bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement you draw and... I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to launch a good nonviolent campaign? Here's a good identifying T-shirt... http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories Still Bush defends the right to bear arms EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect "every American classroom and community", a White House official said Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/04/17/1176696841532.html?from=top5 WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote BIKE FOR PEACE http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace   Date: 04 May 2007 13:17:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the dinosaur was still there On May 4, 4:12 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > --An excess of sardines can give you gout > Which is very painful.-- > > "The shark overhunts sardines till they disappear. Then he dies too." > > Sorry to have made a short story with a sad ending. Do you know one of > the classics of the short story??? > > It's Augusto Monterroso's famous story, 'The Dinosaur'... > > "When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there." > > What analysis or application can you make out of it? Say a nightmare > where a dinosaur gets elected for 4 years and then re-elected, so he > never goes away? How about the SUVs? I see them in my nightmares where > they chase me in my bike. Are they trying to crush me, or just > overtake me? Or simply they live in the own big world and couldn't > care less about such an insect in a bike. Those are deep thoughts... Was that repetition or what? I guess that's a recurrent dream. (Or simply didn't show successful post.)   Date: 04 May 2007 13:12:19 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the dinosaur was still there --An excess of sardines can give you gout Which is very painful.-- "The shark overhunts sardines till they disappear. Then he dies too." Sorry to have made a short story with a sad ending. Do you know one of the classics of the short story??? It's Augusto Monterroso's famous story, 'The Dinosaur'... "When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there." What analysis or application can you make out of it? Say a nightmare where a dinosaur gets elected for 4 years and then re-elected, so he never goes away? How about the SUVs? I see them in my nightmares where they chase me in my bike. Are they trying to crush me, or just overtake me? Or simply they live in the own big world and couldn't care less about such an insect in a bike. Those are deep thoughts...   Date: 03 May 2007 11:37:09 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 3, 12:53 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber > wrote: > On 3 May 2007 05:33:08 -0700, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Whatever. I do believe being groped, penetrated by anything, or > >sodomized is rape. Ladies, do you agree? > > The government doesn't. Groping is not rape. Penetration is the key. > There is a _huge_ difference. > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm > Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion > as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration > by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female > victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape > includes verbal threats of rape. > > -- > Turby the Turbosurfer I agree there is a huge difference, but personally I would feel violated even if I were just groped against my will.     Date: 03 May 2007 20:40:23 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1178217428.960281.214210 @y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > I agree there is a huge difference, but personally I would feel > violated even if I were just groped against my will. Bullshit. You would feel honored. After all, you'd no longer be an ugly virgin... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com   Date: 03 May 2007 11:10:30 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: riding a bike into no man's land On May 3, 1:01 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > > That's reasonable and it will make it to the Bicycle Statutes of the > > revolution. > > What kind of flowers are fit for a lane taker who gets in front of a 40 > ton semi? > Bill Baka- Well, I'd be more worried with the driver of a 5 ton SUV, since this one has very little training in driving, and chances are he/she would be attending to some other business other than driving. But if we make it a COORDINATED CAMPAIGN, and while one goes down, the other make a lot of noise, then things could be different. At least you die for a purpose, or a cause. Today I'll be riding in heavy traffic before I get into the calmer area, and I feel like I'm going into no man's land, 'cause, you know, it's very Darwinistic out there, even in a car... "We live in a society where things are moving so fast that nobody seems to appreciate life anymore," Police: Steer clear of road rage by KAREN HANNA karenh@herald-mail.com HAGERSTOWN - An accident in Frederick County, Md., that killed two people who reportedly exchanged obscene gestures with a man in another vehicle has local motorists worried. Almost two weeks after Harrisburg, Pa., residents Christian Michael Luciano, 28, and Lindsay L. Bender, 25, died in the accident on Interstate 270, 1st Sgt. Chris Sasse said Maryland State Police in Frederick continue their search for the other driver. Sasse said Monday that police at the Frederick barrack might get as many as 100 complaints about aggressive driving on busy travel days, but police in Washington County said they only occasionally investigate incidents involving road rage. Josie Boon and her husband, Erik, said they cannot understand what possesses drivers to put other travelers in danger. "We live in a society where things are moving so fast that nobody seems to appreciate life anymore," said Boon, who talked about the accident while she and her family took in a baseball game Monday at Staley Park. http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=163969&format=html     Date: 03 May 2007 16:43:53 From: Bill Subject: Re: riding a bike into no man's land donquijote1954 wrote: > On May 3, 1:01 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> That's reasonable and it will make it to the Bicycle Statutes of the >>> revolution. >> What kind of flowers are fit for a lane taker who gets in front of a 40 >> ton semi? >> Bill Baka- > > Well, I'd be more worried with the driver of a 5 ton SUV, since this > one has very little training in driving, and chances are he/she would > be attending to some other business other than driving. > > But if we make it a COORDINATED CAMPAIGN, and while one goes down, the > other make a lot of noise, then things could be different. At least > you die for a purpose, or a cause. Let's not let the cause be stupidity. If it is a reasonable amount of traffic moving slow enough, like in a 25 MPH zone, then, sure, take the lane. I do in town and ride the side streets, not the main corridor. I can get there faster by avoiding the streets with all the cars and lights every block, with irritable drivers at every corner. > > Today I'll be riding in heavy traffic before I get into the calmer > area, and I feel like I'm going into no man's land, 'cause, you know, > it's very Darwinistic out there, even in a car... I will ride between cars in heavy traffic, even at a left turn lane, but only in town, and only if I have to in order to avoid a long detour. Left turns work out very well and straight across I don't take the lane but ride to the right so everybody can get across past me. In some places traffic isn't even going to notice a bike in the midst because they are topping out at 20 MPH. In others, they are so distracted by the other 'Cages' that they will be looking not to get hit by another 'cager' and not notice a bicycle. I got hit ***AFTER*** making eye contact with a driver around Christmas but the guy pulled out into me and almost ran his Gigantic pickup over me and bike. I did everything exactly legal and still got hit and my left thumb got cracked/dislocated and is only now really pain free again. > > "We live in a society where things are moving so fast that nobody > seems to appreciate life anymore," > > Police: Steer clear of road rage > by KAREN HANNA karenh@herald-mail.com > > HAGERSTOWN - An accident in Frederick County, Md., that killed two > people who reportedly exchanged obscene gestures with a