Boy, are you gonna hate this.



"I ride around with my 380 made of titaniun in my handlebars"

How do you counter the recoil in a turn?

--
--Scott
"trujillomig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
> > I'm curious enough about attitudes on this issue that I'm going to
risk
> > being flamed. I have recently come to regard the attitude of "Armed
> > Liberal" on the issue of self defense as worth considering. If you
wish
> > to read his thoughts go here:
> >
http://windsofchange.net/archives/004180.htmlhttp://windsofchange.net/-
> > archives/004180.html
> > It is a relatively nuanced argument that, in my view, has considerable
> > merit. I realize that most people here considere themselves
"pacifists"
> > which is a position quite different from that of "passivists," but
there
> > is really a rather thoughtful consideration of this issue in some pro-
> > firearm forums, like Highroads. I suspect there are at least a few
> > people sympathetic to the perspective of being armed while riding
> > (especially long distance and alone) so would like the thoughts of
those
> > in that category. If you have some thoughts on the pacifist position
I'd
> > like to hear those too. I'm basically concerned about the unique
issues
> > of bearing arms as it relates to cycling, and whether anyone has
thought
> > about this. I'm attempting to think this through, but having been
> > convinced by Armed Liberal's basic logic I'm not sure I can simply
> > forego bearing arms on a bike without further consideration. Mutual
> > respect is in order, and I know that 90% of the people here will
object.
> > There are certainly practical considerations to take into account,
such
> > as the additional weight and safety in event of a fall, etc.
> > But the bottom line for me is that if bearing arms is a value you
> > believe in then some accomodation must be found, at least for long
non-
> > group riding where protection in number (of witnesses to an assault)
is
> > simply not in the cards.
> > God help me for raising the issue. Lets try to not crosspost, OK?
> > --
> > --Scott
>
> I ride around with my 380 made of titaniun in my handlebars
>
>
>
> --
 
watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Tom Sherman wrote:

> > I believe that it is due to the lack of proper attributions by some Usenet posters.
>
> That must be it. Or it could be the concern for minutia like posting styles and planes flying into
> buildings.

No, it is due to the lack of proper attributions by one idiot poster who goes by the name of
"watsonglenn".

Ed Dolan -Minnesota
 
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between America now and America
> 10 years ago is astounding."
>
> You know people have told me that 9-11 has slipped from the minds of a lot of people, but until I
> read that statement of yours I just couldn't get my head around it. What I'm not clear about is
> how you expect to be taken seriously in your critique of the US, when the single bloodiest day in
> US history since Antietam just wafts out of you mind like that? Stunning.

9/11 is a great inconvenience to the liberal agenda to retake the White House and the Congress. It's
like they have amnesia and can't remember what all the fuss is about. We should go back to our
normal routines and just concentrate on the economy (something about a lot of jobs being lost I
think) although even that is not going exactly like how they would like it to go either. The Dems
can only get back into office provided everything in this country goes to hell.

The truth is that the Dems are terrible on defense and national security issues. Just watch Kerry
try to cover his rear end on this issue. All his blather about being a Vietnam War hero won't cut
it. I know a few war heroes myself and they are in no way fit to be commander in chief. Much more
important of course is his voting record on defense, weapons and intelligence issues which is even
to the left of Kennedy. Sigh! Just another Mass. liberal.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Well, just in case anyone is actually interested in the topic, I posted the same question to the
> gun group and got some useful responses. Some people carry a KelTec .32 cal. A number of people
> said that they just carry whatever they have in a ***** pack, without worrying too much about
> weight and the like. The ***** pack protects from sweat/corrosion, but it's kind of a fashion
> risk. (Like anyone cares about that, right?) For lightweight carry KelTec is the cheap solution,
> and it's probably fairly corrosion resistant too, since it's mostly made of synthetic material.
> The upscale solution is the Kahr, especially the PM9 and PM40. They're entirely made of
> polycarbonate and stainless steel, and are very compact and light for centerfire weapons.

