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

Originally Posted by teton explorer

The most interesting thing about your reply is not what you post, but rather what you do not post. You insist that support for argument is found somewhere on the URL's you post, but yet you don't actually give any specifics. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps the support isn't there after all.

Its also very ironic that you accuse me of failing to provide facts and instead arguing that your "facts" are wrong. All I did was ask you for the facts supporting your position. You threw out a couple of URLs, but no facts. So it appears that you, not me, have failed to support your argument with FACTS. Its becoming clear you will never do so.

Its ok to have your opinion. But stop pretending it is supported by factual evidence. If the "court opinions" and "legal scholars" allegedly supporting your opinion are so readly accessible on the URL's you provided, simply access them and cite to them with specificity and this argument will be over. Until then, your pseudo-intellectual act is getting old.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

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.

The water is in front of the horse, and now I have to force the horse's head into the water. But will the horse drink or hold its breath?

ET is stuck in Steps 3 and 4 of the above cycle, demanding I click on the URL and display the contents. So as an exercise, I will do so. It is instructive to those who deal with people like ET to follow their response pattern.

Note that ET does not respond to his misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment text as "well armed militias" instead of "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." Once caught in an error or misrepresentation, ET just moves on, expecting unlimted strikes at bat.
The interesting thing about the anti-gunners, is once their plan is exposed, they still stick with it. (Secret: ET's next move is an assortment of 4-6.)

I will allow the chance to be slightly surprised - ET might look at the sources and say he is convinced and run out and buy a gun. Or ET might completely surprise me and provide some references refuting the points made in the sources I supplied. Honestly, the people who do that are the most difficult to deal with, as once one has two opposing data/expert sources, one has to critically evaluate them. Fortunately, in the 37 states that have gone to Right to Carry/Unrestricted Carry, nobody has shown up at house/senate hearings with other than an emotional appeal - so the anti-gunners have consistently lost.

ET says: "cite the published court opinions to which you are referring"
USDOJ (as this document goes on to cite 437 Court and Expert Opinions, I'm hoping ET doesn't expect me to cut and paste the whole text of http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"The Second Amendment of the Constitution provides: "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." You have asked for the opinion of this Office on one aspect of the right secured by this Amendment. Specifically, you have asked us to address the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the States, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally...This memorandum proceeds in four parts. Part I addresses the current unsettled state of the law in this area. Part II demonstrates that the text and structure of the Constitution support the individual-right view of the Second Amendment. Part III shows why this view finds further support in the history that informed the understanding of the Second Amendment as it was written and ratified. Finally, Part IV examines the views of commentators and courts closest to the Second Amendment's adoption, which reflect an individual-right view, and then concludes by describing how the modern alternative views of the Second Amendment took hold in the early twentieth century."

ET says: "please feel free to name the legal scholars to which you are referring, and their specific writings" And so here are the scholar listed on the web page, with selected publications for some. Again, I'm hoping ET doesn't require me to click on each scholar and click on each available test and cut and paste them all here.

Prof. Randy Barnett, Boston Univ. Law (Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal)
Prof. Frederick Bieber, Harvard Medical (
Prof. Bob Cottrol, George Wash. Univ. Law
Prof. Brannon Denning, S. Illinois Univ. Law
Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute (That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (University of New Mexico Press 1984)
Prof. James Jacobs, NYU Law
Prof. Nicholas Johnson, Fordham Univ. Law
Don Kates, Pacific Research Institute (Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, Michigan Law Review)
Prof. David Kopel, NYU Law (adjunct) (Supreme Court Gun Cases (Bloomfield Press 2003)
Prof. Edward Leddy, St. Leo College
Prof. Sanford Levinson, Univ. of Texas Law (Is the Second Amendment Finally Being Recognized as Part of the Constitution?, BYU Law Review)
Prof. Nelson Lund, George Mason Univ. Law
Prof. Joyce Malcolm, Bentley College (To Keep and Bear Arms (Harvard University Press 1994), the leading scholarly work on the historical development of the right to keep and bear arms)
Prof. Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University
Prof. Roger McGrath, Cal. State Northridge
Prof. David Mustard, U. of Georgia Business (Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, Journal of Legal Studies)
Prof. Joseph Olson, Hamline Univ. Law
Prof. Carol Oyster, U. of Wisconsin Psych.
Prof. Dan Polsby, George Mason Univ. Law
Prof. Scot Powe, Univ. of Texas Law (Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation, William & Mary Law Review)
Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds, U. of Tenn.
Dr. Helen Smith, Southeastern Psych. Servs.
Prof. Mary Zeiss Stange, Skidmore College
Prof. William Van Alstyne, Duke Law
Prof. William Vizzard, Cal. State Sacramento
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law (The Commonplace Second Amendment & The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment, NYU Law Review)
The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment, NYU Law Review.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