man in another > vehicle has local motorists worried. > > Almost two weeks after Harrisburg, Pa., residents Christian Michael > Luciano, 28, and Lindsay L. Bender, 25, died in the accident on > Interstate 270, 1st Sgt. Chris Sasse said Maryland State Police in > Frederick continue their search for the other driver. > > Sasse said Monday that police at the Frederick barrack might get as > many as 100 complaints about aggressive driving on busy travel days, > but police in Washington County said they only occasionally > investigate incidents involving road rage. > > Josie Boon and her husband, Erik, said they cannot understand what > possesses drivers to put other travelers in danger. > > "We live in a society where things are moving so fast that nobody > seems to appreciate life anymore," said Boon, who talked about the > accident while she and her family took in a baseball game Monday at > Staley Park. > > http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=163969&format=html > > There is no argument that being stuck in a car in traffic while trying to get to work or get the hell away from it and get home puts all those people in a bad mood 10 times a week. Silicon Valley is now so bad, including corrupt cops in one city district, that I won't drive down there in a car, and would never attempt to ride a bike there. Some things just get worse, like the S.F. Bay area. Bill Baka   Date: 03 May 2007 07:44:08 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 3, 8:02 am, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On May 2, 4:55 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > But I'm struck by the fact that I've never, ever, in 30+ years of > > cycling, met a man or woman who felt the need to have a pistol ready > > at their side. Somehow all those people are surviving. Maybe you > > should observe what most cyclists do, and imitate that? > > Why do I? Again, this is America and if I want to carry a weapon for > protection, I have that right. I don't have to be like others, I'm my > own person. I am fully capable of handling my weapon and I am > perfectly within the law to carry it. In > Virginia, I can carry a concealed weapon. Therefore, I will continue > to carry it, no matter what other people may say. You're correct, it's permitted. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing the supposed need to carry it, and wondering about the fearful mental state that makes one think a gun is needed. That's all. Statements like "it only takes one time" indicate you're not being realistic. Watch out for those meteorites! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 03 May 2007 11:55:56 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1178203448.493175.300710@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On May 3, 8:02 am, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 2, 4:55 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > >> > You're correct, it's permitted. I wasn't disputing that. > > I was disputing the supposed need to carry it, and wondering about the > fearful mental state that makes one think a gun is needed. That's > all. Statements like "it only takes one time" indicate you're not > being realistic. > > Watch out for those meteorites! > > - Frank Krygowski > "Watch out for those meteorites", now that's being realistic.     Date: 03 May 2007 16:42:36 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Statements like "it only takes one time" indicate you're not being realistic. <<<<<<<<<<<<< that I would find realistic. Just like whenever I am on the road   Date: 03 May 2007 05:49:45 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 3, 12:09 am, "Stephen!" <N...@spam.com > wrote: > evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1178122901.249307.31150@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > (A whole bunch of drivel without *any* proper trimming or attribution... > I'll try to make some sense of it) > > >> So many intelligent questions from which to choose... > > so all you do is jugde people. > > Nope... nor do I judge them. > > > you don't know me, you know nothing about me > > I know that you ride a bicycle with a .38 revolver in a fanny pack. I > know that you have zero chance of retrieving said revolver in any > reasonable amount of time. I know that because I *have* been trained in > self defense both armed and unarmed and I'm realistic enough to know that > retrieving a revolver from a fanny pack takes *far* too long in any but > the most contrived situations. Thats great that you think I have "zero chance"...I still feel protected when I wear my gun. I really don't care about your opinion. > > >> Not really. By the time you figure out how to get it from yer butt > >> pack anybody wishing to do you harm would have you on the ground and > >> unconscious. > > how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, > > Size and strength are absolutely no match for stealth and surprise. If > someone wanted to harm you they'd be on you and it would be over before > you even got the zipper open on your fanny pack. > I don't thing that when I'm riding my bike, someone will be able to "surprise" me and tackle me to the ground. > > you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. > > I am not assuming anything. I am stating plain fact. Fact based upon my > and others' experience in self defense using a firearm. > > > have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, > > NOTHING. > > Again. None of that matters. Yes it does. > > > with your attitude, maybe thats all you can get, was that smart enough > > for you? > > What's with your hang-up on intelligence? You are the one who has the hang-up on intellegence! > > > oh, yea, i'm sorry, again, you have no good arguements, other than > > calling me a loser. > > You are not even listening. I try to point out a fatal flaw in your > self-defense plan and *you* turn around and attack me like one of you > fantasy rapists... Yes, i have fantasy rapists....I think you have a problem with someone carrying a gun. It is legal in Va to carry a concealed weapon, I can have it anywhere, on my leg, on my arm, around my waist,,,,it really doesn't matter where I have it as long as I have it with me. > > >> Wow... Such intelligence and forthought. I'm glad you think I am > >> fun. Would you like to buy a comma? > > > what is your problem? you seriously need to get some help in you > > anger managment. > > What part of that comment denotes anger? Sounds like *you* are the one > with anger problems. Lets refresh your memory...you called me a loser for no reason. > > > Thank god you don't carry a gun, we might read about > > you sometime in the papers? > > I go nowhere without my S&W .40 with 11 in the mag and one in the pipe. > (unless I'm carrying the .45 1911 with 13 in the mag and one in the pipe) > I practice with it regularly, I keep it within easy reach, and I sure as > hell don't hide it behind a zipper. Good for you. > > > > >> If you get set off this easily, perhaps you should be carrying a > >> cap pistol. > > > Maybe I will, or how about a machine gun, and some grenades strapped > > across my chest.... > > Nahh... as easily as you go off I think a cap pistol is best. > > > It was a comment...I'm not trying to restrict anyone, actually I'm one > > of the most liberal people that I know. > >> > and who are you again? > > >> Someone who knows you much better than you think. > > > REALLY. Please do enlighten me and tell me about myself...who am I? > > What do I do for a living? Wait, so I have a college education? Did > > I go to graduate school. Am I a professional? Please do tell, I'm > > quite lost because someone knows more about me than myself....WOW You > > must be psychic? > Well it makes a point that you know nothing about me but you claim to know everything. That doesn't sound to intellegent to me. How does packing a revolver make me less safe? Please tell. > None of that is germane to the point at hand. As evidenced by your > comments you are a self-righteous hothead who thinks that packing a > snubnose revolver behind a zipper somehow makes you safer. If you really > want to be able to use the pistol when your fantasy rapist attacks you, > wear it in a holster. > > > Yea, I would love to be someone who puts others down for no reason. > > Better than someone with an obvious 'victim' mindset who is so blinded > by their own self-importance that they cannot recognize good advice when > they see it... > What is your good advice. Please if you thing you have good advice for me, email me privately. But you choose to be arrogant and post it here. > > to agree with me, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. You have > > some major problems to get your panties in a waud for what I said. > > You are the one all wadded up... > > > Will do! In the meantime, my gun will be ready to use if needed! > > No it won't. Can't you see that was the whole point *before* you got > all freaked out? If you had good points, there were not made without sarcasm, arrogance and bullying behavior. > > > Can you send me a pic? I would love to use it next time I go to the > > range for targe practice? > > Sure... > > http://imagesdesavions.com/me.jpg > Nice pic. Is this what you look like? > -- > RCOS #7 > IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com     Date: 03 May 2007 20:53:21 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1178196585.232753.237380 @o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > Lets refresh your memory...you called me a loser for no reason. Nope. I called you a loser (and still do) because you insist that carrying a revolver in a fanny pack will help you in a self-defense situation. I wonder why the police don't all wear their firearms in fanny packs... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com       Date: 04 May 2007 04:38:08 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com > wrote in message news:Xns9925CA7B59150smvsmv@216.196.97.142... > evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1178196585.232753.237380 > @o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > >> Lets refresh your memory...you called me a loser for no reason. > > > Nope. I called you a loser (and still do) because you insist that > carrying a revolver in a fanny pack will help you in a self-defense > situation. > > I wonder why the police don't all wear their firearms in fanny packs... Some do. And not all fanny packs are equal.     Date: 03 May 2007 14:52:10 From: dgk Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 3 May 2007 05:49:45 -0700, evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote: >I don't thing that when I'm riding my bike, someone will be able to >"surprise" me and tackle me to the ground. > I think that you're very wrong here. All someone has to do is push you while you bike past and you're lying on the ground wondering what happened. A stick in the spokes will do the same thing. A rock to the head and off you go.       Date: 03 May 2007 20:55:03 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote in news:6ibk33p223qcq3date9hpfb7qhfhk3abo6@ 4ax.com: > I think that you're very wrong here. All someone has to do is push you > while you bike past and you're lying on the ground wondering what > happened. A stick in the spokes will do the same thing. A rock to the > head and off you go. > but but but... S/he/it will have retrieved its revolver from the fanny pack and drilled 'em twice in the Lights Out Zone before s/he/it even hits the ground... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com   Date: 03 May 2007 05:40:29 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 9:19 pm, BrianNZ <b...@itnz.co.nz > wrote: > Stephen Cowell wrote: > > "BrianNZ" <b...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message > >news:f1aufv$djk$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... > >> evelyn wrote: > > >>> how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, > >>> you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You > >>> have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, > >>> NOTHING. > > >> Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a > >> look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that > >> assumption up for you. > > >> Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but > >> prefers wearing womens clothes...... > > > I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts You really are crazy. > > like you guys! > > ?? I was just helping evelyn get a grip on what sex she/he is....... excuse me, I know who I am, I feel that you are some sexist asshole who hids behind his computer and calls other people losers when he hears an opinion that might be different than his. How old are you? Obviously you cannot have an intellegent conversation.....and I'm still waiting for your picture to use at targe practice! > > > I like the way you handle that > > Evelyn pussy.... Again, what is with the sexual comments? Grow up. I can have any opinion I want to about guns, I can carry a gun and use it when I have too. > > "I never had sexual relations with that woman!" > > > imagine, carrying a gun, yet > > admitting there are gun problems in our society! Yea, I really don't see what the big deal is about. I carry a gun, but there are gun problems in society....this is an issue with many gray areas. Are you blind to the bigger picture? > > There are lots of law abiding people with guns who cause no trouble. The > problems come about with misuse, so it's more of a people problem than a > gun problem. A gun problem would be something like misfires or not > feeding the rounds into the chamber properly......... I agree. > > > > > That's the good thing about being a gun nut... > > Why is it you add 'nut' to anything to do with guns? > > > plenty of small penis friends out there. > > I don't judge my friends by the size of their penis, but if thats what > your'e into.......different strokes for different folks I suppose! > Again, why the sexual comments? Is it just to piss of the women? > > > > __ > > Steve > > '06 FXDI > > KI5YG > > #0627 > > .- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 03 May 2007 05:36:14 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 9:19 pm, BrianNZ <b...@itnz.co.nz > wrote: > Stephen Cowell wrote: > > "BrianNZ" <b...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message > >news:f1aufv$djk$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... > >> evelyn wrote: > > >>> how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, > >>> you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You > >>> have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, > >>> NOTHING. > > >> Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a > >> look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that > >> assumption up for you. > > >> Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but > >> prefers wearing womens clothes...... > > > I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts > > like you guys! > > ?? I was just helping evelyn get a grip on what sex she/he is....... > > > I like the way you handle that > > Evelyn pussy.... > > "I never had sexual relations with that woman!" > > > imagine, carrying a gun, yet > > admitting there are gun problems in our society! > > There are lots of law abiding people with guns who cause no trouble. The > problems come about with misuse, so it's more of a people problem than a > gun problem. A gun problem would be something like misfires or not > feeding the rounds into the chamber properly......... > > > > > That's the good thing about being a gun nut... > > Why is it you add 'nut' to anything to do with guns? > > > plenty of small penis friends out there. > > I don't judge my friends by the size of their penis, but if thats what > your'e into.......different strokes for different folks I suppose! > > > > > __ > > Steve > > '06 FXDI > > KI5YG > > #0627 > > .- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Again, its funny that people can "hide" and say the stupidest things on the computer. Lets have an intellegent conversation. And I take offense to using the word pussy...very sexist, its very obvious that some men have problems with strong women. evelyn   Date: 03 May 2007 05:34:35 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 8:50 pm, "Stephen Cowell" <scow...@sbcglobal.net > wrote: > "BrianNZ" <b...@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message > > news:f1aufv$djk$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... > > > evelyn wrote: > > >> how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, > >> you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You > >> have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, > >> NOTHING. > > > Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a > > look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that > > assumption up for you. > > > Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but > > prefers wearing womens clothes...... > > I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts > like you guys! I like the way you handle that > Evelyn pussy.... imagine, carrying a gun, yet > admitting there are gun problems in our society! > > That's the good thing about being a gun nut... > plenty of small penis friends out there. > __ > Steve > '06 FXDI > KI5YG > #0627 > . Uhm...yea, this is America, gun control is not a black - white issue, there are many gray areas and there are lots of people who have the same opinion as myself. why not have a intellegen conversation about this?   