|
Originally Posted by wgaynor
(Post 8309193)
Remember, good men and women have died for your rights in this country. To not exercise those rights would be a shame.
|
Originally Posted by mjw16
(Post 8309123)
Bottom line: you only increase your chances of firearm violance when you introduce a gun into a situation that may not have otherwise had one. Another fact: it's hard to be a victim of gun violance in the absence of guns. I'm reminded of a friend who went out and bought a gun after the birth of their second child. It was for "protection". I thought, "congratulations, you've just introduced a lethal weapon into a house that had previously had none, you did this knowing that your own children may gain access to it and no one has any training." Not smart. His money would have been better spent on: an alarm system, a dog, exterior lighting (regarded as the most effective crime deterrent in history-not guns, thank you very much), improved locks, window bars, self-defense classes, getting in better shape, etc. This is the fallacy of logic that many fall prey to when considering the purchase of a handgun. They don't realize that personnel gun ownership places them at exponentially increased risk of a multitude of consequences such as: their own injury/death, injury/death of a loved one or friend, suicide, accidental discharges of all kinds, gun theft later used in commission of another crime-to the tune of 13 to as much as 53 times (based on a wide range of studies) that on non-gun owners. Owning a gun for self-defense is an incredibly, incredibly risky choice. Although other factors don't seem quite as macho, they are, undeniably, the safer alternative. Don't fool yourself into thinking you'll be the one to safely avoid the pitfalls and legitimately use your gun in your own defense. You won't, you'll end up dead or in legal hot water.
VoodoTiger and Schwinnrider's over-macho fantasies and name calling is just the type of false bravado often inspired by gun ownership, they wouldn't call me a "liberal pansey" if confronted face to face without a gun. They're the ones who's attitude and contribution to gun violance statistics is a big factor in my decision to never carry one. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b1c_1228321106 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=757_1212418336 |
How about this regarding your Constitutional Right to own a firearm? "A well-regulated militia being necassary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's the 2nd Amendment from memory. The second part, the one that is always quoted by gun advocates (the right to keep and bear arms), to the exclusion of the first, is predicated upon the first part (A well-regulated militia). This clearly sets forth a right for states to assemble, arm, and regulate militias. Of course, in those days, it was comprised of ordinary citizens, however, the intent was clearly for creating a regular military with which to defend this country. We have a military, we have police, they are well-regulated with regard to firearm use, issuance, etc. Whereas there are as many as 35,000 laws nation wide governing the ownership and limitations of use, type, etc of guns, at the state and national levels, that allow us to own a gun, as interperated literally, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee my "right" to own a gun. So, in my opinion, the basic assumption that we all have, unfettered, the absolute right to arm ourselves in any/every situation, is a flawed and antiquated notion from the outset. Now, the idea of using a gun to defend oneself is another matter entirely, just seems silly at best and dangerously neglegent at worst.
|
Oh yeah, got a little carried away and forgot: the idea of using a gun to defend oneself, while riding a bicycle, in a known-dangerous location, when another option was available, is another matter entirely, just seems silly at best and dangerously neglegent at worst.
I will now sit back and watch the insults fly :-) |
Originally Posted by mjw16
(Post 8309544)
How about this regarding your Constitutional Right to own a firearm? "A well-regulated militia being necassary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's the 2nd Amendment from memory. The second part, the one that is always quoted by gun advocates (the right to keep and bear arms), to the exclusion of the first, is predicated upon the first part (A well-regulated militia). This clearly sets forth a right for states to assemble, arm, and regulate militias.
|
Suggestions:
A lance autographed by Lance. A polo mallet. A short sword. A wolverine in a trailer. and spray wolverine pheremones. |
How do you read it? "A well-regulated militia...." the first 4 words lay out the intent, regardless of interpretation. Not too confusing to me.
|
Has anybody on this forum ever actually used a gun while riding their bike, or known someone who has?
|
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
(Post 8309987)
Has anybody on this forum ever actually used a gun while riding their bike, or known someone who has?
I introduced abortion into the thread not too long ago in hopes that the inevitable mention of Hitler would come more quickly. |
Originally Posted by wgaynor
(Post 8309193)
You have the right in this wonderful country to own and use a gun (granted, our rights are being whittled away). Exercise that right to the utmost extent, if you don't, you will wake up one day and talk about the days where we use to have the right to own a gun. When you get one, get your license and carry it. Even if it is a small single shot .22 revolver. It is better than nothing.
