family that was the building block of that society.
It’s the welfare state and government telling black folks how to live their lives that creates the problems. Further restricting the rights of black citizens – including gun rights – isn’t going to help. Restrictions of rights never help anyone of any color.
Just ask Otis McDonald:
The other half of the race and the gun debate story today was an email exchange involving racist black Alabama Democrat state representative Joe Mitchell, who demonstrated ignorance of his own history by going off on a constituent:
“Your folk never used all this sheit (sic) to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed (sic), imported criminal-minded kin folk.”
Except if you just watched No Guns For Negroes above, you know that the Deacons For Defense did “use all this sheit”, and if you know the history of the NRA during the civil rights movement, you also know that his colorfully-worded condemnation is completely bogus and woefully ignorant of the history of gun rights being used for black defense:
In Monroe, North Carolina, in 1958, Mr. Robert Williams reopened a local chapter of the NAACP. He enlisted the help of Dr. Albert Perry, a physician and leader in the Black community. These two men created an active and robust local chapter of the NAACP and worked for equal rights for the Black population.
However, Monroe was KKK country. The Klan included in its membership the sheriff, most police officers, several judges and every elected official in the county. As the Black population grew more organized the Klan became more brutal.
Mr. Williams was a former U.S. Marine who understood that force must be met with force, so in 1960 he turned to the nation’s oldest civil rights organization for help. He applied to the National Rifle Association for a local charter. The NRA issued him the charter and supplied firearms training material.
Officially sanctioned as the Monroe NRA Rifle Club Mr. Williams recruited other Black veterans. The group armed themselves and started training with their guns. This further infuriated the Klan but it also inflamed the white liberals who had previously supported Mr. Williams and Dr. Perry.
The liberals were no more interested in seeing Black men exercising their Second Amendment rights than the Klan was. The White liberals were only interested in the Black population attaining some rights, not in securing the full rights afforded all free men by their creator.
The Klan was quick to recognize that the Blacks no longer enjoyed the support of the White liberals and increased their harassment of the Black community. Armed Klansmen regularly drove through the Black section of town shooting into homes and shooting at anyone unfortunate enough to be out after dark. Frequently, these drive-by shootings were preceded by a police patrol car that scouted targets for the Klan.
Unable to disband either the local NAACP branch or the local NRA branch, the Klan decided to mount a full, armed assault on Dr. Perry’s home. They thought they could bring down the groups by eliminating their most influential leader.
The local NRA branch heard about the planned raid and quickly called a meeting to be held at the doctor’s house on that night. Well armed men showed up at the doctors house and prepared for the assault they knew was coming.
When the Klan arrived, instead of finding the good doctor alone with his family they found the house fortified with sandbags and guarded by armed men who knew how to use their weapons. A firefight ensued.
The Klan and their police support were no match for the local NRA members. The NRA members drove off the attackers inflicting unknown causalities on the raiders.
What we do know is that this was the last time the police joined the Klan in a raid in Monroe. It wasn’t the end of their support of the Klan, but it was the last time the police openly joined in an armed attack on a Black home in Monroe.
And on the off chance you don’t like that story, you can read basically the same one from PBS.
The point is the same, and John Bender at Federal Observer wrote it well over 10 years ago:
As Monroe demonstrates, Blacks should be among the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment puts teeth in the rest of the Constitution. It guarantees personal freedom far better than any paternalistic government program. In Monroe, as in much of the country, Blacks couldn’t look to the government for protection. The Klan controlled the government there. Their only defense was self-defense. The men in the local NRA showed that they were up to the task of defending themselves and their families. They didn’t need some elitist demigod to protect their rights.
Under the laws we have today the men of Monroe would be unable to mount such a defense. So called “Saturday Night Special” laws and laws against discount mail order sales of guns, price guns out of the reach of many low wage citizens. Registration and licensing laws would tell the Klan sheriff who had guns and allow him to round them up before any raid today.
If the sheriff in Monroe had access to the BATF’s national firearm files he could have disarmed the local NRA members before the Klan raided the doctor’s home. Instead of the Klan being driven off, things would have ended very differently. This story would be a story about just one more successful Klan raid on a defenseless Black family.
The legislation thrust Colorado into the national spotlight as a potential test of how far the country might be willing to go with new gun restrictions after the horror of mass killings at an Aurora movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.
Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper signed bills that require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
The debate in the Democratic-controlled Legislature was intense, and Republicans warned that voters would make Democrats pay. The bills failed to garner a single Republican vote.
The bills’ approval came exactly eight months after dozens of people were shot in Aurora, and a day after the executive director of the state Corrections Department, Tom Clements, was shot and killed at his home. Hickenlooper signed the legislation right after speaking with reporters about Clements’ slaying.
