Col. Black spoke on the Second Amendment and The Right To Keep And Bear Arms in Virginia.
www.usrkba.org
www.usrkba.org
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
Col. Dick Black is running for the Virginia Senate
- Thread starter Vanns40
- Start date
I almost stopped there.
I did stop there. First of all, I am guessing that the man is unaware that there is no statute of limitations on felonies in Virginia. Second, absent a statement indicating his realization at some point afterwards that his conduct was at least ill-advided, if not an admission of knowing it was illegal, I cannot see supporting someone for a position in the General Assembly who flouts breaking the law.
stay safe.
ProShooter
Regular Member
To satisfy my curiousity.........a snake hook:
I guess a "running knife fight" is when the guy with the knife is running to get away from you..... and you are chasing him with a snake hook? :uhoh:
I also wonder if he "drove the snake hook about four inches" into the BACK of the guys shoulder?
Just another flake Skid. We get one or two that profess to be Pro when they're really just loud, every election.
Besides, we have enough "Dicks" in the legislature already.:lol:
Last edited:
Snarky comments about a decorated war hero regarding an incident that occured more than 40 years ago. How nice.
Sorry you don't like it "Young Fellow"!
I wasn't the one bragging about committing a felony 40 years ago nor was I the one that said "I enacted preemption", or ducking the question about eliminating sovereign immunity.
I'd say..."He killed the Bar".
Last edited:
Regarding preemption, see below, unless, of course, you'd like to say that VCDL was duped, since they have consistantly endorsed him over the years.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
Regarding the supposed felony, why don't you call the Commonwealth's Attorney and report it to them and see what they have to say since you and a couple of others are so sure there was a crime committed? While we're at it, you do have the incident report, right? You do know the disposition of the case, right?
I occasionally don't agree with VCDL's endorsements. Bob McDonnell is a good example.
As for the rest of it, you brought him up, he did an article and bragged about skeletons that should have stayed in his closet, and you're whining about it isn't going to change my opinion.
Last edited:
I didn't "whine" about anything. However, you are correct, nothing would ever change your opinion. Just for the record, I don't consider what he said to be a "skeleton", either. The fact also remains that you can't refute what he did for preemption no matter how hard you try.
I'm not trying to do anything Vann!
He didn't "Enact" preemption. I just stated a fact.
TFred
Regular Member
I finally got around to reading the whole interview... apparently Mr. Black does think he enacted preemption... but apparently he hasn't kept up with the changes, since they have already added a provision for reimbursement of legal fees, etc...
Sounds like a typical politician... certainly better than a Saslaw or a Marsh, but a politician nevertheless -- saying what they believe the intended audience wants to hear. I'm not sure this is different than any of the rest of them, good or bad.
TFred
Sounds like a typical politician... certainly better than a Saslaw or a Marsh, but a politician nevertheless -- saying what they believe the intended audience wants to hear. I'm not sure this is different than any of the rest of them, good or bad.
TFred
No Peter, he did get preemption enacted and you're trying to tear down a decent man who not only served his country in war but then came out and served in the public sector. And why? Because YOU want to nit pic what he said. You and another member of this forum accused him of a felony without knowing all the facts. I asked if you had the police report, if one existed. Do you? Doubtful. Of all the things someone can do, accusing them of a crime is the last that any of us should be doing, especially some on this list.
Col. Black gave an interview and said how he felt about the Second Amendment and his accomplishments and gave an example of a real life experience. You and Skidmark immediately seized on that as fair game to excoriate him. When he said he chased someone out of his house who had broken in, the man was armed, Col. Black was armed -- frankly, that's what most of us would want to do if it had happened to us. It did happen to him and it happened more than 40 years ago and you and Skidmark are going to sit in judgement and pronounce to all that he committed a felony. The two of you should be ashamed of yourselves. We, as gun owners and Conservatives, don't go around accusing folks of committing felonies unless they've been charged and convicted, right Skidmark?