Remember, good men and women have died for your rights in this country. To not exercise those rights would be a shame. |
AlmostTrick: that's a good (pertinent) question. In my 38 years, of all the people I've discussed this with (in any forum: college, work, personal, etc), I've only known one person who has claimed to have pulled a gun in a home defense scenario. Never have I known one to make the same claim as it pertains to any other scenario, including this one (bicycle commute). I can think of several first hand experiences where a handgun was present but never needed and only served to escalate the risk to the homeowner and his/her family. In addition, I read daily of unintentional and tragic accidental deaths of the innocent as a result of gun fire. Although Americans love to fall victim to all the fear mongoring (especially at the hands of the NRA), it is highly unlikely that many of us will ever fall victim to a violent crime, with an even higher unlikelihood that we'd be ready, willing, and able to utilize a gun in our self-defense.
|
Originally Posted by mjw16
(Post 8309123)
Bottom line: you only increase your chances of firearm violance when you introduce a gun into a situation that may not have otherwise had one. Another fact: it's hard to be a victim of gun violance in the absence of guns. .
I sure wouldn't dispute your right to *not* protect yourself. Part of the problem, as you've defined it, is that you have no control over what weapon the bad guy decides to bring to the situation. Most of us are good people, but unfortunately, some of us aren't. I don't consider myself an expert by any means, though I was a cop in Oakland, CA for 10 years in the '70's - - I do know about bad guys, violence, and guns. Macho has nothing to do with it, I just refuse to be taken out by some punk on the street without at least having a reasonable chance of surviving to enjoy another day of grandkids, flying, soaring and bicycling. Oh, and my ex-cop mentality would also have me stop and render assistance if I see you being mugged, so if you don't want a gun introduced you might consider wearing a T-shirt that say's "Professional Victim - - please don't help me". I like the quote: "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." Again, you don't have to protect yourself, but you have no right to tell me I can't protect myself. bumper |
bumperm: I'm not telling anyone to not protect themselves, rather it's just the opposite. Look at the stats, consider the practical implications, and tell me otherwise-being armed is risky. Do you carry when you're flying, soaring, cycling or, visiting the grandkids? Or, can you imagine the myriad dangers of an accidental discharge in any of those situations? Also, do you rail againts the laws that may be currently in place that prevent it? If you had a discharge, it's exactly at that point that you'd likely wish you never even had your gun, realizing how unecessary it was. Also, as a cop, I'm sure you had access to better training and resources when on duty, confronting potential criminals. Additionally, it was your job to enter dangerous situations to defuse the risk to the rest of us and did so as a well-trained professional. Most people here would likely be caught off guard, disarmed, and in a heap of trouble (ironically, with there own gun). In addition, your idea of a "professional victim" seems to depict the seige mentality displayed by many gun nuts, it's an insulting, tongue in cheek, jab at others who don't share your opinion and not appreciated. I have much respect for your former profession and count on your contemporaries should I feel I need it, however, the evidence is overwhelmingly againts the idea of a gun as self-protection for the common citizen. It's that myth that keeps the NRA and gun manufacturers/importers in business.
|
mjw16,
Actually, I do carry a gun in all those scenarios, though obviously most of the time it is of little use. But it's there nonetheless in case it is needed - - e.g. while flying it's there in case of a land-out, mostly for predator defense. Risk of an accidental discharge? It's likely you are not conversant with the mechanics of firearms. When not on the bike, I carry a SIG P229 with a round in the chamber, hammer down. As long as it remains holstered and the trigger is not pulled (6-7 lb pull required) it not going off unintentionally, not even if it's dropped on the hammer. Firearms training, for cops too, has improved dramatically since I was on in law enforcement. At 64, I'm more proficient with a handgun now that I ever was, though obviously I move a little slower. I suspect your opinion about all this won't be changed by me, nor mine by you. That's just fine, and as long as you respect my rights, including my right to defend myself. You may be assured that I'll respect your right not to. The T-shirt thing was tongue-in-cheek and not intended to offend you. I appologize if it did. Remember, never point an unloaded firearm an anybody. all the best, bumper |
Originally Posted by mjw16
(Post 8309841)
How do you read it? "A well-regulated militia...." the first 4 words lay out the intent, regardless of interpretation. Not too confusing to me.
