How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

Agreed. I certainly know what your meaning is - Australians cannot carry a gun by law. Nor can UK citizens, etc., etc. So the choice of citizens of these countries not to legally own or carry a gun is like me choosing not to be 7 feet tall.

I'll simply extend your comment with the observation that everyone has the right of self-defense. Whether a government does or does not allow free exercise of that right is a different question.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Who would have thought that in less than 200yr the US would have become the dominant world power? Perhaps the US Constitution and Bill of Rights had something to do with it?

I'd rather not start deleting rights, and ceding powers to the government, to see which rights preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness and which are superfluous. We are learning those lessons from others.

Originally Posted by Nein11

mitosis, you cant carry a gun because you don't live in a country where you have that right.


Everyone, lets not forget....

Guns dont kill people, bullets kill people.

Originally Posted by Arathald

I agree, but I must add one thing: I believe that even though many people who can't now should have a right to carry a gun (not unrestricted right. mind you, theres gotta be some provisions), if it is illegal, one shouldn't break the law by carrying it. First of all. if you get caugh, bug trouble, but, more importantly, I cannot morally or ethically justify it.

Originally Posted by Upstroke

After making it illigal to Carry or own a Firarm in AUS, didn't they outlaw swords ??

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

I would agree that one could not legally justify carrying a gun where prohibited, but moral and ethical justification is very different from legal justification. Lawyers call it relative vs absolute evil, but use latin terms. What was legal or illegal last year can be made illegal or legal next year, but that doesn't mean that what was morally and ethically right has changed, just that the laws have changed. If they pound a No Parking sign in the ground next to your car, did you break the law - yes. Did you do anything "wrong" - no.

I don't advocate break breaking the law - I just point out the consequences and risks of obeying or breaking the law.

Originally Posted by mitosis

Damn it. I'll have to threaten them with an empty water bottle. Do you think they'll cower in fright.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

Just an observation for those that care - if I ofter a URL with a USDOJ paper reviewing court opinions, it's not the USDOJ that is issueing the court opinions, but the courts who issue the opinions. The USDOJ is just collecting all of those opinions in a single place. Of course, they are looking to support one side or the other of a question. The Brady Campaign has similar position papers, but most cite no legal references and just call people idiots and murderers that don't agree with their gun-phobia.

Also, a URL reference to legal scholars on gun-control will contain links to the publications of those scholars. Click on those links to read their works.

It ain't like TV or On-Demand, you have to work a bit.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

It ain't like TV or On-Demand, you have to work a bit.

Originally Posted by huhenio

Still ... better be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.

Originally Posted by teton explorer

Psssst. Its your argument and your alleged support. Others don't have to work "a bit" or at all to support your arguments. That's your job.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

Two replies in a row to the same message.

Down from whining, babbling and insulting to just whining and babbling.

1. Object on moral, ethical logical grounds.
2. Claim factual basis for objection.
3. Fail to supply evidence but demand proof from others.
4. Refuse to look at proof.
5. Claim proof is factually wrong.
6. Claim proof is biased.
7. Return to Step 1.

For those new at dealing with those like TE, this person is at Step 4 in the cycle of denial. Their sole goal is to convince but emotional appeal initially, then they move to logic when others fail to agree with them. Once the arguement becomes factual, they fail to provide facts but argue that your facts are wrong or biased. Now losing badly, they return to an emotional appeal, but that is usually after a law favoring 2nd amendment rights has passsed. Then then claim we will see scores more shootings and dead kids, but the numbers always go down rather than up.

That's why the Million Mom March was down to hundreds last time - several states passed right to carry laws and the sky didn't fall. Just the opposite.

At 36 states with right to carry, and 2/3 of the US population living in right to carry states, it's still not a downhill fight. Dealing with people like TE are good practice in how to mop up the remaining states,

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

Two replies in a row to the same message.

Down from whining, babbling and insulting to just whining and babbling.

1. Object on moral, ethical logical grounds.
2. Claim factual basis for objection.
3. Fail to supply evidence but demand proof from others.
4. Refuse to look at proof.
5. Claim proof is factually wrong.
6. Claim proof is biased.
7. Return to Step 1.

For those new at dealing with those like TE, this person is at Step 4 in the cycle of denial. Their sole goal is to convince but emotional appeal initially, then they move to logic when others fail to agree with them. Once the arguement becomes factual, they fail to provide facts but argue that your facts are wrong or biased. Now losing badly, they return to an emotional appeal, but that is usually after a law favoring 2nd amendment rights has passsed. Then then claim we will see scores more shootings and dead kids, but the numbers always go down rather than up.

That's why the Million Mom March was down to hundreds last time - several states passed right to carry laws and the sky didn't fall. Just the opposite.

At 36 states with right to carry, and 2/3 of the US population living in right to carry states, it's still not a downhill fight. Dealing with people like TE are good practice in how to mop up the remaining states,

Originally Posted by Arathald

As much as I agree with you position, TE has a valid point that it it up to the one arguing a point to prove it and to gather all the evidence (and in cases of providing long documents, highlighting the pertinent information is generally good).

And an emotional appeal can, at times, be valid. We are after all, all emotional creatures. But that's not to say the there shouldn't be a good logical argument as well.