The View: Week of 7/19/2021

[statsgirl]

Sunny referred to Carol Anderson's book The Second which is a book everyone who talks about the second amendment should read.  From an interview with her (the whole thing is worth reading)

Quote

MG: How afraid were white people in I mean, we're looking at seventeen hundreds of of a revolution, of a black revolution. How concerned were people about that?

CAROL ANDERSON: Absolutely. They were terrified. They were terrified. And this is why you see an array of laws being passed dealing with denying access to weapons to the black population, including free blacks. You also see the architecture of slave control coming up with slave patrols, which were the smaller units designed to to monitor and to go into the slave cabins to to look for contraband like books, like weapons, like writing instruments. And and then you have the militia who which was designed to really be there to put down a massive slave revolt like it happened in 1739 in stone of South Carolina with the Stonewall Rebellion.

MG: What was happening there?

CAROL ANDERSON: Oh, that is when there was a massive slave revolt and up to 60 people were killed and it was the enslaved were trying to get to freedom in Spanish Florida because Florida did not have slavery. And so they were trying to get to Florida and and the alarm bells rang in the midst of. This revolt, because the law said that every white man had to have a gun and it was on a Sunday morning, and on that Sunday, the men had their guns in church and they took their guns and began to hunt down the the the enslaved who were trying to get to Florida. As I said, about 60 people were killed, 20 whites and 40 African-Americans. And the the response was just horrific. Violence rained down, beheadings, disembowelling the way to to send terror through the black population. This is what will happen to you if you demand freedom. They also passed laws saying that if you caught somebody, an enslaved person trying to get to Florida, you could scalp them. Then they passed the 1740 Negro Act, which defined African descended people as absolute slaves for those who are here and those not yet born. And then it said the things that they could not do, they could not have literacy, they could not move around freely, and they could not have access to guns post slavery.

MG: You write that the push to disarm black people has also been relentless and that that the concern around access to guns for African-Americans who were free was also a huge problem. Tell me a bit about what happened post slavery and how guns were kept out of the hands of black Americans.

CAROL ANDERSON: Post slavery, you had the thing called the black codes. The black codes were instituted by what I call these neo Confederate governments. And these were the members of the Confederacy, the groups that had attacked the United States in this and launched the Civil War. And President Andrew Johnson gave them amnesty. With that they then got control over their governments again and passed these black codes and these black codes just said, one, it was about the control of black labour, but it also said that it was about disarmament. Black people could not have got guns and black people had the guns from the war. And so you had the rise of these paramilitary groups, the and these militia groups and these domestic terrorist groups that went out working in league with these governments to disarm black people. It was a slaughter. Historian Annette Gordon Reed calls it a slow motion genocide, what was happening in the south to black people. And you had the the black troops from the union as an occupying force trying to get in between these paramilitary groups and and the freed people.

MG: What would it have meant for more African-Americans to be able to get guns? I mean, part of it is self-defence, I suppose. But but beyond that, what would it have meant if they were able to have access to the same rights when it came to the Second Amendment as white Americans?

CAROL ANDERSON: It would have meant - and I think the best way to understand this is to go back to the 1857 Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that decision, it was about whether an enslaved person could become free by living on free soil, by living in a non slave state. And Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote in that decision that black people have never been citizens. They weren't citizens at the founding. They weren't citizens because they couldn't get passports. They weren't citizens because they couldn't carry the mail and he said if they were citizens, they would be able to move from state to state freely and they would be able to carry guns wherever they wished. The black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect.

Meghan, crime is going down in America except for homicides and that is because of the rising number of guns.  Glad you're feeling safe though.

[ifionlyknew]

Meghan said she doesn't want lectured to by people who don't own guns because they don't understand.

OK Meghan how about you don't lecture to women having unwanted pregnancies because you don't understand.

 

I checked out Meghan's story about the priest and a hit and run accident. She was telling the truth. But she neglected to mention that shortly before that he admitted to sheltering abusive priests. Real nice guy.

Edited July 23, 2021 by ifionlyknew

[bannana]

After blathering on and making little to no sense about crime and shootings, MeAgain ended her diatribe with:

Quote

The second amendment is the cornerstone of who I am and what I believe America should be.