Freewheeling, I finally got around to reading an article that I believe you may have given to this
newsgroup in a previous message in this thread, but I can't find it. It is a great article and it
has changed my mind about carrying a handgun once and for all. The article was by Jeffrey R. Snyder
entitled "A Nation of Cowards" and appeared in the 1993 fall issue of The Public Interest. If any of
you would like to spend a bit of time on this subject with a view to maybe changing your mind this
is the article to read. Even if you don't change your mind you will have gotten the argument in
favor of carrying a handgun as well as I have ever seen it put. In fact, if you are not familiar
with this argument of Snyder's, then you are hardly qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

I wish I could give everyone here the reference (link) to this article but when I lose something it
stays lost. But any college library should have the publication.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
david.poole <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I'm British so the idea of carrying a weapon of any sort is rather alien.
>
> I've both read and seen "Bowling for Columbine" and, bear in mind I am not American, my take on
> the America and guns thing is that

Michael Moore is a total idiot and I would not be caught dead reading anything he had written. He is
nothing but a comedian and will do and say anything for a laugh. To take him seriously is to misread
what he is all about. He is about getting a name for himself and making some money.

> a) Something that is part of the American constitution "the right to bare arms" has become an
> greater source of oppression than it is a freedom.
> b) American media creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in a heavily armed population. Not a
> good combination.

The American people are not heavily armed at all. In fact that may be precisely the problem. The
American people are disarmed. It is only the American criminals that are heavily armed.

> One of the greatest American presidents said "You have nothing to fear but fear itself", which
> contrasts greatly from the attitude today.

Nonsense. The world is full of evil and it must be combated on its own terms. Kill or be killed -
elementary common sense.

> Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between America now and America 10
> years ago is astounding.

That is because of 9/11. The WTC. 3000 dead. Ever hear of it?

> Is it the first amendment that says something about "freedom of association"? You try walking
> through customs with an Asian man in traditional muslim dress! I never want to see a rubber glove
> again as long as I live!

Profiling makes the most sense. All of our enemies identified so far are Arabs and they are all of
the Muslim religion.

> Freedom of speech doesn't mean that Freedom to agree with George Dubyaa and disagreeing with him
> doesn't mean that I dislike Americans.

No, and my agreeing with your great Prime Minister Tony Blair doesn't mean I like the BBC and the
British liberal know nothings like yourself either.

> I think it is a great shame that in a nation of such great achievements and with a mostly
> friendly, optimistic and big hearted people you have felt a need to ask a question of this sort.

You are looking at America with rose colored glasses and from a distance. If you were here on the
ground you would maybe want to go about armed with a bazooka in order to feel safe.

> If you need a weapon on a bike ride, change your route so you don't need one. In emergencies a
> swift wack with a 20" pump is a remarkable deterrent.

Ever the coward's solution. Just don't go where it might be the least bit dangerous. Hey, this is a
free country and we Americans do not see why we can't go anywhere we feel like it. Most especially
if all that is standing in our way are some criminal punks with guns.

But we all of us know here in the US that the UK has more than its share of social problems too.
Still got those soccer hooligans rampaging all over the place or have you finally figured out how to
handle them?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
veganheart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> i am a true pacifist. Guns are made for one purpose and I abhor that purpose : to kill.

All pacifists are total idiots. They have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They do not even
deserve to be permitted to live in a civilized society because they do not pull their fair share of
the burden. In short, they are despicable.

> Have we not evolved to the point where we can settle our disputes without the use of violence?

Evolution, one of my favorite subjects, has not proceeded one iota from at least fifty thousand
years ago. We are the same savages now that our distant ancestors were. All that has change from
then to now is our culture, and that having primarily to do with science and technology. Strip away
this thin veneer of civilization and we are all brute savages underneath if truth be told. We are
nothing but naked apes with a bit of brain in our heads to separate us from the rest of creation.

> I refuse to compromise my integrity based on the actions of others. There was a dude who once
> said, If a man strikes your cheek turn to him the other also.

That dude, one J.C. I believe, ended up rather badly if I am not mistaken. I don't think he made it
past his 31st year. I don't know about you, but I would want to live longer than that. Which is why
it seems to me to make good sense to carry a gun and to be willing to use it if need be.

