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



Keeping my fingers crossed... if the US Supreme court comes out with some wishy-washy ruling that "sort of" supports second ammendment rights, we're in for a real fight when/if the anti-freedom folks take over our government in November :(



cbjesseeNH said:
Our VP, **** Cheney, did indeed say that the homicide rate in DC is higher than Baghdad, but our US Supreme Court is about to fix that...
 
Joe West said:
Keeping my fingers crossed... if the US Supreme court comes out with some wishy-washy ruling that "sort of" supports second ammendment rights, we're in for a real fight when/if the anti-freedom folks take over our government in November :(
more guns=freedom? Come on!
 
here's the logic:

I equate freedom to having the ability to make decisions for myself
The more decisions I can make; the more freedom I have.

If a government restricts ANY decision I might want to make by taking the right to make it away from me; I consider it a loss of freedom.

More choices = more freedom

The right to own a firearm = a choice

Combining the above two equations

the right to own a firearm = more freedom

In my world... everyone would be free to make any choice they want... ride in cars without safety belts, let their children ride in the back of pickup trucks... carry firearms anywhere at anytime, smoke, drink, do drugs, to ride bicycles without a helmet... do ANYTHING they want to do as long as it doesn't violate our constitution.

Freedom... to be stupid or smart... to entirely control one's own destiny...

Freedom... a right I was born with; not something my government grants me...

Freedom... protected by the threat of force from the guns I carry.

I hope this makes sense... but I'm guessing there are likely cultural issues which make my words sound like those of a lunitic to you.

Joe




ProfTournesol said:
more guns=freedom? Come on!
 
I suspect you are choosing to sacrifice freedom for safety... something I'm not willing to do.



artemidorus said:
There is a name for unrestricted freedom: anarchy. You won't find me supporting anarchism.
 
ProfTournesol said:
more guns=freedom? Come on!
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441

There are 59 nations for which data about per capita gun ownership are available. This Working Paper examines the relationship between gun density and several measures of freedom and prosperity: the Freedom House ratings of political rights and civil liberty, the Transparency International Perceived Corruption Index, the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity ratings, and the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom. The data suggest that the relationships between gun ownership rates and these other measures are complex. The data show that (although exceptions can be found) the nations with the highest rates of gun ownerhsip tend to have greater political and civil freedom, greater economic freedom and prosperity, and much less corruption than other nations. The relationship only exists in for high-ownership countries. Countries with medium rates of gun density generally scored no better or worse than countries with the lowest levels of gun rates.
 
You know. I am so happy to live in a country where I have the constipational right to bare arms. With todays crime and the cost of my bike, I think I am going down to the K-Mart tomorrow and buying a shotgun to carry with me. Anybody have any recommendations on the one I should buy. I've never owned a gun and don't know much about them. Any ultra light shotguns available?
 
Jeff Vader said:
You know. I am so happy to live in a country where I have the constipational right to bare arms.
Are you sure you mean constipational? If you want to use methane to defend yourself go for it...
 
From Mossberg's webpage:

"A Mossberg 500 cycle-pro fits perfectly on most road bikes over 50cm and available in carbon fiber with ultra lightweight stock and pistol grip for close range encounters. At a mere 423g, the Mossberg 500 cycle-pro is sure to enhance your bicycling safety with a style and flair all its own. NOTE: The Mossberg 500 cycle-pro is not available in California or in the District of Columbia"

Joe

Jeff Vader said:
You know. I am so happy to live in a country where I have the constipational right to bare arms. With todays crime and the cost of my bike, I think I am going down to the K-Mart tomorrow and buying a shotgun to carry with me. Anybody have any recommendations on the one I should buy. I've never owned a gun and don't know much about them. Any ultra light shotguns available?
 
Quick, we need a technician! We've had another irony radar failure!
(The 534th amendment is the right to freedom from ability to detect all kinds of irony. Mr Vader is waiving his rights under that amendment).
 
cbjesseeNH said:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441

There are 59 nations for which data about per capita gun ownership are available. This Working Paper examines the relationship between gun density and several measures of freedom and prosperity: the Freedom House ratings of political rights and civil liberty, the Transparency International Perceived Corruption Index, the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity ratings, and the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom. The data suggest that the relationships between gun ownership rates and these other measures are complex. The data show that (although exceptions can be found) the nations with the highest rates of gun ownerhsip tend to have greater political and civil freedom, greater economic freedom and prosperity, and much less corruption than other nations. The relationship only exists in for high-ownership countries. Countries with medium rates of gun density generally scored no better or worse than countries with the lowest levels of gun rates.

I haven't read who wrote the report but i suspect he had sympathy for the usa. When it comes to corruption the usa wrote the book and the citizens of the us only think they have freedom because that is the propaganda they are fed. Can you really think the us is free when a significant number of the population feel the need to carry a gun?
 
mitosis said:
I haven't read who wrote the report but i suspect he had sympathy for the usa. When it comes to corruption the usa wrote the book and the citizens of the us only think they have freedom because that is the propaganda they are fed. Can you really think the us is free when a significant number of the population feel the need to carry a gun?
Typical...

1. Anti-gun proponent makes an unsupported statment
2. Pro-gun proponent counters with peer-reviewed, published studies and statistics
3. Anti-gun proponent doesn't look at the study/data, dismissing it as biased and unreliable
4. Anti-gun proponent insults pro-gun proponent, all pro-gun proponents, their whole city/state/country.
5. Anti-gun proponent figures they won the debate. :rolleyes:
 
It is very nice to have our US Supreme Court solidify the beliefs of many Americans and Constitutional scholars; that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.