Date: 03 May 2007 05:33:08 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 6:13 pm, "Mike Young" <boat042-s...@yahoo.com > wrote: > "evelyn" <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1178130489.842587.256130@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On May 2, 2:14 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > > wrote: > >> In article <1178125646.147904.211...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > >> evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or > >> >sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. > > >> Then get a better definition, because you're cheapening the word > >> "rape". > >> -- > >> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices > >> can > >> result in a fully-depreciated one. > > > maybe i should clarify: being touched, groped, penetrated or > >> >sodomized, I call all that SEXUAL ASSAULT if I don't want it. does this > >> >sound better? You are right, I don't want to cheapen the word "rape" > > Bloody hell. You forgot innuendo and off color jokes.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Whatever. I do believe being groped, penetrated by anything, or sodomized is rape. Ladies, do you agree?     Date: 03 May 2007 09:53:34 From: Turby Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 3 May 2007 05:33:08 -0700, evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote: >Whatever. I do believe being groped, penetrated by anything, or >sodomized is rape. Ladies, do you agree? The government doesn't. Groping is not rape. Penetration is the key. There is a _huge_ difference. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape. -- Turby the Turbosurfer   Date: 03 May 2007 05:10:01 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 5:07 pm, BrianNZ <b...@itnz.co.nz > wrote: > evelyn wrote: > > how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, > > you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You > > have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, > > NOTHING. > > Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a > look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that > assumption up for you. > > Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but > prefers wearing womens clothes...... how intellegent? how about sticking to the arguement and not being a dumbass?     Date: 04 May 2007 09:58:05 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn wrote: > On May 2, 5:07 pm, BrianNZ <b...@itnz.co.nz> wrote: >> evelyn wrote: >>> how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, >>> you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You >>> have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, >>> NOTHING. >> Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a >> look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that >> assumption up for you. >> >> Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but >> prefers wearing womens clothes...... > > how intellegent? The part about you assuming you are a woman? Well, what was the result of your pants survey? Am I talking to a man or a woman here. > how about sticking to the arguement and not being a > dumbass? > (assuming your'e a woman 'cos if you don't know, how the hell am I supposed to know?) My my, that time of the month is it? Your argument of keeping a pistol in a fanny pack has already been won by the man who said 'use a holster'.....the guy that was trying to give you a heads up on how to defend yourself better, who you decided was flaming you. You can't even accept helpful advice without having a wee hissyfit, let alone having a laugh at yourself over your own words.       Date: 03 May 2007 20:50:32 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz > wrote in news:f1dlqd$cfr$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: > My my, that time of the month is it? > Your argument of keeping a pistol in a fanny pack has already been won > by the man who said 'use a holster'.....the guy that was trying to give > you a heads up on how to defend yourself better, who you decided was > flaming you. Heh... I give up... The dumb pussy wore me out. Never once adressing the point I was making and taking everything as an insult... Getting all pissed off about it then acusing me of having anger issues... Fuck 'er... If s/he thinks carrying a revolver in a fanny pack makes him/her safer, so be it... We all know there's a big difference between going "to the range for targe practice"(sic) and a self-defense proficiency course... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com         Date: 04 May 2007 14:02:12 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen! wrote: > BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote in news:f1dlqd$cfr$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: > >> My my, that time of the month is it? >> Your argument of keeping a pistol in a fanny pack has already been won >> by the man who said 'use a holster'.....the guy that was trying to give >> you a heads up on how to defend yourself better, who you decided was >> flaming you. > > > Heh... I give up... The dumb pussy wore me out. Never once adressing > the point I was making and taking everything as an insult... Getting all > pissed off about it then acusing me of having anger issues... > > Fuck 'er... If s/he thinks carrying a revolver in a fanny pack makes > him/her safer, so be it... > > We all know there's a big difference between going "to the range for > targe practice"(sic) and a self-defense proficiency course... > It's a bit of a worrying trend for him/her to be packing a pistol while having anger issues, not listening to good advice when it's offered, crying 'sexist' at the word pussy and thinking groping constitutes rape. ( I wonder how old he/she is and how many times he/shes been groped OR attacked) The chances of him/her shooting someone by mistake in a moment of anger or fear (justified in her mind) is higher than him/her being able to shoot an attacker. Lets face it, it youv'e just been shoved off your bike your body is going to be in shock for a few seconds which would be plenty of time for an attacker to do his/her worst to disable him/her.   Date: 03 May 2007 05:02:28 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 4:55 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 2, 2:12 pm, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I've taken self defense classes, karate > > classes and finally a class to be certified to carry a fire arm. I'm > > not living in the fairy tale world where nothing bad ever happens. > > Even in rural, country communities, crime can occur. > > Of course it _can_. We hear that sort of thinking all the time - the > fact that no, disaster is NOT literally impossible. > > It's that kind of thinking that gets people driving 1000 miles because > they're afraid of flying, or never riding bikes because they're afraid > of getting hit by a car. Problem is, such thinking often puts people > into worse conditions than the one they fear. Don't fly, get in a car > crash instead (much more likely). Don't bike, die of heart disease > while sitting safe on your couch. > > Just like crime, getting hit by a meteorite can occur. Having a tree > topple on you as you ride by can occur. So can having an earthquake > crack the road open and swallow you. But when the odds of a > particular danger get low enough, it's just not worth worrying about. > > > What do you suggest women do? > > The first thing I'd suggest is simply not being afraid! It's not that > bad out there! > > IMO, taking a self-defence class is fine. I believe the few bad guys > that are out there are influenced by a person's confidence, or lack of > same. Staying out of really sketchy neighborhoods makes sense to me > too (although I routinely ride through some that scare more timid > folk). > > But I'm struck by the fact that I've never, ever, in 30+ years of > cycling, met a man or woman who felt the need to have a pistol ready > at their side. Somehow all those people are surviving. Maybe you > should observe what most cyclists do, and