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



Campybob... I don't even know you and I like you :)

I don't suppose you live in Arizona do you?

Joe


CAMPYBOB said:
Does the US government maintain any law and order or is the duty of every citizen to police one another and subsequently apply summary vigilanty justice?

The Supreme Court of The United States of America has ruled that the police have NO...let me repeat that...NO duty to protect ANYONE.

Hence, they stand about with their thumbs up their asses while murderers roam the hallways and malls. After the suicide shot, they'll enter and clear the building as the survivors are rounded up as criminals, with their hands over their heads.

I, and I alone, am responsible for my security and that of my family, not some silly pooftie socialist from canuckistan. A free man stands up for himself while slaves rely on their masters to rescue them from harm.

In Canada we depend on the estasblishment to provide a basic level of social security. I wouldn't trade my right to life for your right to have a gun.

Che would be so damn proud of you.

Come to think of it, with every wack job out there able to own one, it's no wonder crime is so rampant. Wow.

Freedom comes at a price. Enjoy your chains and I hope they rest lightly about your ankles.

Those that would trade trade liberty for security deserve neither.
 
Campybob... I don't even know you and I like you :)

I don't suppose you live in Arizona do you?

Joe


CAMPYBOB said:
Does the US government maintain any law and order or is the duty of every citizen to police one another and subsequently apply summary vigilanty justice?

The Supreme Court of The United States of America has ruled that the police have NO...let me repeat that...NO duty to protect ANYONE.

Hence, they stand about with their thumbs up their asses while murderers roam the hallways and malls. After the suicide shot, they'll enter and clear the building as the survivors are rounded up as criminals, with their hands over their heads.

I, and I alone, am responsible for my security and that of my family, not some silly pooftie socialist from canuckistan. A free man stands up for himself while slaves rely on their masters to rescue them from harm.

In Canada we depend on the estasblishment to provide a basic level of social security. I wouldn't trade my right to life for your right to have a gun.

Che would be so damn proud of you.

Come to think of it, with every wack job out there able to own one, it's no wonder crime is so rampant. Wow.

Freedom comes at a price. Enjoy your chains and I hope they rest lightly about your ankles.

Those that would trade trade liberty for security deserve neither.
 
Coming from Houston, Texas, and knowing all too well that there are certain unsavory members of our population who will not hesitate to mug you and steal the bike out from under you in broad daylight (happened to me in 1988 at Hermann Park in Houston), I now carry a lightweight firearm every time I ride.

I'm not particularly interested in killing a bicycle thief, but I don't mind putting a round through his patella, so he'll live out the remainder of his life as a hobbling cripple. For the express purpose of injuring and maiming (but not killing), my weapon of choice is a Beretta Bobcat 25 auto. If I have to empty a clip on any assailant, he'll think he just walked into a swarm of very ******-off hornets, and he'll be a lot uglier for the experience.
 
CAMPYBOB said:
Does the US government maintain any law and order or is the duty of every citizen to police one another and subsequently apply summary vigilanty justice?

The Supreme Court of The United States of America has ruled that the police have NO...let me repeat that...NO duty to protect ANYONE.
Then where do all your tax dollars go?
If not health care, the nicest roads (not bridges) must be in the USA.
Not trying to make this a USA against anyone, just seems very strange from the outside looking in.
 
I don't suppose you live in Arizona do you?

No sir. I live in (currently cold and wet!) Ohio. I've been shooting since the age of ten. I compete in ISSF and NRA smallbore 3-position matches, NRA high power matches and steel plate shoots.

I'm a class 7 FFL holder with SOT (Special Occupation Tax)...basically a licensed manufacturer of full-auto firearms.

These silly, braindead liberal pukes amuse me. They have no logic to debate with, simply emotions...like a woman. They never let facts get in the way of telling a good story...rather like the 'scientists' on this site.

Good luck keeping Arizona free for Americans! I see we already have one Arizona moron on this thread that's completely clueless. Keep fighting the good fight, Joe!
 