That last line as a push for gun control is exceedingly odd, since Clements may well have been killed not by an armed citizen, but by a government. The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is acting as a physical check on governments, which have oppressed more people, crushed more rights, and ended more lives than any individual madman.
It should also be noted that none of these bills would stop madmen. What they do instead is create a legal culture in which every interaction with police results in confiscation and destruction of criminalized firearms, leading to slow disarmament. There are no thugs going door-to-door, but every individual arrest is an opportunity to crush Second Amendment rights and erode them further – and that’s the purpose. This is a long-march destruction of rights.
Each time he signed a bill, applause erupted from lawmakers and their guests…
“You’ve given us a real gift today,” she told the governor.
Later, Phillips added: “Thank you so much. You’re leading the entire country.”
Ultimately it leads here:
Despite 10-1 opposition cited by rights advocates, the Governor has gone ahead and led Colorado right down the route of citizen disarmament. It’s a wonderful “gift” that people after July 1st can applaud and look fondly upon as individual tragedies like Briana Dennison are dropped into forgotten graves and future generations further down the road will be able to look fondly upon as dissidents are shoved into mass graves, as history has dictated again and again.
Remember, while things aren’t all bleak and wretched right now, this is a long march to destruction of rights. Any loss of rights is ultimately a step forward for the would-be tyrants, and it’s important to keep that in context, even if scenes like the above are farther down the road, the loss of individual rights, prosperity, and individual lives as a consequence of these kinds of laws will end up ignored by the state and the fawning media.
These are the three specifically passed bills:
House Bill 1224 – Bans magazines with a capacity greater than fifteen rounds and would make a magazine with a removable floor plate illegal.
House Bill 1228 – Imposes a “gun tax” for a background check when purchasing a firearm.
House Bill 1229 – Criminalizes the private transfer of a firearm.
HB 1224 criminalizes pretty much every magazine, as noted previously here.
HB 1228 imposes a requirement to pay for the state of Colorado’s background check. I cite Clayton Cramer’s “The Racist Roots of Gun Control” a lot, but this law is almost like the anti-gun people went straight to the racist playbook. 1228 is a poll tax. The whole idea of a poll tax was to charge people to vote – which was a specific way to disenfrancise poor blacks in the racist south.
HB 1229 makes it illegal to sell firearms to another citizen without begging the state’s permission. There are several “exceptions”, many of which are not exceptions, and there are several of these non-exceptions which were discussed on the floor of the Colorado House, all of which were ignored by Colorado Democrats, who didn’t even bother to stay and defend their bill because they had the votes and because fuck you. For those who watched the floor discussion, or rather the lack thereof, you know exactly how this played out and got to see tyranny in action.
The battle for Colorado is lost, and for the time being, Colorado is also lost.
There are already legal challenges in the works to avenge some rights. As noted previously, Colorado sheriffs were ignored and threatened during the bill’s forcible creation, and now those sheriffs, who are representatives of the people, are pushing forward a few legal challenges.
The lead plaintiffs are sheriffs from around Colorado. They claim the laws violate not only the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. but the 14th Amendment which requires laws to be easy to understand.
HB 1228 is a poll tax, and blatantly unconstitutional. HB 1224 and 1229 are both just as blatantly unconstitutional, as “shall not be infringed” is as easy to understand as it is for leftist tyrants to ignore.
Kopel said the Second Amendment prohibits the government from outlawing commonly-owned firearms and accessories like the magazines banned under the new law.
In this case, Kopel’s wrong, though he’s trying to win via SCOTUS precedent. The Second Amendment says nothing about “commonly-owned”. SCOTUS did. And it’s unconstitutionally wrong.
With the signing of the HB 1224, we want to reassure Colorado residents, now officially in occupied territory, that the “Boulder Airlift” will continue until we can no longer legally ship to CO residents at the approach of the July 1 deadline, so long as demand continues.
We are looking at additional ways to give Coloradans the opportunity to buy the magazines they need prior to the enactment date, as although we’ve been swamped with tens of thousands of orders, our shipping department limitations have only allowed us to get a few hundred thousand magazines out to CO residents…a small portion of our monthly production. We’ll continue to support the Airlift as long as demand exists, and up to the active date of the legislation, and we’ve allocated a little over a million magazines for the effort up to that point, give or take.
Magpul previously noted that they’ll be leaving behind a small detachment of employees to continue the legal fight. No word yet if they’ve decided to call this “Operation Wolverine.”
There are web sites posting my personal information, my moms address, my dads address, and other family members. Other than to be malicious and put people close to me in danger why would someone do this? These are supposed to be the peaceful people. I crack jokes but never attack people on a personal level. Ironically, now I really feel the need to arm my family and friends. #IsItBecauseImBlack?
For a refresher, he was just hired by the NRA. And he has an opinion the left doesn’t like.
Oh, and he’s a black dude, so it’s time for the left to turn on the racism full-blast.