Liberals tar and feather gun owners on the flimsiest of circumstances and with no proof all the time, we set the bar much higher and don't snipe from the sidelines at hardworking people that have spent their lives trying to make things better.
Well.....one of the members came up to me this morning chuckling and asked, "Would you have been so hard on Black if".
I answered honestly and said no, I probably wouldn't have said anything.
So I'll tone it down some and fall more in line with TFred.
He's a politician tooting his own horn and making too much use of the word "I".
I answered honestly and said no, I probably wouldn't have said anything.
So I'll tone it down some and fall more in line with TFred.
He's a politician tooting his own horn and making too much use of the word "I".
In contrast to Peter Nap, I am going to stand by my accusation. There's no need for someone to be convicted in order to accuse them of committing a felony. That's why it's called an accusation. Nice try, Vann. Almost as good as trying to use Mr. Black's war decorations as some indication of why he should be honored for everything that he did/does since receiving the medal(s). Or the "trick" of referring to him as "Colonel Black". He's freaking retired, and was not retired as a general officer, thus not, per FM 7-21.13, entitled to an honorific.
As for whether or not it's a felony? Lets look: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-51 and
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-51.2 both seem to fit the circumstances as related by the gentleman, do they not?
And then just to carry the question about the man's rationality into play -- he follows a person who is in the process of fleeing from an attempted break-in, while armed, based on the potentiality and the manner in which he is using the snake hook, with a deadly weapon with the apparent intent to inflict deadly force on the felling individual by striking and driving said snake hook in the fleeing individual. What, Mr. Vann, do you teach in your CCW classes about chasing folks and about shooting (at) them when they are fleeing from the scene? Would you say there is any meaningful difference between chasing after and shooting at a fleeing person and chasing after a fleeing person and attacking them with a snake hook? If so, just what distinction do you make?
stay safe.
As for whether or not it's a felony? Lets look: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-51 and
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-51.2 both seem to fit the circumstances as related by the gentleman, do they not?
And then just to carry the question about the man's rationality into play -- he follows a person who is in the process of fleeing from an attempted break-in, while armed, based on the potentiality and the manner in which he is using the snake hook, with a deadly weapon with the apparent intent to inflict deadly force on the felling individual by striking and driving said snake hook in the fleeing individual. What, Mr. Vann, do you teach in your CCW classes about chasing folks and about shooting (at) them when they are fleeing from the scene? Would you say there is any meaningful difference between chasing after and shooting at a fleeing person and chasing after a fleeing person and attacking them with a snake hook? If so, just what distinction do you make?
stay safe.
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
I don't know the man myself, but it does seem farfetched that he would have been able to fly 269 combat missions in Vietnam AND be involved in "ground combat with the 1st Marine Regiment".
My dad was a Marine Aviator in Vietnam, too. He was shot down a couple times and was also awarded a Purple Heart. He wore an "Air Medal" with a bronze numeral "10" on it. He told me they were awarded one Air Medal for every 10 combat missions, so I guess he flew between 100 and 109 combat missions during his 13 months there, right? I've seen other Marine Aviators that served in Vietnam and some had higher numbers than my dad did and some with lower. I guess he was "about average". I know he flew a lot while he was there. I didn't know they assigned Marine pilots as "Ground Pounders" too. I figured they would get in the way and leave the ground stuff to Professional "Grunts". I don't know much about the Marines either, so I could be completely off-base and wrong. I would certainly appreciate some clarification from someone more knowledgeable.
I guess Col. Black was one busy guy in Vietnam...