WTAF does that mean?

[TheGreenKnight]

3 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Meghan said she doesn't want lectured to by people who don't own guns because they don't understand.

OK Meghan how about you don't lecture to women having unwanted pregnancies because you don't understand.

It's funny because she's very passionate on that subject and loves to lecture, but doesn't comprehend why people who don't own guns would be passionate about gun violence.

[ifionlyknew]

18 minutes ago, bannana said:

WTAF does that mean?

I think that is a hill she has chosen to die on.  Her allegiance to the Second Amendment is scary.  To quote Charlton Heston I really do think she thinks they will have to pry her guns out of her cold dead hands.  

She once mocked Joy for being concerned about climate change saying something like that wasn't even in her top 20 (?) issues that she cared about.  But guns are her top priority. To say she is fucked up is an understatement.

[Haleth]

1 hour ago, KittyQ said:

The 2nd Amendment was based on protection of slavery? The colonists worried more about protecting slavery than the possibility that external forces (or even the new government) would use force against an unarmed (and hence, an unprotected) population? 

Yeah, that was a head scratcher. Thanks for the additional info, After7. 

[RealHousewife]

2 hours ago, Rainyhawk said:

And I understand he had family who died in the Holocaust, so I think he knows a little something about real anti-semitism!  I'm not sure where her Jewish defense thing comes from other than a couple of friends (of course well known 'friends')?  

Meghan has some nerve. Not too long ago she got extremely worked up over a black senator being called an "Uncle Tom." Now she thinks it's appropriate to call Jewish people anti-Semitic. 

2 hours ago, Rainyhawk said:

I'm Jewish and I do know that many conservative Christian sects support Israel as they need it to be there for the final days and the rapture, not because of the Jewish people because the rapture sure doesn't include Jews!

Yep, this is a big part of it. 

1 hour ago, After7Only said:

MM asks a Jewish woman telling her personal story of what happened to her in a very specific sect of the Jewish religion if she was concerned she is encouraging hate crimes towards all Jews?..... 

When she has repeatedly made statements lumping all Muslims together as being repressive towards women.  

Right. This is another factor. There are many people who don't really care for the Jewish community, they just prefer them to Muslims. Meghan's got no problem lumping Muslims together and calling out regimes of Muslim countries all sorts of names, but she screams anti-Semitism if someone has a different opinion or isn't as outspoken as she is on Israel.

Meghan is not a genuine ally of any minority or anyone oppressed. It's all politics with her, all the time. Those of us who genuinely care take up for EVERYBODY-Jews, Muslims, black community and other people of color, LGBT+. Megan cares about what's trendy and what scores political points. 

[Rightside]

Why does Sunny need an au pair? She doesn't have little kids!

Au pairs can only legally stay in the US for one year, I think.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Rightside

[Rainyhawk]

3 hours ago, After7Only said:

MM asks a Jewish woman telling her personal story of what happened to her in a very specific sect of the Jewish religion if she was concerned she is encouraging hate crimes towards all Jews?..... 

When she has repeatedly made statements lumping all Muslims together as being repressive towards women.  

 

Her “betrayal” of her community?  Really Meghan?  And what makes you think she doesn’t identify as Jewish any longer?  Good lord she’s so dense!!!  Thinks she’s an expert because she has a Jewish “friend”.  

[Pearson80]

 Never mind

Edited July 23, 2021 by Pearson80

[JAYJAY1979]

On 7/22/2021 at 1:59 PM, bannana said:

Catt Sadler explained to MeAgain for the 1,000th time, that getting vaccinated is important and it means you won't die, even if you can get sick. MeAgain still didn't get it, I presume.

Catt also explained that her son was vaccine hesitant because of misinformation. And she said that misinformation is leading to people dying.

MeAgain managed to say that people are blaming Repubs. She also said that now she's worried, and before she was fine and talked about her trip to a casino (but she didn't admit that she caught a cold there!).

This article is about Catt, nothing about MeAgain.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/catt-sadler-issues-warning-on-the-view-after-breakthrough-covid-diagnosis-delta-is-relentless/ar-AAMrz44?ocid=BingNewsSearch

I think Catt got it somewhat worse because she was focusing on taking care of her son, worried about her child and not making sure she was getting rest,etc.