I apologize if I give a little more credence to their understanding of the constitution than I give to yours. I will edit to add that my argument is fallible though. I don't always agree with what SCOTUS decides, and I am just a law school student, not a const. scholar. I also realize that had SCOTUS ruled against gun ownership as an individual right, I would have disagreed with them. I am not saying that you have to agree with everything they say. My point was merely that if it's so clear cut to you, it's probably a good sign that you don't understand it as well as you think you do. |
bumper, apology accepted as well as given. While (some) people certainly have the right to carry, I have serious doubts regarding the logic behind that decision in most instances-bicycle commuting being one. I'm not telling you not to do it, rather, trying to give the original poster what I consider to be an objective, fact and logic-based rationale for their consideration to not arm themselves. Where legal, it's obviously their choice, however, as a (once) avid shooter, hunter, someone who attained a marksman qualification and who is familiar with guns, I feel that I can lend considerable expertise with regard to this decision. In addition, my education is in the field of criminology and I've worked around people with military/police backgrounds (some who still carry for professional reasons) my entire working career. Just because I may disagree with your assertions, or attempt to point out the fallacies of the pro-gun audience, doesn't mean it's a personal attack againts you.
I am conversant in various safety systems which is one reason I chose to purchase a Glock many years ago, however, the possibility of accidental discharge is a consideration regardless of safety type. In addition, that statement would have been more accurately written as unintentional shooting where the safety system isn't necassarily a consideration rather poor judgement or simple mistake. Also, I have yet to see one response by someone who's used a handgun, on their bike, during an otherwise unavoidable commute, where it was effective and ruled a legal shooting. When I see a few maybe I'll re-consider. Until then one's need to be armed while cycling remains a fantastic myth perpetuated by those who are emotionally attached to their guns. |
Originally Posted by rugerben
(Post 8310760)
Not too confusing to you. But you are not a constitutional scholar. SCOTUS judges are.
I apologize if I give a little more credence to their understanding of the constitution than I give to yours. I will edit to add that my argument is fallible though. I don't always agree with what SCOTUS decides, and I am just a law school student, not a const. scholar. I also realize that had SCOTUS ruled against gun ownership as an individual right, I would have disagreed with them. I am not saying that you have to agree with everything they say. My point was merely that if it's so clear cut to you, it's probably a good sign that you don't understand it as well as you think you do. Often I think people feel so strongly about certain issues that they read things into the Constitution (and myriad other texts) that just aren't there. |
This is definitely a hot topic, of personal interest to many. It also happens to combine two of my interests: cycling and the gun debate (although I can't believe I'm actually discussing the two, in concert, here). I've learned that my opinion will only reach certain people, many will dig in and object vigorously while others remain reticent. That's ok, I'm not out to change the world. Believe it or not, I've actually been approached by potential gun owners and I've managed to dissuade them from their purchase or introduction of a firearm to a home. I'm proud of that, I believe the fewer guns, in any given society, the better.
While I'm confident in my gun handling abilities and, more importantly, my decision to never carry one on my person, my concern is also for my safety, and that of my family and friends. I must admit that it worries me to consider any altercation with an armed, otherwise law-abiding person which escalates dangerously. Also, gun proponents seem to also use volitile language and seem overly eager to "express" their 2nd amendment rights, that doesn't jive with my idea of a civilized society. It is in that vain that I feel I should express my opinion. Since the idea of carrying/using a gun while riding a bicycle is such a ludicris concept from the outset, and, no one has been able to site a specific instance or personal story in support of this idea, I will recuse myself of this arguement and claim victory. While I'm sure there are some loonies out there who will carry a gun while riding, I know that they are: 1) not the Constitutionalists they claim to be, 2) are endangering themselves greatly, 3) are potentially dangerous to me, and 4) are in the vast minority of cyclist and not to be taken too seriously-they should, however, be avoided at all costs. Me? I'll just continue to ride my bike and leave this sillyness alone before I lose more friends here :-) |
Also, I have yet to see one response by someone who's used a handgun, on their bike, during an otherwise unavoidable commute, where it was effective and ruled a legal shooting. When I see a few maybe I'll re-consider. Until then one's need to be armed while cycling remains a fantastic myth perpetuated by those who are emotionally attached to their guns. |
Originally Posted by apricissimus
(Post 8310855)
I'd also add: One doesn't need to be a scholar of the Constitution, just a reasonably proficient reader of English. I'm no gun nut, and I think many of them are downright crazy, but I literally can't understand the interpretation that some people put on the 2nd amendment when they claim that arms are supposed to be restricted to well regulated militias. Disagree with the amendment if you want, but that's not what the amendment says.
