• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Daily Show Ken Cuccinelli & Self Defense Insurance

bullseye

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
73
Location
Newport News, VA

The Daily Shows spoofs on Cuccinelli's Virginia Self Defense Law Insurance and others...

Tagline for the video is: "Jordan Klepper investigates a low-cost legal defense program intended to make shooting people more affordable for Americans. "

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/btf5ul/protecting-shooters-everywhere

Daily Press has an article at:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/poli...n-insurance-of-a-sort-20140430,0,6260431.post

[Mods: This might fit better in GD, but since the video focuses on the Cucch I posted here.]
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I don't have the snappy sound-bite off the top of my head just yet, but of course the REAL purpose for such services is to prevent the criminal from both killing or gravely injuring you and/or your loved ones, AND also prevent them from taking your freedom and ruining you financially after the fact just for spite.

TFred
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I don't have the snappy sound-bite off the top of my head just yet, but of course the REAL purpose for such services is to prevent the criminal from both killing or gravely injuring you and/or your loved ones, AND also prevent them from taking your freedom and ruining you financially after the fact just for spite.

TFred

And to make you buy insurance to own and possess a gun ....
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
And to make you buy insurance to own and possess a gun ....
No, I don't see any ill-motive in the business. They certainly did not have any intent to require you to purchase their services before you buy and possess a gun. We may or may not like the proprietors or their business model, but it is a good service they provide, needed because of certain anti-gun / anti-self-defense factions that you may or may not encounter within the legal system, should you one day be forced to defend yourself.

TFred
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
No, I don't see any ill-motive in the business. They certainly did not have any intent to require you to purchase their services before you buy and possess a gun. We may or may not like the proprietors or their business model, but it is a good service they provide, needed because of certain anti-gun / anti-self-defense factions that you may or may not encounter within the legal system, should you one day be forced to defend yourself.

TFred

I think you need to investigate this issue further ... the idea of requiring insurance for gun owners actually comes from Japan ... and the antis have been banging the drums for this as it adds a huge cost to gun ownership.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I think you need to investigate this issue further ... the idea of requiring insurance for gun owners actually comes from Japan ... and the antis have been banging the drums for this as it adds a huge cost to gun ownership.
Mandatory insurance for gun owners is another nail in the antis crucifixion kit.

Don't see it gaining any real traction - don't think it will happen. Still we must remain vigilant.

Back when dirt was still young, I had a million dollar liability policy that would protect me to the degree that the Homestead Exemption Act would have otherwise accomplished.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I think you need to investigate this issue further ... the idea of requiring insurance for gun owners actually comes from Japan ... and the antis have been banging the drums for this as it adds a huge cost to gun ownership.
It really is impossible to carry on a cogent conversation with you. I'm done here. :banghead:

TFred
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I have noticed that the entity involved has stopped using my name and has stopped saying they're the first defense oriented firm in the Commonwealth, for which I commend them. I still think there are problems with their approach, which I believe was originated by Dennis F. - he discussed his idea with me a couple of years ago, and I told him I couldn't go in on it because it would be both illegal and unethical to do so. I believe he discussed it with the subject individuals as well after I said "no", and they apparently took the ball and ran with it. I'm of the opinion that it can't possibly work as advertised. It could well be profitable if one has millions of subscribers and only has to actually defend a few, particularly if one plans to do plea-bargains instead of trials, but the practice of law is supposed to be a profession, not a business model. When you're defending other people's lives and property, I think that you have to take that responsibility seriously.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
It really is impossible to carry on a cogent conversation with you. I'm done here. :banghead:

TFred

Just because you have not fully investigated this issue as I have don't blame me for your ignorance. I suggested you learn more about it but no, you just bang your head like a child.

I say NO to liability for gun owners insurance...

Its the devil in disguise. One available, it will be made mandatory. For the children.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
LOL There never has been one with it. (At least not that I have seen on this board)

I don't even bother to reply to it anymore.

It really doesn't Taz. Have you noticed he's getting more wild eyed like Leo229?
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Wow, free advertising

Oh look, free advertising ... courtesy(?) Ryan Nobles:

Cuccinelli's new gun rights firm promises protection; draws criticism

Ken actually comments on the Henrico brandishing case ...

" ... and his conviction was upheld on appeal."

So, Ken appears to be presenting himself as some kind of Knight in Shining Armor -- on a retainer. After all, gun owners are exposed to a "legal risk" that is "accelerating" and gun owners could benefit from his brand of insurance.

No comments on what he did in the GMU case. All is forgiven?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Oh look, free advertising ... courtesy(?) Ryan Nobles:

Cuccinelli's new gun rights firm promises protection; draws criticism

Ken actually comments on the Henrico brandishing case ...

" ... and his conviction was upheld on appeal."

So, Ken appears to be presenting himself as some kind of Knight in Shining Armor -- on a retainer. After all, gun owners are exposed to a "legal risk" that is "accelerating" and gun owners could benefit from his brand of insurance.

No comments on what he did in the GMU case. All is forgiven?

I'm pretty annoyed with Ken. User is indeed a knight in shining armor even if it is camoed a little :lol:.....and they try to siphon the good will he's built up.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Oh look, free advertising ... courtesy(?) Ryan Nobles:

Cuccinelli's new gun rights firm promises protection; draws criticism

Ken actually comments on the Henrico brandishing case ...

" ... and his conviction was upheld on appeal."

So, Ken appears to be presenting himself as some kind of Knight in Shining Armor -- on a retainer. After all, gun owners are exposed to a "legal risk" that is "accelerating" and gun owners could benefit from his brand of insurance.

No comments on what he did in the GMU case. All is forgiven?

Also no comment on exactly what he did in the Henrico Scouser brandishing case (exactly nothing). Oh, and btw, Scouser paid very little in attorneys' fees if I recall correctly, though lots of folks took up a collection to help out with that; and the case is still on appeal.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Also no comment on exactly what he did in the Henrico Scouser brandishing case (exactly nothing). Oh, and btw, Scouser paid very little in attorneys' fees if I recall correctly, though lots of folks took up a collection to help out with that; and the case is still on appeal.

That specific issue has come up in conversation.

Would you (User) accept him as co-counsel on one of your cases?

Notice we are not even discussing if he would accept you as co-counsel, as his "retainer agreement" clearly says it is for exclusive representation.

For the record, I am disappointed in the outcome of the GMU case, but not with what Cuccinelli did as Attorney General. In his official capacity he determined that the GMU rule was valid and constitutional, and thus that he had a duty to defend it. To the best of his ability. Against a pro se plaintiff who was repeatedly counseled and warned that the argument he framed was not the "most elegant" way of addressing the issue. He could have determined otherwise, but he did not.

stay safe.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
...the practice of law is supposed to be a profession, not a business model. When you're defending other people's lives and property, I think that you have to take that responsibility seriously.

I agree.

Of course, one wonders exactly how professional litigators fit into that picture at all...

:p

(Disclaimer: I do tend to favor a reduction in the perceived necessity for lawyers and the baggage – and expense – they carry with them. That being said, in the real world today I think defense attorneys are about the least offensive – sometimes even heroic – aspect of our criminal justice system.)
 
Last edited:
Top