> 'nuff said:D

'nuff said? You have got to be kidding!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Freewheeling wrote:
> Well, just in case anyone is actually interested in the topic, I posted the same question to the
> gun group and got some useful responses. Some people carry a KelTec .32 cal. A number of people
> said that they just carry whatever they have in a ***** pack, without worrying too much about
> weight and the like. The ***** pack protects from sweat/corrosion, but it's kind of a fashion
> risk. (Like anyone cares about that, right?) For lightweight carry KelTec is the cheap solution,
> and it's probably fairly corrosion resistant too, since it's mostly made of synthetic material.
> The upscale solution is the Kahr, especially the PM9 and PM40. They're entirely made of
> polycarbonate and stainless steel, and are very compact and light for centerfire weapons.

Whatever you choose, it should be a design where a sharp impact can not cause the gun to discharge.
Anything else would be grossly irresponsible, especially if you are riding in a group.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
 
watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between America now and America 10
> years ago is astounding.>>
>
> Gee, I wonder why that it.

Just once try to post without making a typo error. Only six (6) words above and he can't get them
right. But it stands to reason that someone who does not know how to post would not know how to do
much of anything else either.

But he does know how to **** me off, I will give him credit for that!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
veganheart wrote:

> i am a true pacifist. Guns are made for one purpose and I abhor that purpose : to kill.
>
> Have we not evolved to the point where we can settle our disputes without the use of violence?
>
> I refuse to compromise my integrity based on the actions of others. There was a dude who once
> said, If a man strikes your cheek turn to him the other also.

But all too many of the (hypocritical) followers of this man do not follow his teachings very well,
including some very public figures.

Face it; many people like violence. Some of them like to live through the violence of others
vicariously. Many of them could care less about the suffering that the military of their country
causes, as long as "they" "kick ass".

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
 
An anonymous person using the pseudonym "watsonglenn" disregarded Usenet
convention and common courtesy by posting the following:

> Are you still talking about me?

Without proper attributions, how is anyone supposed to know who "you" is?

I will leave the invective to Mr. Dolan [1], but "watsonglenn" deserves at least some of it for
his/her willful disregard of proper posting rules.

[1] Since he apparently enjoys posting it.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> veganheart wrote:
>
> > i am a true pacifist. Guns are made for one purpose and I abhor that purpose : to kill.
> >
> > Have we not evolved to the point where we can settle our disputes without the use of violence?
> >
> > I refuse to compromise my integrity based on the actions of others. There was a dude who once
> > said, If a man strikes your cheek turn to him the other also.
>
> But all too many of the (hypocritical) followers of this man do not follow his teachings very
> well, including some very public figures.
>
> Face it; many people like violence. Some of them like to live through the violence of others
> vicariously. Many of them could care less about the suffering that the military of their country
> causes, as long as "they" "kick ass".
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

It will take a nuclear bomb going off in this country and 300,000 dead Americans (instead of a
couple of planes crashing into a couple of buildings and "only" 3,000 dead) before "some" will ever
get up the guts to defend this country against its enemies. The people who like violence are the
Islamic terrorists (the followers of that "other" great and holy man, Mohamed) who kill people for
no other reason than that they think it advances a despicable political agenda. We Christians
(followers of J.C.) could take a leaf from the Crusaders and go over there where they live and
really kick some ass (I mean really kick some ass) instead of playing footsie with them like we are
presently doing. We could encourage democracy in those Arab lands after we have killed a few hundred
thousand of them. That is the one and only thing that will get their attention.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
We Christians (followers of J.C.) could take a leaf from the Crusaders and go over there where they live and
really kick some ass>>>

We just did. I think the Arab world has gotten the message, for the most part. "No more attacks on American soil." There are a few holdouts. They don't love us but now they fear us.