But he’s still putting out good videos:
From the Hill:
A prominent Chicago Democrat will propose legislation this week designed to ban the production of low-quality handguns, known informally as “Saturday night specials.”
In his book Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, civil rights attorney and gun scholar Don Kates found racial overtones in the focus on the Saturday Night Special (“niggertown Saturday night special“). Even gun control advocate Robert Sherrill claimed: “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.”
This is about going after poor people’s guns and disarming the black man again.
Not a big surprise, considering the racist sponsor:
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is going after the handguns that are used much more frequently by violent criminals — particularly in urban settings like his hometown, where shootings are a daily plague.
Yes, that Luis Gutierrez:
“I have only one loyalty,” he says, “and that’s to the immigrant community.”
That’s the illegal alien community, by the way – not the legal immigrant community. He’s horrifically racist, to the point where he supports The Race above both people and citizens of all colors; and certainly he has no loyalty to the Constitution he lied his oath to.
Under current federal law, foreign-made handguns that fail to meet certain safety criteria outlined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are not allowed into the United States. In determining whether a handgun is legal for import, the ATF weighs features like firing-pin locks, loaded-chamber indicators, the quality of grip and what type of metal was used in construction.
But the same standards to do not apply to handguns produced domestically. In fact, the Consumer Product Safety Act explicitly exempts firearms and ammunition from its consumer-safety rules.
Those “safety features” are wholly unnecessary, and just tools to stop imports. “Loaded-chamber indicators”, for example, are meaningless (the first rule of firearm safety is to treat everything as loaded), but they stop certain guns from being imported. Firing-pin blocks (not locks) aren’t used in some cheaper firearms – which are the ones specifically targeted.
CPSA has to exempt firearms, because just like anything else that has an inherent danger of misuse, allowing for consumer-safety rules would simply make the product disappear.
Critics like Gutierrez counter that current law allows U.S. gun manufacturers to make cheaper guns by using weaker metals and excluding safety features — two practices that can contribute to more accidents and misfires.
“In spite of being widely considered unsuitable for self-defense or sporting, they are very popular crime guns,” Gutierrez said.
Cheap metal doesn’t cause accidents or “misfires”. Cheap metal doesn’t cause negligence.
There is no such “widely considered” opinion. The first rule of gunfighting is “have a gun”.
If you’re poor, and all you can afford is a Hi-Point with a zinc slide that looks like a space hammer, then that’s what you can afford.
It’s worth noting that some of the earliest gun control was aimed at poor blacks. The “Army Navy” laws banned all but the most expensive handguns of the day for freed blacks:
The earliest law prohibiting inexpensive handguns was enacted in Tennessee, in the form of the “Army and Navy” law, passed in 1879, shortly after the 14th amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1875; previous laws invalidated by the constitutional amendment had stated that black freedmen could not own or carry any manner of firearm. The Army and Navy law prohibited the sale of “belt or pocket pistols, or revolvers, or any other kind of pistols, except army or navy pistols,” which were prohibitively expensive for black freedmen and poor whites to purchase. These were large pistols in .36 caliber (“Navy”) or .44 caliber (“Army”), and were the military issue cap and ball black-powder revolvers used during the Civil War by both Union and Confederate ground troops. The effect of the Army and Navy law was to restrict handgun possession to the upper economic classes.
This all ties in with how the left works. It’s racism from the racist Gutierrez, combined with a distaste for the underclasses and a desire for the Ruling Class to lord over the people – who can’t be trusted to defend themselves, and must be made reliant on the state. It’s pretty standard for a leftist tyrant.
Via Drudge, the Washington Post has this piece that illustrates how SCOTUS is changing. Both of Obama’s justices, as expected, are going in with their minds already made up on every case.
It starts off by mocking Scalia, but misses his point on the topic discussed.
The acerbic Scalia, the court’s longest-serving justice, got his latest comeuppance Wednesday morning, as he tried to make the absurd argument that Congress’s renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by votes of 98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House did not mean that Congress actually supported the act. Scalia, assuming powers of clairvoyance, argued that the lawmakers were secretly afraid to vote against this “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” …
Scalia was not about to surrender his title of worst-behaved justice. He mocked the civil rights law as he questioned the government lawyer. “Even the name of it is wonderful,” he said. “The Voting Rights Act: Who is going to vote against that?” (Verrilli cautioned him not to ignore actual votes of Congress in favor of “motive analysis.”)
That’s entirely how laws are named. The Patriot Act wasn’t named the “Waterboarding Act”, and the current NY near-total gun ban that will make no one but criminals safer is called the NY SAFE Act. Just a quick glance at Wikipedia can show that there are some pretty valid criticisms of the law, which are in no small part why it’s in front of the Supreme Court. Maybe Scalia could assess it a little more solemnly, but his conduct is head and shoulders above the leftist “Shut Up!” arguments of “wise race” Sotomayor and “Kevin James” Kagan.