My dad was a Marine Aviator in Vietnam, too. He was shot down a couple times and was also awarded a Purple Heart. He wore an "Air Medal" with a bronze numeral "10" on it. He told me they were awarded one Air Medal for every 10 combat missions, so I guess he flew between 100 and 109 combat missions during his 13 months there, right? I've seen other Marine Aviators that served in Vietnam and some had higher numbers than my dad did and some with lower. I guess he was "about average". I know he flew a lot while he was there. I didn't know they assigned Marine pilots as "Ground Pounders" too. I figured they would get in the way and leave the ground stuff to Professional "Grunts". I don't know much about the Marines either, so I could be completely off-base and wrong. I would certainly appreciate some clarification from someone more knowledgeable.
I guess Col. Black was one busy guy in Vietnam...
As I stated earlier, I don't know all the details from 40 years ago and neither do you. However, you do seem detirmined to continue this and do your best to destroy the man. Let me ask you this; how would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot? Suppose YOU were the one involved in an incident, recently, and someone started opining on a blog that they thought you were guilty AND then they called the prosecuter in the case and said "hey, that Skidmark guy sure sounds guilty to me. I hope you throw the book at him". And suppose all this kept up on the blogs, day after day and folks kept voicing their opinions about you, without knowing all the facts or even caring about the facts? They didn't care because all they wanted to do was destroy you. Not so nice is it? I would never consider doing that to you or anyone else.
I don't know why you want to go after Dick Black but my opinion is it's NOT because of some noble gesture of finding out the truth or anything close to it. You're out to use anything you can to drag him down and this happened along.
Say what you want, this is not how you treat people and I think most on this list know that.
Continue on for as long as you wish. I'm finished.
Gee, Dave. I have a list of blogs and web boards where just what you ask about is happening to me. Doesn't bother me in the least because, among other things, I am involved in getting the truth to the surface and an official decision rendered. As best I can determine, the item of your admiration, as reported by you, committed acts that meet the definition of what the Code of Virginia prohibits and neither of you are making any attempt to show that the statements made regarding his action(s) are in any way misrepresenting the facts of his behavior. That it happened some 40 years ago or just yesterday is not material.
I have no desire to destroy the man. But I do have a desire to respond to your support and recommendation of him as a "champion" worthy of support and admiration by others while he (and you, by extension) will not acknowledge that his actions were both irresponsible and in apparent violation of the Code of Virginia. If I in fact desired to destroy him I would be doing everything possible to have criminal charges certified against him and then have him found guilty so that he would no longer qualify to hold public office. I am, and openly acknowledge this, suggesting that there are similarities between his past and current behaviors, and that your slavish attempts to defend against the apparent truth make you just as suspect in my eyes as he is.
Before I close I want to pose one more question: Why have you gone from referring to him as "Colonel Black" to merely "Mr. Black" or "Dick Black"? Is it possible you have come to realize that the rest of his life is not in fact defined by his military service - especially when questions about the accuracy of the reports of that service have been raised?
You see, Dave, this is not about Dick Black.
stay safe.
I have no desire to destroy the man. But I do have a desire to respond to your support and recommendation of him as a "champion" worthy of support and admiration by others while he (and you, by extension) will not acknowledge that his actions were both irresponsible and in apparent violation of the Code of Virginia. If I in fact desired to destroy him I would be doing everything possible to have criminal charges certified against him and then have him found guilty so that he would no longer qualify to hold public office. I am, and openly acknowledge this, suggesting that there are similarities between his past and current behaviors, and that your slavish attempts to defend against the apparent truth make you just as suspect in my eyes as he is.
Before I close I want to pose one more question: Why have you gone from referring to him as "Colonel Black" to merely "Mr. Black" or "Dick Black"? Is it possible you have come to realize that the rest of his life is not in fact defined by his military service - especially when questions about the accuracy of the reports of that service have been raised?
You see, Dave, this is not about Dick Black.
stay safe.
ChinChin
Regular Member
Welcome to politics in present day America.
If your candidate can't take it, then he really has no place in running for any office where you are subjected to public opinion on a daily (if not hourly) basis; both pro and con.
If you, as a booster for the candidate cannot deal with conflicting points of views and opinions, you should probably rethink your decision to use the internet in general.