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.

The water is in front of the horse, and now I have to force the horse's head into the water. But will the horse drink or hold its breath?

ET is stuck in Steps 3 and 4 of the above cycle, demanding I click on the URL and display the contents. So as an exercise, I will do so. It is instructive to those who deal with people like ET to follow their response pattern.

Note that ET does not respond to his misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment text as "well armed militias" instead of "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." Once caught in an error or misrepresentation, ET just moves on, expecting unlimted strikes at bat.
The interesting thing about the anti-gunners, is once their plan is exposed, they still stick with it. (Secret: ET's next move is an assortment of 4-6.)

I will allow the chance to be slightly surprised - ET might look at the sources and say he is convinced and run out and buy a gun. Or ET might completely surprise me and provide some references refuting the points made in the sources I supplied. Honestly, the people who do that are the most difficult to deal with, as once one has two opposing data/expert sources, one has to critically evaluate them. Fortunately, in the 37 states that have gone to Right to Carry/Unrestricted Carry, nobody has shown up at house/senate hearings with other than an emotional appeal - so the anti-gunners have consistently lost.

ET says: "cite the published court opinions to which you are referring"
USDOJ (as this document goes on to cite 437 Court and Expert Opinions, I'm hoping ET doesn't expect me to cut and paste the whole text of http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

"The Second Amendment of the Constitution provides: "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." You have asked for the opinion of this Office on one aspect of the right secured by this Amendment. Specifically, you have asked us to address the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the States, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally...This memorandum proceeds in four parts. Part I addresses the current unsettled state of the law in this area. Part II demonstrates that the text and structure of the Constitution support the individual-right view of the Second Amendment. Part III shows why this view finds further support in the history that informed the understanding of the Second Amendment as it was written and ratified. Finally, Part IV examines the views of commentators and courts closest to the Second Amendment's adoption, which reflect an individual-right view, and then concludes by describing how the modern alternative views of the Second Amendment took hold in the early twentieth century."

ET says: "please feel free to name the legal scholars to which you are referring, and their specific writings" And so here are the scholar listed on the web page, with selected publications for some. Again, I'm hoping ET doesn't require me to click on each scholar and click on each available test and cut and paste them all here.

Prof. Randy Barnett, Boston Univ. Law (Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal)
Prof. Frederick Bieber, Harvard Medical (
Prof. Bob Cottrol, George Wash. Univ. Law
Prof. Brannon Denning, S. Illinois Univ. Law
Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute (That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (University of New Mexico Press 1984)
Prof. James Jacobs, NYU Law
Prof. Nicholas Johnson, Fordham Univ. Law
Don Kates, Pacific Research Institute (Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, Michigan Law Review)
Prof. David Kopel, NYU Law (adjunct) (Supreme Court Gun Cases (Bloomfield Press 2003)
Prof. Edward Leddy, St. Leo College
Prof. Sanford Levinson, Univ. of Texas Law (Is the Second Amendment Finally Being Recognized as Part of the Constitution?, BYU Law Review)
Prof. Nelson Lund, George Mason Univ. Law
Prof. Joyce Malcolm, Bentley College (To Keep and Bear Arms (Harvard University Press 1994), the leading scholarly work on the historical development of the right to keep and bear arms)
Prof. Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University
Prof. Roger McGrath, Cal. State Northridge
Prof. David Mustard, U. of Georgia Business (Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, Journal of Legal Studies)
Prof. Joseph Olson, Hamline Univ. Law
Prof. Carol Oyster, U. of Wisconsin Psych.
Prof. Dan Polsby, George Mason Univ. Law
Prof. Scot Powe, Univ. of Texas Law (Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation, William & Mary Law Review)
Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds, U. of Tenn.
Dr. Helen Smith, Southeastern Psych. Servs.
Prof. Mary Zeiss Stange, Skidmore College
Prof. William Van Alstyne, Duke Law
Prof. William Vizzard, Cal. State Sacramento
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law (The Commonplace Second Amendment & The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment, NYU Law Review)
The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment, NYU Law Review.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

