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

[teton explorer]

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

Actually, people with guns and bullets kill people. I've had a few bullets in my basement I picked up somewhere along the way. I've had them for years. But I don't have a gun. Those bullets haven't killed, or even injured, anyone. In fact, they haven't even uttered a cross word. Perhaps I've just got extremely well behaved bullets.

 

[teton explorer]

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.

Or put another way, giving someone URL references but no specific citations is like saying "support for my argument might possibly be in there. I'm too lazy to look for it. Why don't you do it for me?"

 

[teton explorer]

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

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.

 

[huhenio]

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

 

[teton explorer]

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

The thought of being shot to death doesn't even cross my mind where I ride. Obviously, its a concern for you. Change your route. You might need to give up your "Tour de South Central" or your "Watts Criterium."

 

[cbjesseeNH]

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.

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,

 

[Arathald]

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,

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.

 

[teton explorer]

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,

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.

 

[teton explorer]

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.

To be clear, Arathald, at this point the issue is not whether I agree or disagree with his position on gun rights. I simply asked him (several times) for the specific citations to the "court opinions" and "legal scholars" (his own words) he claims support his position. I've yet to see them. Instead, I've just seen insults and pseudo-intellectual rambling designed to distract others from the fact that he can't specifically cite to the "court opinions" and "legal scholars" that allegedly support his position. If he'd simply do that, this issue would be dead.

Oh well, although we know his next response will not be any more factual, we do know that it will be entertaining,

 

[zaskar]

Are you sick? What attitude is that? You also wear a gun while going to the theatre with your girl?
Well I guess it's just typical american behaviour. I saw that movie once "Bowling for Columbine". You should watch that, it gives you a whole other look on the carrying of weapons.
Answer to you question: No I don't carry a weapon on training!

He just asked a question, what's with your attitude!! im glad you don't carry a weapon, getting all pissy because someone ask a question. heaven forbid if someone told you to FO!

 

[martin_j001]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8888162/

"The incident is part of a worrisome trend in law enforcement — more officers are being killed in traffic accidents. Twice in recent years — 1999 and 2003 — car crashes topped guns as the No. 1 killer of on-duty officers."

 

[cbjesseeNH]

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.

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.

 

[Arathald]

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.

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.

 

[teton explorer]

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.

Very cute. And nice list. But I didn't ask for a list of articles and court cases discussing the Second Amendment in general. Rather, I requested that you cite to the specific court opinions you referenced (not URLs) and specific articles you referenced (again, not URLS) that support your position on the limited discussion we were having. You still have not done that.

By the way, I'm not an anti-gunner. If you would have paid the slightest bit of attention, you would have picked up on that.

But I must say, you have demonstrated that you know alot of big words and that you can be insulting and condescending in several different ways. Well done.

 

[teton explorer]

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

This quote illustrates that you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention. That is exactly what I've asked you (repeatedly) to do. You made a point and said that your position was supported by "court opinions and scholars." I asked you to identify them. You didn't. Instead, you cited to a website that, according to you, cites "437 Court and Expert Opinions" supporting your position. There is no way that every one of those opinions supports your position or even addresses the limited topic we were discussing. Its not my job to wade through hundreds of irrelevant opinions to find those that support your position. That's your job. You made the statement. Now back it up, or admit that you can't or won't.

 

[cbjesseeNH]

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.

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."

 

[teton explorer]

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

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?

 

[Arathald]

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."

Well, you've sunk even lower. I find your comments extremely condescending and not in the least bit amusing. I do know quite a bit about guns and have been actively involved in dozens of political discussions in my school, guns being one of the topics that came up frequently.

My point in shooting as someone's leg was to use non-lethal force where generally there is no option but to use lethal force, i.e. using lethal force only when there is absolutely no other way. This can be likened to pepper spray. Why use pepper spray on a potentially lethal assailant? Because even though they intend to kill you, you should try to avoid killing them if at all possible. My argument on this is based a good deal on my personal morality, but is is backed up by practical knowledge an well-though out arguments (that I have used before).

And, as I pointed out at least three times in my post, I was simply tring to steer the discussion back to its intended subject. But, you have ruined that. You sunk to personal insults and using one of the most condescending tones that anyone ever had on me, and well, you're just beating a dead horse at this point.

And for the record, I think people should be allowed to carry guns, so this is not an argument over the position.

I think this topic is exhausted, and I would suggest we all quit while we're behind.

 

[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?

 

[mitosis]

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?

It seems a bit of overkill to move countries.

If you read the posts of the pro gun cyclists, they don't shoot them and noone gets hurt. In fact they even get upset if you suggest that guns are devices for killing (asking for facts to back up such an outlandish suggestion). Guns are for protection.

Quite simple really. Now why would you want to emmigrate from a place where people think with such logic?

Just on another matter. Was Hadrian's wall built to keep the Scots out of England?