• 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.

User insights

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
While not an OC issue.....we certainly get a lot of insight from User over firearm cases and in fact, he did give his opinion of the McDonnell case before he was even charged. So it should be worth mentioning here again

The interesting thing is that many legal scholars with a lot of the alphabet behind their names are just now saying essentially the same thing Dan did in the beginning and that they think the decision will be overturned on appeal.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
While not an OC issue.....we certainly get a lot of insight from User over firearm cases and in fact, he did give his opinion of the McDonnell case before he was even charged. So it should be worth mentioning here again

The interesting thing is that many legal scholars with a lot of the alphabet behind their names are just now saying essentially the same thing Dan did in the beginning and that they think the decision will be overturned on appeal.
It has much to do with politics and the battle for gun rights in the Commonwealth.

User has been spot on with his analysis and prediction.

Don't think the Damnocrats/antis cared whether McDonnell was convicted or not - only that he was removed as a viable national figure. That they did accomplish and I do not see McD as being able to recover that.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
And in a manifestation of the Weapons Grade Hypocrisy prevalent among the Democrats, even though it appears that HRH Hillary committed FAR more tangible incidents of selling the influence of the Office of Secretary of State for cold hard cash, I don't think anyone would be willing to give odds that she'll ever be investigated, much less indicted, tried, or convicted.

Our world is completely upside down right now.

TFred
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
And in a manifestation of the Weapons Grade Hypocrisy prevalent among the Democrats, even though it appears that HRH Hillary committed FAR more tangible incidents of selling the influence of the Office of Secretary of State for cold hard cash, I don't think anyone would be willing to give odds that she'll ever be investigated, much less indicted, tried, or convicted.

Our world is completely upside down right now.

TFred

Only if a fella has been sucked in by the lies of the rulers: we're here to protect society, etc., etc., etc.

One of our current members has a great signature line. He says in effect that the system isn't dysfunctional; it is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

The prosecution of McDonnell has scary parallels to the ancient Roman republic--before the empire. In the final ten or twenty years of the republic, politicians went after each other with criminal charges (for political reasons).
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
And in a manifestation of the Weapons Grade Hypocrisy prevalent among the Democrats, even though it appears that HRH Hillary committed FAR more tangible incidents of selling the influence of the Office of Secretary of State for cold hard cash, I don't think anyone would be willing to give odds that she'll ever be investigated, much less indicted, tried, or convicted.

Our world is completely upside down right now.

TFred

Spot on with this. They usually don't eat their own unless their own turns from them and decides to march to an opposing drum.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I was talking to a guy recently, a "young fella", who doesn't remember the world prior to 1968, and I became convinced that civilization is gone. The reason I thought that was his attitude towards law and the state. It used to be a point of honor to be a law-abiding citizen who saw himself as a stockholder, a participant. Now, it's an adversarial relationship - this guy's attitude is that he's going to decide whether or not to obey any particular law, and it's only a matter of whether he can get away with it. He thinks the State is a monolithic entity "out there" that has no real relationship to himself. I formed the opinion that those of use who are old enough to remember the last vestiges of civilization "get real" in our thinking. I don't know if it's all the immigration from all these foreigners (people from New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc.) or if it's just too many people, period. But attempting to preserve civilization at this point is the dream of a romantic idealist, I think.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
IMHO that is the failure of the rulers not the ruled.
When rules are implement without justification to the point they are nearly arbitrary it's pretty hard to respect them just for being "rules".
I share your "young fella's" attitude.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The fault goes to both. Rulers that are always encroaching upon the power of the people, and the apathy of the people who do not understand the significance, value, or the cost of this unique form of government.

TFred
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I was talking to a guy recently, a "young fella", who doesn't remember the world prior to 1968, and I became convinced that civilization is gone. The reason I thought that was his attitude towards law and the state. It used to be a point of honor to be a law-abiding citizen who saw himself as a stockholder, a participant. Now, it's an adversarial relationship - this guy's attitude is that he's going to decide whether or not to obey any particular law, and it's only a matter of whether he can get away with it. He thinks the State is a monolithic entity "out there" that has no real relationship to himself. I formed the opinion that those of use who are old enough to remember the last vestiges of civilization "get real" in our thinking. I don't know if it's all the immigration from all these foreigners (people from New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc.) or if it's just too many people, period. But attempting to preserve civilization at this point is the dream of a romantic idealist, I think.