ET says: "cite the published court opinions to which you are referring"
USDOJ (as this document goes on to cite 437 Court and Expert Opinions, I'm hoping ET doesn't expect me to cut and paste the whole text of http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Originally Posted by Arathald

Citing your whole post as my reference, I see you are relying just as much on personal attacks as on facts. Even though I share many of your views, that of attacking the person instead of the position is not one of them. I have seen many a logical argument ruined my the insertion of a personal attack (not necessarily the case, but you are getting dangerously close). Trust me, you won't get very far with those, and the most you can hope to accomplish is to make people stop listening to you. So, with that friendly reminder, let's get back to the issues at hand.

And to make things perfectly clear, I'm not being hypocritical, my intention is not to attack cb or his methods, but a friendly reminder that he may have the inadvertent effect of diluting his logical arguments with personal attacks. If he chooses to continue, that's his business, I don't really care, I was just offering a tip to help focus the argument.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

I guess I'm just not viewing you as a qualified moderator.

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

I guess I'm just not viewing you as a qualified moderator. My observation, early on, is that you are entering a discussion with gut feels and ideas, but less practical knowledge in the area.

"I would have no objection to shooting a leg ... A warning shot by their feet might be nice first, too"

If you fire a gun at someone, you can only do so when you believe there is no recourse other than use of lethal force to defend life and limb. If you admit you were trying to wound someone, fire a shot over their head or at their feet, then you have just admitted you didn't need to use lethal force to defend yourself - but you just did by firing a gun at someone. Good to know if you have a gun or are thinking of getting one.

Funny thing about rights - you step on someone elses rights and you lose your own when you go to jail.

Perhaps you would consider a role other than referee, as you have to know the game to call the shots.

Yes, I have criticized TE's argumentation approach, but I have not personally attacked or insulted him as he has others in this thread. If he is offended by being hauled into the light, so be it.

But, in any event, this arguement is at last over with my last post, as ET did in fact say:

"If the "court opinions" and "legal scholars" allegedly supporting your opinion are so readly accessible on the URL's you provided, simply access them and cite to them with specificity and this argument will be over."

Originally Posted by MountainPro

If America is that dangerous that you have to carry a gun when you are out cycling, i suggest you move to a safer, more civilised country.

Why on earth would you need a gun? Who is going to attack you with such determination that you have to shoot them?

Originally Posted by MountainPro

If America is that dangerous that you have to carry a gun when you are out cycling, i suggest you move to a safer, more civilised country.

Why on earth would you need a gun? Who is going to attack you with such determination that you have to shoot them?

Originally Posted by MountainPro

If America is that dangerous that you have to carry a gun when you are out cycling, i suggest you move to a safer, more civilised country.

Why on earth would you need a gun? Who is going to attack you with such determination that you have to shoot them?

Originally Posted by teton explorer

If anyone disagrees with you, they aren't qualified to express an opinion on this issue. If we say that no one is as smart as you, that no one is as educated as you, and that only your opinion is correct (even though we don't believe it), will you stop wasting space on the forum trying to convince others of your superiority?

Originally Posted by cbjesseeNH

Glad to stop wasting my time, in any event.

This thread . . . has served its purpose in educating others on just how pig-headed the losing side can be - avoiding at all costs defending thier own position with any data/expert opinions and only challenging the ones offerred to them.