We could encourage democracy in those Arab lands >>

Never gonna happen. The Middle East has never had an Enlightenment. The governements are too close to their religion and they don't understand the benifits of equal rights. Most Muslims are motivated by what is going to happen in the afterlife. This is something Europe learned not to do during the Renaissance with the study of Humanism. Arabs are, right now, in their version of the Dark Ages. The Climate and geography of the area will not allow them to emerge from it the way Europe did. The only thing that props them up to the point where they are even a threat is the oil they have. As soon as that runs out its over for them. Whats going on right now is a last deperate gasp of a civilization. IMO
 
watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I believe that it is due to the lack of proper attributions by some Usenet posters.>>
>
> That must be it. Or it could be the concern for minutia like posting styles and planes flying into
> buildings.

It is now about posting styles, you idiot. It is about common courtesy and common decency. Look up
the word "attribution" in the dictionary and get a clue, oh mighty stupid one! Too bad you are such
a moron as it would appear your political views are not too far from my own. But character counts
for much more than politics. That is something that all men have known from the beginning of time.

But we men sometimes do make special allowances for mental retards like yourself. I figure you are
either some smart ass kid of about 18 years of age or some Alzheimer's stricken old fool of about 80
years of age. In other words, you are at one extreme or the other of mental competency.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. In rereading my words above, I realize I have given Mr. Sherman the opportunity of a lifetime to
make some disparaging remarks about the both of us. But that would be a cheap shot and Mr.
Sherman never (well, hardly ever) takes those cheap shots.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
> berlin.de>...
>
>
>>veganheart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>i am a true pacifist. Guns are made for one purpose and I abhor that purpose : to kill.
>>>
>>>Have we not evolved to the point where we can settle our disputes without the use of violence?
>>>
>>>I refuse to compromise my integrity based on the actions of others. There was a dude who once
>>>said, If a man strikes your cheek turn to him the other also.
>>
>>But all too many of the (hypocritical) followers of this man do not follow his teachings very
>>well, including some very public figures.
>>
>>Face it; many people like violence. Some of them like to live through the violence of others
>>vicariously. Many of them could care less about the suffering that the military of their country
>>causes, as long as "they" "kick ass".
>>
>>Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
>
>
> It will take a nuclear bomb going off in this country and 300,000 dead Americans (instead of a
> couple of planes crashing into a couple of buildings and "only" 3,000 dead) before "some" will
> ever get up the guts to defend this country against its enemies. The people who like violence are
> the Islamic terrorists (the followers of that "other" great and holy man, Mohamed) who kill people
> for no other reason than that they think it advances a despicable political agenda. We Christians
> (followers of J.C.) could take a leaf from the Crusaders and go over there where they live and
> really kick some ass (I mean really kick some ass) instead of playing footsie with them like we
> are presently doing. We could encourage democracy in those Arab lands after we have killed a few
> hundred thousand of them. That is the one and only thing that will get their attention.

You just made my point, Mr. Dolan.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
 
watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> We Christians (followers of J.C.) could take a leaf from the Crusaders and go over there where
> they live and really kick some ass>>>
>
> We just did. I think the Arab world has gotten the message, for the most part. "No more attacks on
> American soil." There are a few holdouts. They don't love us but now they fear us.

Yes, the Arab mind is simple in the extreme and all it understands is force and power.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth
Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand
is force — force, pride and saving face."

Nonetheless, the vaunted Iraqi Republican Guard melted away when the U.S. military showed up on
their doorstep and they would not fight. All they know how to do is behave like the assassins they
are. They are not soldiers; they are murderers. I would treat the Arabs much more harshly then we
are accustomed to treating them. I would be threatening all of them with regime change if they
didn't change their ways with respect to the West.

> We could encourage democracy in those Arab lands >>
>
> Never gonna happen. The Middle East has never had an Enlightenment. The governments are too close
> to their religion and they don't understand the benefits of equal rights. Most Muslims are
> motivated by what is going to happen in the afterlife. This is something Europe learned not to do
> during the Renaissance with the study of Humanism. Arabs are, right now, in their version of the
> Dark Ages. The Climate and geography of the area will not allow them to emerge from it the way
> Europe did. The only thing that props them up to the point where they are even a threat is the oil
> they have. As soon as that runs out its over for them. Whats going on right now is a last
> desperate gasp of a civilization. IMO

Well, Hells Bells! I have been saying that from my earliest posts to this newsgroup. The Arabs have
always been in a Dark Age because of their primitive religion. Even when they seemingly enjoyed an
ascendancy in their civilization, it did not amount to much. It was just all surface glitter with no
real depth to it.