imitate that? > Why do I? Again, this is America and if I want to carry a weapon for protection, I have that right. I don't have to be like others, I'm my own person. I am fully capable of handling my weapon and I am perfectly within the law to carry it. In Virginia, I can carry a concealed weapon. Therefore, I will continue to carry it, no matter what other people may say. > - Frank Krygowski     Date: 03 May 2007 16:41:09 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "evelyn" <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178193748.465071.215240@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 4:55 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> On May 2, 2:12 pm, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I've taken self defense classes, karate >> > classes and finally a class to be certified to carry a fire arm. I'm >> > not living in the fairy tale world where nothing bad ever happens. >> > Even in rural, country communities, crime can occur. >> >> Of course it _can_. We hear that sort of thinking all the time - the >> fact that no, disaster is NOT literally impossible. >> >> It's that kind of thinking that gets people driving 1000 miles because >> they're afraid of flying, or never riding bikes because they're afraid >> of getting hit by a car. Problem is, such thinking often puts people >> into worse conditions than the one they fear. Don't fly, get in a car >> crash instead (much more likely). Don't bike, die of heart disease >> while sitting safe on your couch. >> >> Just like crime, getting hit by a meteorite can occur. Having a tree >> topple on you as you ride by can occur. So can having an earthquake >> crack the road open and swallow you. But when the odds of a >> particular danger get low enough, it's just not worth worrying about. >> >> > What do you suggest women do? >> >> The first thing I'd suggest is simply not being afraid! It's not that >> bad out there! >> >> IMO, taking a self-defence class is fine. I believe the few bad guys >> that are out there are influenced by a person's confidence, or lack of >> same. Staying out of really sketchy neighborhoods makes sense to me >> too (although I routinely ride through some that scare more timid >> folk). >> >> But I'm struck by the fact that I've never, ever, in 30+ years of >> cycling, met a man or woman who felt the need to have a pistol ready >> at their side. Somehow all those people are surviving. Maybe you >> should observe what most cyclists do, and imitate that? >> > Why do I? Again, this is America and if I want to carry a weapon for > protection, I have that right. I don't have to be like others, I'm my > own person. I am fully capable of handling my weapon and I am > perfectly within the law to carry it. In > Virginia, I can carry a concealed weapon. Therefore, I will continue > to carry it, no matter what other people may say. >> - Frank Krygowski > I would add that it may make you feel over confident. Police can tell you. A person coming through your door with a knife while you are sitting 12 feet away watching TV with a gun beside you will be able to kill you before you can fire even once. That is why they killed so many people with knives only I believe. With no element of surprise it is alot harder I would say. But like riding with a helmut you probably take chances you would not because you feel safer when you are not.       Date: 03 May 2007 11:58:32 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message news:Fgo_h.156287$DE1.6632@pd7urf2no... > > "evelyn" <eziennker@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1178193748.465071.215240@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On May 2, 4:55 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> > I would add that it may make you feel over confident. > Police can tell you. A person coming through your door with a knife while > you are sitting 12 feet away watching TV with a gun beside you will be > able to kill you before you can fire even once. want to bet,   Date: 03 May 2007 04:59:32 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 4:39 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 2, 1:07 pm, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 2, 1:00 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > > > > > On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > > > > > Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > > > > will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > > > and if I carry my gun while riding/running in a rural area, I will be > > able to protect myself! > > > > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > > > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > > > indeed! > > > How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or > > sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. > > Well, if "being touched" qualifies as sexual assault, I suppose that > _would_ make one out of three American women victims! > > I could bump into a woman in a grocery and be guilty of sexual > assault! Who knew? I just hope I won't get shot for it. > > Hmm. Maybe the world really is a dangerous place after all! ;-) > > > Isn't it easy for > > men to say these things. I don't think that a man getting ready to go > > for a ride will ask himself if he will get hurt or raped while out by > > himself. > > Sorry, I still think you're paranoid. I know _many_ women who ride > their bikes by themselves. _None_ of them carry guns, nor have they > ever needed one, AFAIK. (And yes, I do believe they would tell me.) > Good for them. It only takes one time though. It is perfectly legal for me to carry my firearm, and I will continue to do so. I really don't care if you think I am being paranoid. Again, I would better be safe than sorry. > > And > > carrying a gun gives me some type of protection agains the weirdos out > > there. > > Watch out! The paranoids are after you! ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 03 May 2007 04:57:46 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 3:43 pm, "DI" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > "evelyn" <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1178129531.642513.19820@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On May 2, 1:44 pm, Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOS...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> (newsgroups trimmed a bit...) > > >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > >> >> On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> >>> Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > >> >> Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > >> >> will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > > >> > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > >> > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > >> > indeed! > > >> I've seen similar statistics before. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's > >> become (becoming?) conventional wisdom. > > >> > But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for > >> > all women to pack guns all the time. > > >> If you take 70 years as the mean life span, and 1/3 of the women in the > >> US are assaulted, you're chance of being sexually assaulted today is > >> something like 1 out of 75,000. It wouldn't be worth it to me to pack a > >> pistol every day, given that remote a chance, but if one was a regular > >> patron of the Fearmonger's Shop like "evelyn" seems to be, maybe one > >> might think it worthwhile for onesself. > > >> Pat > > > What do you suggest women do? I've taken self defense classes, karate > > classes and finally a class to be certified to carry a fire arm. I'm > > not living in the fairy tale world where nothing bad ever happens. > > Even in rural, country communities, crime can occur. I don't think > > there is any problem with women carrying guns. > > > Evelyn > > I can't believe all these fruitcakes are blasting you for wanting to carry > some personal protection when you are out alone, you're smarter than they > are. You have every right to do whatever you feel is necessary, it's none > of their business. A .38 is excellent personal defense gun for a woman, > might be a little lightweight in some instances but with 125 grain hollow > points, quite effective. Keep carrying it and don't worry about this > bunch.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thank you. Finally someone who has an intellegent thought.   