Then where do all your tax dollars go?

They are wasted on health care for illegal aliens, feeding, clothing, housing and perpetuating ghetto trash criminals and keeping criminals in jail and off the streets that really just need their asses kicked or a bullet put thru their worthless skulls.

If not health care, the nicest roads (not bridges) must be in the USA.

They are. No other nation on the planet has an infrastructure as large as ours. I gladly pay taxes for them and for the killing of terrorists and criminals wherever they may be found. Unfortunately, the police do not waste nearly enough oxygen thieves thanks to communist judges.

And regarding that "health care" issue...

I'll put my health care up against canuckistan's any time. You bet I pay for it...no problem there. I'm glad to pay for it. That's called Capitalism. Not communism. And it's the only way I will have it. I pay my own damn way and I don't expect anyone else to do it for me. Conversely, I see no need to continue paying a nickel more than the law allows for the lazy, fatass welfare state 'citizens' and I see no need to fund the careers of criminals as they prey on the innocent.

I don't wait for my health care. It's there when I need it and IT"S THE BEST IN THE WORLD...just in case your vision is so poor from canadian health care that you haven't noticed. The world comes to us for the best health care. Not the cheapest. The BEST. Period.

No one guaranteed a 'right' to anyone born on this planet to 'health care'...especially if I'm the one paying for it. Only socialists and communists expect such treatment.

Here is your new Bill Of No Rights, just so you have a better understanding of what life is all about:

"WE, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bedwetters.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident:

that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

"ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

"ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone--not just you. You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

"ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

"ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

"ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

"ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

"ARTICLE VII: You don't have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen TV or a life of leisure.

"ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

"ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training before you to make yourself useful.

"ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness--which by the way is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights."
 
Liberals are invariably confused by the role of government in our lives. They think of the government as a kind of sledge hammer for tearing down tradition and crushing organized religion. They think of the government as providing an umbrella against the ****-rain of life's adversity. They think of the government as a great safety net for life's losers.

Theirs is a problem of perspective.

In a nation of, by, and for the people, the PEOPLE come first. That means that WE should be responsible enough to handle life's myriad problems on our own, without summoning "the gubbermint" for assistance. When we do require some assistance, we should seek the help of our families first. When still more assistance is required, we should seek our neighbors' help, then the help of our communities (including churches). For really pressing community-wide problems beyond our control (natural disasters, for instance), we then call in the first tier of government support, our local government. After that comes assistance from state government; and finally, at the bottom of the dung heap, the last tier of government support, the federal government.

Federal government is the hideously deformed and retarded distant cousin who you would never think of asking for help under any circumstances. You would have to be at the absolute end of your rope to call on federal government.

Keep in mind, this is not an upward progression of support. It's definitely downward. We should not want to take any of these steps, because the further away from home you travel, the less reliable is the assistance, and the more callous and uncaring — and ignorant — are the officials with whom you must deal.

In short, we should be able to stand up and accept life's challenges without running to the government for every little problem. That puts us, the people, on the front line of crime control, as it should be.
 
Well put, Charles. Sadly, the world is not up to breeding many men any more. It's far easier to breed tame little obedient sheep to suck at the teat of government.
 
Sad indeed... reading through this thread shows just how many people in the world depend on their governments for protection. Slowly but surely, self-reliance is being bred out of the human race; one country at a time... with little thought to the lessons of history.
 
By the way... for the pro-freedom folks, please don't resort to getting personal with people on the forum. I don't want this thread to degrade to the point that it gets closed. There is far too much really good information here for both the pro and anti freedom sides to have it go to waste because the thread degrades to the point of name calling.

Thanks,

Joe
 
Fudge Monkey said:
In Canada we depend on the estasblishment to provide a basic level of social security. I wouldn't trade my right to life for your right to have a gun.
The US and Canada have very different views on "rights". For example:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country's bill of rights incorporated in the country's constitution. . . ."

This sounds too much like Big Brother to me.
 
