So you’re ok with people buying guns as long as they only buy one?
I guess you would know better than the jury…
Threats? On a prominent black radical activist? Besides, she had about half a dozen FBI agents with her every day.
Angela Davis is one of my heroes.
Not only was she the only black woman senator, but she was the second black senator elected since Reconstruction and the second black senator elected by popular vote. (The third in each of those categories being Barack Obama.) That’s hardly a trivial accomplishment for Carol Moseley Braun.
As usual, you are.
To be fair, the jury was answering the question, “Is there any reasonable doubt that Ms. Davis was involved in a conspiracy to commit a felony,” and they answered ‘Yes.’ Magellan01, on the other hand, seems to only be saying that it is more likely than not that she was involved. Those can both be simultaneously true.
Do not make me defend magellan01 again. kthxbye.
Huh, so your problem is that she exercised the second amendment rights you apparently don’t think she should have (or at least, she shouldn’t exercise this right too often) just in time to ensure her own name would be attached to the guns used to commit a crime.
Yes, this explanation is totally plausible and not at all ridiculously stupid.
Heavens, you really are a dumb one. I’ve made zero argument against her being able to buy a gun—or guns. She could buy 50 of them for all I care. What the hell are you talking about?
I want to add that I too believe that magellan01 is a racist shit stain on the underpants of humanity. From the article it is clear that the jury not only believed that Davis did not participate in the crime, there is no evidence to indicate that she did besides having the guns stolen from her, making her a victim of a crime.
But one comes to expect so little reason from the racist magellan01 that I long ago put it on my ignore list.
Originally posted by magellan01, ad nauseum: OMG! Negroes!
My dad was neither a Communist nor Black, but in the 60’s he did do legal paperwork for Black guys who were being denied bail, and he stood as a proxy buyer for Black home buyers in redlined neighborhoods. And he was an avid gun collector, and at parties/duscussion gatherings at our hous he’d show the guests his collection and expound on their 2nd Ammendment rights.
One night when my mom was still at work, a white woman knocked on the back door, saying she was being chased. When my dad opened it, a shotgun barrel was put to his head. Other than the woman, he never saw intruders before he was blindfolded and bound with wire, and they never spoke. They pulled into our vacant garage and loaded all his guns into thier vehicle. Then they dropped him off out in the country to make his way back home.
He assumed it was the Panthers, but it coud have been the local cops getting his guns before they fell into the wrong hands*. But the point of my story is that there were some really harcore, bad-ass, prison-hardened Black guys in the Panthers, and then there were a lot of well-intentioned people on the edges. Some of the latter were made stooges or victims. But it wasn’t some tightly-organized conspiracy with everybody in on everything.
*the true villan was Allstate insurance, which denied his claim on his homeowner’s insurance.
It’s worse than simple fear, which is at least an honest response; it’s “concern.”
How will the great, majestic black race—who I know have so much potential—ever live up to the standards I’ve set for them if they keep doing X and admiring Y and voting for Z? Mind you, this isn’t about me… yes, I’m filled with angst and simply want to help them succeed… ah well, such is my burden!
Sure does sound like an argument.
CMC fnord!
I think you’re overstepping. She probably was guilty as hell, but juries aren’t supposed to convict people on “probably” being guilty.
Anyway, that was a vastly different time in America.
[QUOTE=Miller]
You actually find that explanation more sensible than, “she was innocent?”
[/QUOTE]
But Miller’s question to the OP wasn’t “You think ‘she did it but the evidence failed to meet the reasonable doubt standard’ is more sensible than ‘she was innocent’?”
Instead, it was “You think a conspiracy to pack the jury with liberal extremists (evidence presented for said packing consisting of one juror who later shacked up with a radical) is more sensible than ‘she was innocent’?”
I really don’t get the response to this thread. Angela Davis might not actually be guilty of being an accomplice to a kidnapping and so on, but she’s still a pretty odd choice to be honored in a federal courtroom.
I found that somewhat odd too.
magellan, why do you hate black people so much?
Try rereading the exchange. Let me state unequivocally that Davis or any other person otherwise barred from being able to buy guns had/has the right to buy as many guns as she or he chooses. My point about her buying a gun when she already had guns, was to counter the argument that she needed to buy another gun(s) in order to protect herself. That doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have bought them, just that since she already had multiple guns, she didn’t need to buy more to protect herself. So, the explanation that “I needed them because their were threats on my life” is hollow.
What gives you that idea? Please be specific.