Wednesday’s voting rights case was typical. Surprisingly, the five conservative justices seemed willing to strike down a landmark civil rights law (the provision that gives extra scrutiny to states with past discrimination) that was renewed with near-unanimous votes in Congress. Conservative jurists usually claim deference to the elected branches, but in this case they look an awful lot like activist judges legislating from the bench.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to look at law within the framework of the Constitution and rule on its Constitutionality. If a “landmark civil rights law” applies unequal protection under the law – which is what “extra scrutiny” to specific states implies, then it may well be unconstitutional. Activist judges create law out of nothing. Rejecting illegitimate legislation is the purpose of SCOTUS. This is exactly the opposite.
Kagan is choosier about when to interject herself, but she’s sardonic and sharp-witted. (“Well, that’s a big, new power that you are giving us,” she said, mockingly, when a lawyer tried to argue that the justices should overrule Congress’s discrimination findings.)
That’s exactly the power of SCOTUS – to overrule bad legislation. That’s not just mocking, it’s stupid.
Sotomayor allowed the lawyer for the Alabama county seeking to overturn the law to get just four sentences into his argument before interrupting him. “Assuming I accept your premise — and there’s some question about that — that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” she charged. “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”
She doesn’t accept the premise, doesn’t like the South, and holds the standard leftist opinion of the South – that it’s all a bunch of racists (which was arguably true back when Democrats owned the South). She didn’t wait for the arguments, she just threw out her own biases.
From earlier in the piece:
In an opinion this week, she harshly criticized a Texas prosecutor for a racist line of questioning.
From MSNBC, this strange sentence that identifies her ethnically and then goes on to criticize identifying people ethnically:
The country’s first Latina justice released a rare statement on Monday, ripping the Texas prosecutor for trying to “substitute racial stereotype for evidence and racial prejudice for reason.” …
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sam Ponder asked during the trial, “You’ve got African Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money…a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say ‘This is a drug deal?’”
“Assuming you accept her premise – and there’s some question about that – that some ethnic groups have changed since stereotypes about them were made, well, these people pretty much haven’t… Why would we vote in favor of a group of drug dealers who are the epitome of what caused this stereotype to begin with?” – Bizarro Sotomayor
She could be a bigot when it’s convenient, but like all leftists, it goes along with which is the acceptable ethnic group to despise in their constantly rotating revolution for social justice.
Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito tried to assist the Alabama county’s lawyer by offering some friendly hypotheticals, but Sotomayor wasn’t interested in hearing that.
Gee, what a great judge.
“The problem with those hypotheticals is obvious,” she said, because “it’s a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn its place on the list.”
“The problem with those hypotheticals about the blacks and Mexicans in a drug deal is obvious”, Bizarro Sotomayor said, because “it’s a real record as to what those people have done to earn their place.”
Sotomayor continued questioning as if she were the only jurist in the room. “Discrimination is discrimination,” she informed him, “and what Congress said is it continues.”
Moments later, Kagan pointed out that “Alabama has no black statewide elected officials” and has one of the worst records of voting rights violations.
That’s strange. I can find black state officials pretty quick – in fact, the first on the Alabama governor’s cabinet is. There are black state congressmen, but considering that there are only a handful of posts that might qualify as “statewide elected officials” – and I didn’t go through all of them to double check, that’s kind of an interesting barometer to judge a state as racist.
The whole piece details the interruptions and refusals to listen that come from “wise racist” Sotomayor and Kagan, while trying to tell us to begin with what an interrupting jerk Scalia is.
At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy tried to quiet her. “I would like to hear the answer to the question,” he said. The lawyer got out a few more sentences — and then Kagan broke in. …
But Scalia’s mouth was no longer the loudest in the room. When the Alabama county’s lawyer returned for his rebuttal, he managed to utter only five words — “Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice” — before Sotomayor broke in.
This is the leftist “Shut Up!” argument coupled with talking over people as a means to steamroll any opposition and ignore any discussion. This does not bode well for limited government or the Constitution.
“For black Americans, we know that gun control has ultimately been about people control. It sprouts from racist soil; be it after the, or during the infamous Dred Scott case where black man’s humanity was not recognized,” said Niger Innis, spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality at the press conference sponsored by the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.
Harry Alford, the president of the Black Chamber of Commerce, praised the National Rifle Association in his speech at the event.
“The National Rifle Association was started, founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect free slaves from the Ku Klux Klan,” said Alford.
“They would raise money, buy arms, show the free slaves how to use those arms and protect their families. God bless you. Many of us probably wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the NRA.”
Those who’ve never read it should take the time to read Clayton Cramer’s “The Racist Roots of Gun Control“. It’s a relatively short essay that really opens your eyes if you’ve never heard the arguments before.