Vaccines are only 1 layer of protection, but you have to learn to take care of oneself or else your immune system won't be firing on all cylinders even with the vaccine.

Meghan is just Meghan..and she'll always be this way.  When is she leaving again?

[RealHousewife]

11 minutes ago, JAYJAY1979 said:

I think Catt got it somewhat worse because she was focusing on taking care of her son, worried about her child and not making sure she was getting rest,etc.

Vaccines are only 1 layer of protection, but you have to learn to take care of oneself or else your immune system won't be firing on all cylinders even with the vaccine.

Meghan is just Meghan..and she'll always be this way.  When is she leaving again?

Five more shows, right?

[bannana]

10 hours ago, Rightside said:

Why does Sunny need an au pair? She doesn't have little kids!

I don't know why, but at least she is honest, unlike MeAgain, who probably has three au pairs.

9 hours ago, Rainyhawk said:

Her “betrayal” of her community?  Really Meghan?  And what makes you think she doesn’t identify as Jewish any longer?  Good lord she’s so dense!!!  Thinks she’s an expert because she has a Jewish “friend”.  

Once again, MeAgain, who is not Jewish, goes after Jewish people to offend them. This woman was very clear that her message was that women and men should have the same rights and opportunities. Her upbringing prevented that from happening and she rebelled. Guess what, that is the history of the world for women. But MeAgain focuses on the woman "betraying" her Jewish community and causing anti-semitic hate crimes.

She is vile and offensive and just plain stupid. Here is a woman who escapes oppression and MeAgain somehow makes her the bad guy. I wonder if she would have the same comments on Muslim women, or LDS women who escape oppressors.

[deirdra]

Sunny may have an au pair to help with her mother who lives with her, and her father if he is still visiting.  If they no longer drive (and Paloma is 15?) and Sunny is not there 24/7, she may need someone to help drive them places, clean house & help with cooking.

[WinnieWinkle]

15 may be getting up there with regard to having an au pair but most of the people I know who had live in help for their kids (not many!!) had them until the kids were at least 12 or so.  Personally for me it was the teen years where I could have really used the extra help!

[TheGreenKnight]

9 hours ago, bannana said:

She is vile and offensive and just plain stupid.

I've always thought McCain was part Elisabeth as far as being a party shill and part Raven Symone, who was dumb as a box of rocks and bratty to boot. It's the latter that I really can't stand.

[ifionlyknew]

22 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

I've always thought McCain was part Elisabeth as far as being a party shill and part Raven Symone, who was dumb as a box of rocks and bratty to boot. It's the latter that I really can't stand.

I think Meghan is more calculating.   She knows the shit she stirs up with what she says.  Calling the Democratic party the party of infanticide.   Continuing to paint the Squad as radicals

I think she thinks of herself as a provocateur but in reality is a wannabe shock jock.

[Sue in her 60s]

22 hours ago, KittyQ said:

The 2nd Amendment was based on protection of slavery? The colonists worried more about protecting slavery than the possibility that external forces (or even the new government) would use force against an unarmed (and hence, an unprotected) population? 

Sunny is right. It seems that Patrick Henry, then-governor of Virginia, which was a slave state, was worried that the federal government would weaken the state militias that slave states used to put down slave revolts, so he threatened to vote against the proposed Constitution if there wasn't protection for armed militias.

[KittyQ]

1 hour ago, Sue in her 60s said:

Sunny is right. It seems that Patrick Henry, then-governor of Virginia, which was a slave state, was worried that the federal government would weaken the state militias that slave states used to put down slave revolts, so he threatened to vote against the proposed Constitution if there wasn't protection for armed militias.

*Disclaimer: I'm not an historian* This is an interesting topic which has made me do some reading and learn more about our history.

