[davidsog]

This is collectors forum and the rank and file is different from a typical gun forum.
First thing the posters and moderators are intelligence wise are a step above what is found elsewhere on other forums and this leads to a larger range of opinions.
Being collectors means that some here tend to be into weapons (I say weapons and guns) that are not at the moment at max attention of the antigunners. Some of these people may also have type 03 Collector of Curios and Relics license. So perhaps some feel a slight empowerment and identification with the government. So the mindset can be different for some here and also the nation is about half democrat and so this will include some collectors.

There are also a lot of other countries on these forums whose citizenry comes from a different system. Societies where the power the Govern is not derived from the people and certain rights such as Defense from Tyranny are not inherent rights but rather privilege's "Granted by Your Leave" from the ruling establishment. Even in the United States, we are losing the mindset required to maintain such a Government system that the power to Govern is derived from the consent of the Governed. Freedom is not security but rather the complete opposite of it.

People act in accordance with the framework their mindset was constructed upon. That is why my in-laws, who grew up in Socialism are perfectly happy to eat a boiled potato, no butter, no salt, for dinner even when given the choice of something better. At times, They even go so far as virtue signal about how little they require to be happy and are not greedy like their daughter.

 

[davidsog]

The opinions I am often referring to come from native born americans.

I realized that and was not disagreeing with you. We are losing the mindset required to have a system of Government in which the power to Govern is derived from the people.

Even in the United States, we are losing the mindset required to maintain such a Government system that the power to Govern is derived from the consent of the Governed.

 

[davidsog]

So I agree with you "a house divided" and indeed one side wants the constitution as written.. the other side apparently wants a King to tell them how to live. They are two completely different mindsets.

+1
Well put.

 

[davidsog]

Maps of Indians forced to leave their lands and forcibly marched great distances so whites could have their lands. Some hid out in the southern mountains and are still present near their ancestral lands.

Read up on John Ridge and the Treaty Party. Major John Ridge was a Cherokee who married a white woman and served under Andrew Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. Andrew Jackson thought very highly of him due to his bravery on the battlefield and their shared hardship. Leveraging that influence with President Jackson He became a wealthy Cherokee who basically sold his people out when he saw Georgia tried to annex Cherokee Territory. The SCOTUS ruled that Georgia's move was illegal and that the Tribes land was untouchable by the states or the US Government but by that time, Ridge had seen to it that most of the tribe was already in the west. Ridge was considered a traitor by many of the Cherokee Tribal members and the opposing "Ross Party" (named after Georgia Senator Ross who refused to sign the annex bill and begged the tribes to wait until the SCOTUS case ran its course) murdered John Ridge and his family.

 

[davidsog]

Very common to buy off important people that will betray their brethren.

As I understand it, Ridge did not have to be "bought off". He was very much in on the entire plan from conception with an eye on becoming wealthy even at the expense of his own people. That's why they murdered him. It certainly is not a case of the "nature people" being betrayed by the "evil materialistic white man". Nor is it a situation where one can claim the United States was in on it as the SCOTUS ruled it was illegal for the US Government to touch Indian Lands or violate agreements.

 

[davidsog]

It is a bit of semantics, but if he was in it from the beginning he was bought off in a sense hoping to profit for the dispossession of the land.

Exactly

And unlike the narrative being pushed by Democrats, Greed and lack of character are human traits that have nothing to do with skin color.

 

[davidsog]

Fact is an oppressed individual at the bottom is no less likely to be corrupt if riches are in sight.

How oppressed was he??? He married a white girl, got rich off the white man, and gained influence killing his old enemies from a hostile tribe. Hardly seems oppressed to me. You do know the Creeks and Cherokee habitually killed one another?

In January 1716, Cherokee murdered a delegation of Muscogee Creek leaders at the town of Tugaloo, marking their entry into the Yamasee War. It ended in 1717 with peace treaties between South Carolina and the Creek. Hostility and sporadic raids between the Cherokee and Creek continued for decades.

Cherokee-People

My Joomla CMS

peachstatearchaeologicalsociety.org