Funny you and Twoskins mention your points; just today I was learning about the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. We're only a couple weeks away from the anniversary.

The short story: Fourteen year-old Richard II was king of England. His hated advisers were Archbishop of Canterbury Sudbury, and The Lord High Treasurer Hales. The feudal system still existed. You were almost owned by the lord of the manor. The Hundred Years War with France was very expensive. New taxes were laid. It was hated. Lots of people dodged it. The government noticed the balance sheets look a bit short. Sudbury and Hales sent tax commissioners across the country to collect. The commissioners were highly abusive.

Finally, the people had had it! Within just a few days large swathes of countryside rose up in rebellion. Tax commissioners were beheaded. Thousands of peasants marched on London. The professional army being in France, the peasants almost succeeded. Archbishop Sudbury was beheaded (eight chops to complete), and Hales, too, by the rebels.

The people rose up because they were not participants in system; the system treated them quite badly. The government and the owners of the economic system were their adversaries, sucking life, produce, and opportunity out of them. No wonder they felt an adversarial relationship.


Couple interesting historical notes.

The man who started the rebellion Thomas the Baker, was caught, hanged, drawn, and quartered on July 4.

This one is for User especially. One of the rebels, Thomas Wooten, denied his involvement, and opted for trial by combat. (He lost). So, trial by combat was still available as late as 1381 even though Henry II had started the jury system in the second half of the 1100's.*


*When I say started the jury system, I mean planted the seed. Wanting to extend his royal power, he sent royal judges into the countryside. The judges would order the local shire reeve (sheriff) to find 12 good men and true. These men, the beginnings of a jury, told the judge what they knew of the case, rather than heard testimony themselves.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I was talking to a guy recently, a "young fella", who doesn't remember the world prior to 1968, and I became convinced that civilization is gone. The reason I thought that was his attitude towards law and the state. It used to be a point of honor to be a law-abiding citizen who saw himself as a stockholder, a participant. Now, it's an adversarial relationship - this guy's attitude is that he's going to decide whether or not to obey any particular law, and it's only a matter of whether he can get away with it. He thinks the State is a monolithic entity "out there" that has no real relationship to himself. I formed the opinion that those of use who are old enough to remember the last vestiges of civilization "get real" in our thinking. I don't know if it's all the immigration from all these foreigners (people from New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc.) or if it's just too many people, period. But attempting to preserve civilization at this point is the dream of a romantic idealist, I think.

There's a very difficult balance to be maintained Dan.
Yes, I well remember pre 68 and there are some good memories, but also some of the lawlessness. CWPS were impossible to get most places but otherwise law abiding citizens still carried. There wasn't a high tech witch hunt for them either. Coffee was a quarter with free refills and that's gone also.
While many of us here try to change bad laws within the system...some are written in stone and virtually impossible to obey. They're nothing but a hidden land mine waiting to be stepped on.
Many LEO'S actually prefer the adversiall approach which requires an equal response or complete surrender.
I can understand how younger people feel the way they do.

The times they are a changing...and I think for the worse.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The fault goes to both. Rulers that are always encroaching upon the power of the people, and the apathy of the people who do not understand the significance, value, or the cost of this unique form of government.

TFred

I used to feel the same way.

Then I realized I don't have to object or take counter-action to deserve to be left alone or to not deserve being treated the nasty, threatening, expropriating, over-regulating way government treats others and I.

Probably some readers have seen me take issue with the attitude, "if you don't vote, you've no right to complain." In the same vein, I point out that there is a 1A right to petition for redress of grievances (complaints), and the Bill of Rights is not limited to voters. Its really the same idea, just targeted to a specific right.

As given in the Declaration of Independence: "...To secure these [inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The only legitimate reason for government to exist at all is to secure our rights. We deserve a government that adheres to those limitations.

If a fella feels apathetic about being able to influence meaningful change, I don't fault him. He's up against an entrenched group of highly intelligent shifty people who will use every trick in the book to maintain themselves in power and/or their grip on his economic throat.
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
[snip] ...
If a fella feels apathetic about being able to influence meaningful change, I don't fault him. He's up against an entrenched group of highly intelligent shifty people who will use every trick in the book to maintain themselves in power and/or their grip on his economic throat.