Date: 02 May 2007 13:55:21 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 2:12 pm, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > > I've taken self defense classes, karate > classes and finally a class to be certified to carry a fire arm. I'm > not living in the fairy tale world where nothing bad ever happens. > Even in rural, country communities, crime can occur. Of course it _can_. We hear that sort of thinking all the time - the fact that no, disaster is NOT literally impossible. It's that kind of thinking that gets people driving 1000 miles because they're afraid of flying, or never riding bikes because they're afraid of getting hit by a car. Problem is, such thinking often puts people into worse conditions than the one they fear. Don't fly, get in a car crash instead (much more likely). Don't bike, die of heart disease while sitting safe on your couch. Just like crime, getting hit by a meteorite can occur. Having a tree topple on you as you ride by can occur. So can having an earthquake crack the road open and swallow you. But when the odds of a particular danger get low enough, it's just not worth worrying about. > What do you suggest women do? The first thing I'd suggest is simply not being afraid! It's not that bad out there! IMO, taking a self-defence class is fine. I believe the few bad guys that are out there are influenced by a person's confidence, or lack of same. Staying out of really sketchy neighborhoods makes sense to me too (although I routinely ride through some that scare more timid folk). But I'm struck by the fact that I've never, ever, in 30+ years of cycling, met a man or woman who felt the need to have a pistol ready at their side. Somehow all those people are surviving. Maybe you should observe what most cyclists do, and imitate that? - Frank Krygowski   Date: 02 May 2007 13:39:35 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 1:07 pm, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On May 2, 1:00 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > > > > On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > > > > Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > > > will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > > and if I carry my gun while riding/running in a rural area, I will be > able to protect myself! > > > > > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > > indeed! > > How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or > sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. Well, if "being touched" qualifies as sexual assault, I suppose that _would_ make one out of three American women victims! I could bump into a woman in a grocery and be guilty of sexual assault! Who knew? I just hope I won't get shot for it. Hmm. Maybe the world really is a dangerous place after all! ;-) > Isn't it easy for > men to say these things. I don't think that a man getting ready to go > for a ride will ask himself if he will get hurt or raped while out by > himself. Sorry, I still think you're paranoid. I know _many_ women who ride their bikes by themselves. _None_ of them carry guns, nor have they ever needed one, AFAIK. (And yes, I do believe they would tell me.) > And > carrying a gun gives me some type of protection agains the weirdos out > there. Watch out! The paranoids are after you! ;-) - Frank Krygowski   Date: 02 May 2007 11:29:41 From: Dave Head Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn wrote: > > >BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree > > >with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't > > >need them; the sole purpose is to kill. > > > > What's your 38 for? Face it, some people just need killin'. You are stupid...yea, I carry my gun so that I can shoot people when I'm out riding my bike! Yep, thats me. > > Again, you are an idiot. I carry my legal gun (I have passed all the > requirements for carring it) so that I am protected. You must know > that there are rapist and murderers everywhere and I would use my gun > for protection. Exactly. Like I said, some people just need killin'. That would be the rapists and muggers... >I am not going out for a bike ride and looking to > shoot someone! Of course not. DPH   Date: 02 May 2007 11:28:09 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 2:14 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <1178125646.147904.211...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or > >sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. > > Then get a better definition, because you're cheapening the word > "rape". > -- > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. maybe i should clarify: being touched, groped, penetrated or > >sodomized, I call all that SEXUAL ASSAULT if I don't want it. does this sound better? You are right, I don't want to cheapen the word "rape"     Date: 02 May 2007 22:13:30 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "evelyn" <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178130489.842587.256130@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 2:14 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: >> In article <1178125646.147904.211...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> >> evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or >> >sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. >> >> Then get a better definition, because you're cheapening the word >> "rape". >> -- >> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices >> can >> result in a fully-depreciated one. > > maybe i should clarify: being touched, groped, penetrated or >> >sodomized, I call all that SEXUAL ASSAULT if I don't want it. does this >> >sound better? You are right, I don't want to cheapen the word "rape" Bloody hell. You forgot innuendo and off color jokes.   Date: 02 May 2007 11:12:11 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 1:44 pm, Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOS...@comcast.net > wrote: > (newsgroups trimmed a bit...) > > frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > >> On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > >> Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > >> will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > > > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > > indeed! > > I've seen similar statistics before. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's > become (becoming?) conventional wisdom. > > > But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for > > all women to pack guns all the time. > > If you take 70 years as the mean life span, and 1/3 of the women in the > US are assaulted, you're chance of being sexually assaulted today is > something like 1 out of 75,000. It wouldn't be worth it to me to pack a > pistol every day, given that remote a chance, but if one was a regular > patron of the Fearmonger's Shop like "evelyn" seems to be, maybe one > might think it worthwhile for onesself. > > Pat What do you suggest women do? I've taken self defense classes, karate classes and finally a class to be certified to carry a fire arm. I'm not living in the fairy tale world where nothing bad ever happens. Even in rural, country communities, crime can occur. I don't think there is any problem with women carrying guns. Evelyn     Date: 02 May 2007 14:43:02 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "evelyn" <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1178129531.642513.19820@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On May 2, 1:44 pm, Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOS...@comcast.net> wrote: >> (newsgroups trimmed a bit...) >> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >> >> On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>> Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. >> >> Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America >> >> will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. >> >> > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to >> > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, >> > indeed! >> >> I've seen similar statistics before. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's >> become (becoming?) conventional wisdom. >> >> > But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for >> > all women to pack guns all the time. >> >> If you take 70 years as the mean life span, and 1/3 of the women in the >> US are assaulted, you're chance of being sexually assaulted today is >> something like 1 out of 75,000. It wouldn't be worth it to me to pack a >> pistol every day, given that remote a chance, but if one was a regular >> patron of the Fearmonger's Shop like "evelyn" seems to be, maybe one >> might think it worthwhile for onesself. >> >> Pat > > What do you suggest women do? I've taken self defense classes, karate > classes and finally a class to be certified to carry a fire arm. I'm > not living in the fairy tale world where nothing bad ever happens. > Even in rural, country communities, crime can occur. I don't think > there is any problem with women carrying guns. > > Evelyn > I can't believe all these fruitcakes are blasting you for wanting to carry some personal protection when you are out alone, you're smarter than they are. You have every right to do whatever you feel is necessary, it's none of their business. A .38 is excellent personal defense gun for a woman, might be a little lightweight in some instances but with 125 grain hollow points, quite effective. Keep carrying it and don't worry about this bunch.       Date: 03 May 2007 18:05:25 From: Chris Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? >> > > I can't believe all these fruitcakes are blasting you for wanting to > carry some personal protection when you are out alone, you're smarter > than they are. You have every right to do whatever you feel is > necessary, it's none of their business. A .38 is excellent personal > defense gun for a woman, might be a little lightweight in some > instances but with 125 grain hollow points, quite effective. Keep > carrying it and don't worry about this bunch. > > Agreed, maybe a .357 would be better. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 02 May 2007 11:09:17 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 1:29 pm, Marz <marzjenni...@gmail.com > wrote: > On May 2, 1:07 pm, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 2, 1:00 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > > > > > On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > > > > > Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > > > > will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > > > and if I carry my gun while riding/running in a rural area, I will be > > able to protect myself! > > > > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > > > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > > > indeed! > > > How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or > > sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. Isn't it easy for > > men to say these things. I don't think that a man getting ready to go > > for a ride will ask himself if he will get hurt or raped while out by > > himself. > > > > But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for > > > all women to pack guns all the time. > > > > Runway models wearing holsters might turn on a few NRA fans, but it's > > > not likely to catch on with other folks. > > > Good for you if you don't want to ride with a gun...again, I would > > much rather be safe than sorry. I will not become a statistic. And > > carrying a gun gives me some type of protection agains the weirdos out > > there. If you don't like it, too bad. Thats what makes America > > Great. Ladies out there, get a gun, be protected. > > > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Is this gun of yours carried at the hip or in your camelpak or bag?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I wear on my hip. It doesn't interfere with my biking. I'm not a "patron of the Fearmonger's Shop" like Pat suggests but I'm of the mind set that its better to be safe than sorry. I live in rural Virginia where almost everyone has guns in their trucks and in their houses.   Date: 02 May 2007 10:29:20 From: Marz Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 1:07 pm, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On May 2, 1:00 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > > > > On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > > > > Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > > > will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > > and if I carry my gun while riding/running in a rural area, I will be > able to protect myself! > > > > > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > > indeed! > > How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or > sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. Isn't it easy for > men to say these things. I don't think that a man getting ready to go > for a ride will ask himself if he will get hurt or raped while out by > himself. > > > > > But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for > > all women to pack guns all the time. > > > Runway models wearing holsters might turn on a few NRA fans, but it's > > not likely to catch on with other folks. > > Good for you if you don't want to ride with a gun...again, I would > much rather be safe than sorry. I will not become a statistic. And > carrying a gun gives me some type of protection agains the weirdos out > there. If you don't like it, too bad. Thats what makes America > Great. Ladies out there, get a gun, be protected. > > > > > > > - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Is this gun of yours carried at the hip or in your camelpak or bag?   Date: 02 May 2007 10:07:26 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 1:00 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > > > On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > > > Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > > will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. and if I carry my gun while riding/running in a rural area, I will be able to protect myself! > > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > indeed! How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. Isn't it easy for men to say these things. I don't think that a man getting ready to go for a ride will ask himself if he will get hurt or raped while out by himself. > > But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for > all women to pack guns all the time. > > Runway models wearing holsters might turn on a few NRA fans, but it's > not likely to catch on with other folks. Good for you if you don't want to ride with a gun...again, I would much rather be safe than sorry. I will not become a statistic. And carrying a gun gives me some type of protection agains the weirdos out there. If you don't like it, too bad. Thats what makes America Great. Ladies out there, get a gun, be protected. > > - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 May 2007 13:14:59 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1178125646.147904.211230@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote: > >How broad do you want? Being touched, groped, penetrated or >sodomized, I call all that rape if I don't want it. Then get a better definition, because you're cheapening the word "rape". -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.   Date: 02 May 2007 10:00:40 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber > wrote: > On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. > > Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America > will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, indeed! But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for all women to pack guns all the time. Runway models wearing holsters might turn on a few NRA fans, but it's not likely to catch on with other folks. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 May 2007 13:47:37 From: Turby Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 2 May 2007 10:00:40 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >> On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. >> >> Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America >> will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > >Oh? Do you have a citation for that? There are plenty of cites. It doesn't take much effort to find them. As the CDC page points out, the stats are variable and difficult to pin down, but the one thing that sticks out is that rapes are entirely too common. I can't think of anyone I knew who was murdered, and almost no one who was robbed at gunpoint, but I know numerous women who were raped. http://tinyurl.com/mnemk http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm http://tinyurl.com/eu2pu http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html -- Turby the Turbosurfer       Date: 03 May 2007 09:19:59 From: dgk Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:47:37 -0700, Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber > wrote: >On 2 May 2007 10:00:40 