I cycled with no firearm this afternoon, but with 250 rounds of 7.62 x 54R ammunition. And it was heavy! Fortunately, I only had to haul it two miles.

The ammo was a tip for the neighbor's oldest son. He installed new rims on one of my tractors last week. His father happened to mention that he and both sons had recently bought Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 rifles. I thought the ammunition was a worthy offering. So did the lad!
 
CAMPYBOB said:
I cycled with no firearm this afternoon, but with 250 rounds of 7.62 x 54R ammunition. And it was heavy! Fortunately, I only had to haul it two miles.

The ammo was a tip for the neighbor's oldest son. He installed new rims on one of my tractors last week. His father happened to mention that he and both sons had recently bought Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 rifles. I thought the ammunition was a worthy offering. So did the lad!
Next time you need tractor rims installed, let me know! That is quite a tip, are they reloads or factory new cartridges?
 
The Hungarian FMJ 'silver tip' military ball rounds were arsenal-fresh loads. If I'm reading the wood crate correctly, the ammunition was sealed up for storage in the 1980's. It was packed in soldered-shut tin 'spam cans' equipped with a pull ring tab to open them. Four spam cans of 250 rounds went into each wood box. The box lid was both screwed and nailed shut and strapped with two galvanized steel straps on top of that! Do memories of the Brit's at Islandwana come to mind?

It's raining cats and dogs up here! Despite the 62 degree temperatures yesterday the roads are too wet for training on so I'm spending a little shop time building up a semi-auto Sten Mk III with a couple of the guys from where I work. We're about 50% complete with the three Stens. I'll try and post some pictures after I get them blued and painted.
 
cbjesseeNH said:
The US and Canada have very different views on "rights". For example:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country's bill of rights incorporated in the country's constitution. . . ."

This sounds too much like Big Brother to me.
Case in point: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm

CANADA'S THOUGHT POLICE

December 16, 2007 -- Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone."

The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.

Steyn, who won the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by The Post and its parent, News Corp), writes for dozens of publications on several continents. After the Canadian general-interest magazine Maclean's reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school students, acting through the auspices of the Canadian Islamic Congress, demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and contempt" for Muslims.

The plaintiffs allege that Maclean's advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.

Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech." Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the press...
 
mitosis said:
People can't get shot when they don't have guns.
If I don't have a gun I can't get shot? Not true.

But I see you are using "people" as a collective term rather than an individual term. That's a point of contraversey here in the US. I think you mean when all people don't have guns, no person can get shot.

Banning guns starts the easy way, but it's ineffective. Honest people have no means of legally obtaining guns for self-defense. The criminals fail to comply with the ban, despite the threat of fines and jail time (they're criminals, after all). Even if numbers of guns dwindle, violent crime persists or increases. The black-market for guns increases. More otherwise honest citizens become "criminals" by virtue of their effort to protect themselves when the government won't or can't.

Tell you what - let's start the hard but more effective way. You get the criminals to turn in all their guns. Then you get the government to demonstrate the willingness and ability to provide protection for all the citizens. Then people find the need to own guns for self-defense no longer necessary.

Now why doesn't anyone propose this instead of banning guns?
 
Joe West said:
By the way... for the pro-freedom folks, please don't resort to getting personal with people on the forum.

seems that there are people on both sides of the discussion "getting personal"
as you put it.


Joe West said:
I don't want this thread to degrade to the point that it gets closed.

That is now a distinct possibility.
 
cbjesseeNH said:
get the government to demonstrate the willingness and ability to provide protection for all the citizens.
That's at the top of list of priorities for any government in the civilized world.

Maybe it could start diverting resources from national defense to civil defense.. or rid yourselves of the military since it's citizens do such a better job of protecting themselves than you're own government.

Imagine if you didn't have to feed the war machine, nevermind pay into social services for protection you're aren't getting to begin with.. the debt would be wiped clean within a couple years and you'd be looking at a healthy surplus!
 
When was the last time this thread actually talked about bikes? I think this is a cycling forum, maybe I'm wrong:confused:
 

Similar threads