Driving along Rt 54 between Ashland and Montpelier there is one of those yellow Tea Party signs .. it says "Never underestimate the stupidity of people who's only goal is to get re-elected"
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I used to feel the same way.


Probably some readers have seen me take issue with the attitude, "if you don't vote, you've no right to complain." In the same vein, I point out that there is a 1A right to petition for redress of grievances (complaints), and the Bill of Rights is not limited to voters. Its really the same idea, just targeted to a specific right.

.

I'm guessing that you never figured out the difference between petitioning for the redress of grievances and the unearned privilege to biotch about who won an election and brought certain policies into office with them.

Just as I'm guessing that many of those that utter the "If you didn't vote ...." phrase do not understand the difference.

Vote and you can whinge about your guy not getting elected. Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over. The guy(s) that got elected do something official that is illegal, immoral, fattening, or unconstitutional and you have a right to seek redress of your grievance about that.

stay safe.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over.

In your mind, prior to the 19th amendment, women didn't count, huh?

What about those who go into combat and the draft (when it was happening), who had to fight but were too young to vote?

Of course we have ballot box stuffing, voting fraud, and the like.

So buy into a flawed system or shut up?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
In your mind, prior to the 19th amendment, women didn't count, huh?

What about those who go into combat and the draft (when it was happening), who had to fight but were too young to vote?

Of course we have ballot box stuffing, voting fraud, and the like.

So buy into a flawed system or shut up?

I would pay good money to ride the thought process that brought you to the above. The leaps leaped and hoops jumped through, by themselves, ought to be amazing. But the totality of the spectacle? It's got to be better than a 3-ring circus running all the acts simultaneously in the center ring.

But in answer to your question - officially, legally, women did not count. Were you laboring under some impression that one fine morning all the men who could vote just upped and said "Hey, why don't we let women vote too?" because before that fine morning the men who could vote had never considered the issue and when they did that fine morning they all realized it was unfair and set about that very fine morning to remedy the situation?

Here in the United States of America voting is a right reserved for adults (now that the pesky 19th Amendment has been dealt with). Adulthood is a legal concept. Just as men who could vote woke up and decided to give (yes, give!) women the franchise one fine afternoon all the men and women who could vote must have suddenly realized that children (anybody not an adult is a child, right?) should not be sent off to war without having some voice in that, so they upped and lowered the voting age to 18 - but kept the age for drinking anything more than weak beer, or purchasing cigarettes by themself, to 21.

And speaking of voter fraud and bakllot box stuffing, along with giving children the vote - have you looked at the two most recent national elections in Scotland where they allowed anybody 13 or older to vote? Some folks (me included) suggest that the results illustrate why the right to vote should only be conferred on adults. Full disclosure - personally I believe that having lived to the age of 21 does not make one an adult and therefore eligible to vote. I would like to require an anti-stupid test, but realize tat with the apparent majority of voters falling into what I would consider as stupid they would turn that around on me and I would be disenfranchised. So I settle for the best of all possible worlds as opposed to demanding the best world.

While you are pondering that, I am going to be asking my Congressman and Senators to introduce a new law - bucosal battery - the unwanted putting of words into one's mouth. It's going to be a felony with a mandatory punishment of being voted off the island.

:-*
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
1. I'm guessing that you never figured out the difference between petitioning for the redress of grievances and the unearned privilege to biotch about who won an election and brought certain policies into office with them.

Just as I'm guessing that many of those that utter the "If you didn't vote ...." phrase do not understand the difference.

2. Vote and you can whinge about your guy not getting elected. Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over. The guy(s) that got elected do something official that is illegal, immoral, fattening, or unconstitutional and you have a right to seek redress of your grievance about that.

stay safe.


1. Ummm. Yes, I did figure out the difference (your word). The enumerated right derives from the fundamental human right to complain/object. One could not possibly have a right to petition without first having the right to complain/object. Of course, it is fallacious reasoning to turn part of a fundamental human right into an "earned privilege."


2. Claiming I did not have a dog in the fight arbitrarily circumscribes the argument. I certainly did have a dog in the fight: me. And, my family, and my friends, and... Whether I vote or not, I and the rest are still going to receive the expropriating, over-regulating, and economic destruction. I and everybody else deserve a government that actually adheres to founding principles, whether we voted or not. Nobody loses their right to complain about mistreatment by government just because they didn't vote.

---------------

For myelf, I decided a few years ago that there is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to afflict him with government.
 
Top