Often I think people feel so strongly about certain issues that they read things into the Constitution (and myriad other texts) that just aren't there. I think one argument may stem from the idea that "A well regulated Militia" is no longer necessary since we have a professional army with government supplied weapons to defend the states instead of relying on ordinary citizens defending the state using their own firearms. So if a well regulated militia is no longer necessary, does the rest of the 2nd Amendment apply? Will we ever depend on ordinary citizens with their own firearms? I suppose you can't rule it out, but those would be some pretty desperate circumstances. I'm currently reading a book called Founding Brothers about the major players in early U.S. history. People like Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc. It is amazing that the nation managed to hold together after the revolution. The civil war that eventually did happen was almost unavoidable. The same divisions still play themselves out today, namely, what role should government play? Anyway having an armed populace was critical to getting the nation off the ground. They also saw gun ownership as a necessary part of protecting ones freedom from the dangers of an oppressive government. The idea of owning a gun for reasons of personal safety I don't think had much to do with the 2nd amendment, though I doubt any of the founding fathers would have taken issue with it. How much of this applies today? I'm not sure. |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 8311383)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think one argument may stem from the idea that "A well regulated Militia" is no longer necessary since we have a professional army with government supplied weapons to defend the states instead of relying on ordinary citizens defending the state using their own firearms. So if a well regulated militia is no longer necessary, does the rest of the 2nd Amendment apply? Will we ever depend on ordinary citizens with their own firearms? I suppose you can't rule it out, but those would be some pretty desperate circumstances. I'm currently reading a book called Founding Brothers about the major players in early U.S. history. People like Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc. It is amazing that the nation managed to hold together after the revolution. The civil war that eventually did happen was almost unavoidable. The same divisions still play themselves out today, namely, what role should government play? Anyway having an armed populace was critical to getting the nation off the ground. They also saw gun ownership as a necessary part of protecting ones freedom from the dangers of an oppressive government. The idea of owning a gun for reasons of personal safety I don't think had much to do with the 2nd amendment, though I doubt any of the founding fathers would have taken issue with it. How much of this applies today? I'm not sure. I thought that the new rules were, "you have the right to form an armed, regulated militia ... as long as you don't do that." ;) So what was the OPs final decision on this topic? |
Originally Posted by mangosalsa
(Post 8311449)
The founding rules of our country are great indeed. However, they were written when all things were equal ... referring to everyone having muskets. You can't defend yourself against the military complex so easily these days.
In the US, having a town full of people with guns isn't quite the deterrent against military action by an oppressive government that it used to be. Still, the Ewoks were surprisingly effective against Imperial troops in spite of their primitive weapons, so you never know. |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 8311520)
Still, the Ewoks were surprisingly effective against Imperial troops in spite of their primitive weapons, so you never know.
Greatest reply .... EVER!!! |
Originally Posted by mangosalsa
(Post 8311599)
Greatest reply .... EVER!!!
I have to admit, I'm kind of proud of that one ;) |
The Ewoks.......that's hysterical, thanks for the humor, it was necassary. I agree that the 2nd Amendment seems quite obsolete these days, also bear in mind that this was designed as a living document, we've seen other amendments come and go. The modification or abandonement of one of these priciples does not mean that all will then fall. More pertinently, the pro-gun arguement is a circular and dangerous one, whether applied to bicycle commuters or the general populace. It, basically, goes something like this: since there are guns, we need more guns to defend againts them, when this proliferation reaches a critical mass, we then determine that carrying guns is a good idea. Although we've just, unwittingly, increased our exposure to all kinds of vulnerabilities, we adhere to these values in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, logic, etc. It's at that point that I get a little irked when I have to worry that someone's ineptly fired bullet ricochets around and lands on me. I'm then labelled a "sheep", "liberal", "pansey", etc because I object to this possibility--brilliant. The irony is that many are so blinded by their attachment to said guns that it precludes an objective assement of facts and reason. In the end, the gun and ammunition companies make out, John LaPierre makes out, all the while we're left holding the bag with the innocents suffering. Guns become increasingly powerful, capable, and aggressive looking while we remain in a legal stalemate that stifles progress.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.