Now comes the gleeful task of overturning all the states (and DC) laws that limit our individual rights!

Today is a monumental day for American freedom!!!

:D

Joe

Biker Joe said:
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns!
 
Hooray for Heller! But...FOUR of the damned libtard justices need to go back for remedial constitutional law 101.

"The right of the people shall NOT be infringed."!!!!

I'm halfway thru the 157-page .PDF file that is the majority opinion handed down by SCOTUS. It's well worth wading thru.

Not only did Heller go our way...as our Founding Fathers would have had it!, but also we Ohioans got an additional bonus:

This and OH Castle in the same month!:cool:


http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller


Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.


The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.




http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5730




SB184 Analysis: Significant practical improvements for ALL Ohioans


printable page
By Jim Irvine
What changes will SB184 make to Ohio law? How do they apply to the average hunter, target shooter, and concealed carry license holder?
The Act does not go into effect for three months after it is signed into law (the Governor's office has the signing scheduled for Tuesday, June 10th), but we have received many requests for a list of what this bill does. To that end, here is a summary of the changes in SB184.
For all law-abiding citizens (Not just gun owners)
  • <LI style="MARGIN: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">Castle Doctrine: If someone breaks into your occupied home or temporary habitation, or your occupied car, you have an initial presumption that you may act in self defense. The prosecutors may overcome this presumption if illegal activity was happening or other extenuating circumstances, such as a husband and wife domestic violence situation. <LI style="MARGIN: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">Civil Immunity: Crime victims will be immune from civil actions from their attackers and their families for actions that cause a criminal to be harmed or killed. <LI style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 17px; LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">PROBLEM SOLVED: Previously, it was up to YOU, AT YOUR EXPENSE AND UNDER THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT, (and sometimes while actually imprisoned) to prove you were acting in self-defense. Now, when the Act becomes law, and as long as there are not any extenuating circumstances, the case ENDS and the healing begins. No hauling off to jail. No worries about criminal trial and the whims of a jury. No civil suit from the bad guy�s family. <LI style="MARGIN: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">Duty to Retreat: A person who is lawfully in their residence or vehicle has no "duty to retreat" before using force in self-defense or defense of another.
  • PROBLEM SOLVED: Previously in a motor vehicle, the actor, not the prosecutor, at the actor�s own jeopardy and expense, had the burden of proof to establish that they COULD NOT run away.
For all gun owners:
Concealed Handgun License (CHL) changes:
We will do a more detailed analysis on parts of the bill and illustrate how Buckeye Firearms Association with your support worked to educate the legislature about problems and provide workable solutions that have been enacted. As important as this bill is, we want you to understand the process too. Our laws are still not perfect, and the better Ohio gun owners understand the process, the quicker we can address problems in the future.
Thanks for being a part of our team.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled whining of the libtard wastes of oxygen.

An unarmed man is a subject.
An armed man is a citizen!


 
Can anybody show me one case where Scalia found that the constitution actually granted a civil right? What a great man to realize that the only right the framers wanted us citizens to have is the right to carry a gun. Yes. Scalia is a genius whose decisions are not in any way tainted by his own political beliefs.

Has anybody here ever read the text of the second amendment? What the heck does the "well regulated militia" part mean. Does that mean the state governments get to control the militia and can regulate guns? No way. It must mean, as Scalia says, that the private militia in this great country are supposed to be "well trained." Just like the Michigan Militia. He is a genius. I would never have equated "well regulated" with "well trained." Thank god we have smart thinkers like him.

Can't wait till he cracks down on those married homos in California.
 
Hi Jeff,

I'm guessing by your response below that you completely disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. I'm not sure what relevance California's gay marriage laws has to this discussion, and I am sure that your question regarding who has actually read the second amendment is rhetorical... what isn't clear to me is what your point is.

To answer your first question below... take a look at our first amendment... one might easily conclude that our first amendment (Freedom of speech just in case you aren't familiar with it) is very closely linked to our second amendment (freedom to keep and bear arms).

I'm not sure if you have read the entire opinion of the court (all 157 pages) but I have. If you read it, I think you'll find that the majority opinion by Scalia is incredibly well layed out and extremely logical, while the minority opinion is a weak hodge-podge of misinformation with little substantive basis.

Do me a favor if you wish to continue this discussion... please read the entire opinion of the court (I'll send it to you if you shoot me an email to [email protected]) and then come back and ask questions. I'd be willing to bet that we could have a somewhat lively debate on the specifics.

Kind Regards,

Joe

Jeff Vader said:
Can anybody show me one case where Scalia found that the constitution actually granted a civil right? What a great man to realize that the only right the framers wanted us citizens to have is the right to carry a gun. Yes. Scalia is a genius whose decisions are not in any way tainted by his own political beliefs.

Has anybody here ever read the text of the second amendment? What the heck does the "well regulated militia" part mean. Does that mean the state governments get to control the militia and can regulate guns? No way. It must mean, as Scalia says, that the private militia in this great country are supposed to be "well trained." Just like the Michigan Militia. He is a genius. I would never have equated "well regulated" with "well trained." Thank god we have smart thinkers like him.

Can't wait till he cracks down on those married homos in California.
 

Similar threads