What I found was this: For the Constitution to be ratified, 9 of the original 13 states had to agree to it. It seems that there was much discussion and difference of opinion between the states about what powers the federal government would have vs. what powers the states would retain. It seems most likely that each state had its own motivations for wanting to restrict the power of the federal government. While Virginia didn't end up being the deciding vote for ratification of the Constitution (it turns out that New Hampshire's ratification was the 9th and last one required), they did bargain that a list of amendments should be addressed as the next step post-ratification, and even provided some suggested amendments, including one that looks to be a precursor to the 2nd Amendment. I would guess that since the Constitution was officially ratified before Virginia signed on, the Constitutional Convention could have ignored Virginia's concerns, but flat out ignoring any of the original 13 states' issues would be a bad way to start off the "United States".

So, while Virginia (and other states) could have seen such an amendment as a way to protect how their militias were used, there doesn't seem to be a guarantee that their list of suggested amendments would end up being used, or used in the same form.  Other states also proposed various amendments to be considered, so Virginia wasn't the only state to say that they wanted some additional rights to be added onto the Constitution.

This is the long way around to say that Sunny's statement has some validity because how the states chose to use their militias would be out of scope of the federal government. So if some states used their militias to quell slave rebellions, that use could be "protected" by the 2nd Amendment, but it seems like an over statement to say that protection of slavery alone was the reason for the amendment.

[deirdra]

7 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

15 may be getting up there with regard to having an au pair but most of the people I know who had live in help for their kids (not many!!) had them until the kids were at least 12 or so.  

I was thinking more about rides to and from school, music lessons, sporting events, etc., when a young teen cannot drive herself and her parents work full time. And cleaning and ironing the private school uniforms.

[Sue in her 60s]

2 hours ago, KittyQ said:

*Disclaimer: I'm not an historian* This is an interesting topic which has made me do some reading and learn more about our history.

<snip>

2 hours ago, KittyQ said:

This is the long way around to say that Sunny's statement has some validity because how the states chose to use their militias would be out of scope of the federal government. So if some states used their militias to quell slave rebellions, that use could be "protected" by the 2nd Amendment, but it seems like an over statement to say that protection of slavery alone was the reason for the amendment.

I think that's a fair assessment, KittyQ. I'm going to get the book from the library to see if I can gather more context.

[deirdra]

8 hours ago, Sue in her 60s said:

Sunny is right. It seems that Patrick Henry, then-governor of Virginia, which was a slave state, was worried that the federal government would weaken the state militias that slave states used to put down slave revolts, so he threatened to vote against the proposed Constitution if there wasn't protection for armed militias.

What Sunny says is true for Virginia and the South, but there were many more reasons for the Second Amendment.  The South was also fighting off French and Spanish invaders.  The North (and MD & VA) had been fighting a lot of battles during the French and Indian War (1754-1763), American Revolution (1775-1783, which wasn't tied up neatly when Independence was declared in 1776, it had to be defended).  With a huge landmass with long land, ocean, lake and river borders, but low populations, they needed an armed civilian militia ready to go whenever and wherever a skirmish arose. Once the Second Amendment passed in 1791, this prepared them to fight the War of 1812-1815. Canada had many civilian militias from 1605-1866; my forebears (farm boys up to men in their 70s) signed up for their local Regiments in 1754 and were each given their personal musket by the government.  With the length of time it took to get messages back and forth to the government to get permission to fight, farmers & local militia needed the autonomy to make the decision to defend themselves. The idea of using many small militia units instead of armies of men marching in neat rows like fish in a barrel was learned from the Indians.

Edited July 25, 2021 by deirdra

[tinkerbell]

18 hours ago, deirdra said:

I was thinking more about rides to and from school, music lessons, sporting events, etc., when a young teen cannot drive herself and her parents work full time. And cleaning and ironing the private school uniforms.

I know a family who has an au pair even with kids in high school. Its a way to have an adult at home to check on the kids after school, to not leave kids unsupervised. 

[RealHousewife]

On 7/24/2021 at 8:56 AM, ifionlyknew said:

I think Meghan is more calculating.   She knows the shit she stirs up with what she says.  Calling the Democratic party the party of infanticide.   Continuing to paint the Squad as radicals

I think she thinks of herself as a provocateur but in reality is a wannabe shock jock.

She's said she's a huge Howard Stern fan so . . . 

[Haleth]

She’s calculating but doesn’t have an original thought. Everything is a Rep talking point.