You are quite right about the Arabs never having any kind of reformation of their religion. The
attraction of that religion for a sophisticated modern mind is unfathomable to me. They are steeped
in primitivism. We might as well be dealing with stone age savages on the island of New Guinea.

And I have been saying from my earliest posts to this newsgroup that without the oil they would not
amount to a hill of beans. We (the West) would be treating them the same way we treat Africa.
Everything they have they have purchased from the West with their oil money. But they are still
medieval in their thinking. Whenever I hear reports about the "Arab street", how it is reacting to
whatever is going on in their miserable world, I have to laugh. They think and behave like children
and they do whatever their governments tell them to do.

I do agree with you that democracy is a forlorn hope for them. However, let them at least imitate us
outwardly as anything is better than their wretched kingdoms and despotic dictatorships that
presently infest the area.

OK, anyone who can make mention of the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, Humanism and Civilization all
in one paragraph can learn how to post to this newsgroup.

You are the only person on this newsgroup who thinks at all close to how I think about the Arabs and
the Middle East, and yet we are at loggerheads over something so trivial as how to post. I wish you
could get this right so we could get on to something important. It may be that this is going to be a
permanent hangup which would be a pity as I like how you think about everything else. I even like
your style of writing - except when it comes to your lapse with respect to attribution. You need to
rethink your position on this.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Ed Dolan: I am very thankful that you only represent a small segment of the US population. Your gov't and its foreign policy is bad enough, but your opinions make me sad because you are evidence to the notion that we humans have, indeed, not evolved. You certainly haven't. America has the potential to use its power for good. Instead, the current government chooses to exploit other nations' natural resources. Your government spends billions upon billions on defence (why do you think your economy is in the toilet?) to secure oil and other markets for greedy Corporate America. Meanwhile, you have over ten million homeless, the highest incarceration rate in the world and besides South Africa, America is the only industrialized nation not to have publicly funded health care.

If America is the richest, most powerful nation in the world how come it doesnt even make the top ten list of the best countries to live-in according to the United Nations (based on child poverty, crime, low-literacy, homeless and lack of health care).

Every great empire has its "golden age." Once America's golden age is over I hope the other nations of the world WILL "turn the other cheek." As America's age of imperialism ends the planet has a chance to end the cycle of greed, selfishness and hypocrisy. Only then may there be hope for future generations to live in peace without citizens such as Ed Dolan.
 
Dolan is a strange guy. There is clearly something wrong with him, but the USA is still the greatest country in the world. If not for the USA the rest of the world would be mired either in fascism or communism.

The US is a good country to live in no matter what the UN says. We feed ourselves and much of the world. We have natural resources unmatched by any country. We are the oldest democracy in the world and we are the land of opportunity. We have problems and we are working on them but in the last two hundred years what country has done better than we have?

You overstate the homeless problem but the reality is that the US is a country of achievers and those who won't work have a harder time than they might in Europe. I think you will see in the next decade that Europe will pay a price for their generosity to the unproductive members of society.

The US is not an aggressive county in the same sense that the USSR, Germany, The British or Spanish empires were during their “golden ages.” At heart we are isolationist. But we can’t have thing like 9/11, we just can’t. If the world does not like the way we react to that attack then too bad.
 
Originally posted by Asbestostux
Pepper spray should take of any trouble you find on the road. Which has about a
0.000000000000000000001 probability of happening.

Oh I know, anecdotal this and anecdotal that. Blah blah blah...

Truth is you're more likely to shoot yourself or one of your traveling companions than an attacker
or scary wild animal.

Your numbers please? Surely your comments are based on something more than simple opinion.

:rolleyes:
 

Similar threads