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >>On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >>> On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. >>> >>> Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America >>> will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. >> >>Oh? Do you have a citation for that? > >There are plenty of cites. It doesn't take much effort to find them. >As the CDC page points out, the stats are variable and difficult to >pin down, but the one thing that sticks out is that rapes are entirely >too common. I can't think of anyone I knew who was murdered, and >almost no one who was robbed at gunpoint, but I know numerous women >who were raped. > >http://tinyurl.com/mnemk >http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm >http://tinyurl.com/eu2pu >http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html >http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html >http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html Let's look a closer at the stats: "Around the world at least I women in 3 has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. (John Hopkins School of Public Health 2000)" It does not say "one out of three women in America will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime". Lumped into that figure are those who have been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused. These are still outrageous numbers by the way, I do not mean to minimize that. The final line is the breaker here though. Most often a member of her own family. The odds of someone jumping out while you're on your bike and dragging you off and raping or assaulting you are absurdly small. Sure, it can happen. But please don't make it seem like there is any realistic chance that it will happen. These women you know of who were raped, were they just hauled off the street or was it someone they knew?         Date: 03 May 2007 09:49:38 From: Turby Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 03 May 2007 09:19:59 -0400, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:47:37 -0700, Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber> >wrote: > >>On 2 May 2007 10:00:40 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >>>> On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. >>>> >>>> Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America >>>> will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. >>> >>>Oh? Do you have a citation for that? >> >>There are plenty of cites. It doesn't take much effort to find them. >>As the CDC page points out, the stats are variable and difficult to >>pin down, but the one thing that sticks out is that rapes are entirely >>too common. I can't think of anyone I knew who was murdered, and >>almost no one who was robbed at gunpoint, but I know numerous women >>who were raped. >> >>http://tinyurl.com/mnemk >>http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm >>http://tinyurl.com/eu2pu >>http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html >>http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html >>http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html > > >Let's look a closer at the stats: > >"Around the world at least I women in 3 has been beaten, coerced into >sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a >member of her own family. (John Hopkins School of Public Health 2000)" > >It does not say "one out of three women in America will be sexually >assaulted in her lifetime". The first cite says, "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her lifetime." >Lumped into that figure are those who have >been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused. These are still >outrageous numbers by the way, I do not mean to minimize that. Which is the whole point. We can quibble all day about the numbers, but no matter which ones are right, they're all ridiculously high. >The final line is the breaker here though. Most often a member of her >own family. Yeah, but - 1/3 are by strangers, and 1/4 are in a public place. Those are still big numbers. >The odds of someone jumping out while you're on your bike and dragging >you off and raping or assaulting you are absurdly small. Sure, it can >happen. But please don't make it seem like there is any realistic >chance that it will happen. But it does happen. 99.9% of men never have to even consider it, but for women , it is a real concern. In 59 years, only twice might I have used a gun in self-defense - once in Morocco and once in Nigeria Carrying in both those places was out of the question, and I found better ways to defuse the situation. Yet many men feel it necessary to carry here in the US. I submit the threat of sexual assault on women is far greater than the odds of any man needing to use a gun for self-defense. >These women you know of who were raped, were they just hauled off the >street or was it someone they knew? Both. -- Turby the Turbosurfer     Date: 02 May 2007 12:44:25 From: Patrick Lamb Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? (newsgroups trimmed a bit...) frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On May 2, 12:10 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >> On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>> Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. >> Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America >> will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. > > Oh? Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to see it. For it to > be true, the definition of "sexually assault" must be very broad, > indeed! I've seen similar statistics before. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's become (becoming?) conventional wisdom. > But even if true (which I seriously doubt) ISTM the solution isn't for > all women to pack guns all the time. If you take 70 years as the mean life span, and 1/3 of the women in the US are assaulted, you're chance of being sexually assaulted today is something like 1 out of 75,000. It wouldn't be worth it to me to pack a pistol every day, given that remote a chance, but if one was a regular patron of the Fearmonger's Shop like "evelyn" seems to be, maybe one might think it worthwhile for onesself. Pat   Date: 02 May 2007 09:21:41 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 11:47 am, "Stephen!" <N...@spam.com > wrote: > evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1178110514.586535.166810@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > > >> ..and have never practiced drawing and firing it while riding yer > >> bike... Wow... So intimidating. > > Are you a jerk off? > > No. > > > Why are you so angry... > > So many intelligent questions from which to choose... so all you do is jugde people. you don't know me, you know nothing about me but yet you choose to call me a loser...that is not a sign of intellegence. > > > i just made some comments...And yea, My 38 is intimidating... > > Not really. By the time you figure out how to get it from yer butt > pack anybody wishing to do you harm would have you on the ground and > unconscious. how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, NOTHING. > > > again, why are you a jerk? > > As opposed to a "jerk off"? with your attitude, maybe thats all you can get, was that smart enough for you? > > >> Nice try, loser... > > you don't even know me and your calling me a loser? > > Yup... Not only because of your comments, but because of your > inability to compose a coherent thought or construct a simple message > without screwing it all to hell. oh, yea, i'm sorry, again, you have no good arguements, other than calling me a loser. > > > your a f** loser you idiot. > > Wow... Such intelligence and forthought. I'm glad you think I am fun. > Would you like to buy a comma? what is your problem? you seriously need to get some help in you anger managment. Thank god you don't carry a gun, we might read about you sometime in the papers? > > If you get set off this easily, perhaps you should be carrying a cap > pistol. Maybe I will, or how about a machine gun, and some grenades strapped across my chest.... > > > I'm not trying to restrict others > > Yes you are. By delcaring "crazy machine guns" as unnecessary you are > justifying restricting them. By telling other people "you don't need > them" you are trying to restrict other people's rights. Typical east > coast busy-body. It was a comment...I'm not trying to restrict anyone, actually I'm one of the most liberal people that I know...but again, you don't know that because right away you think that you know me....and you don't. > > > you are such an ass. > > At least do me the dignity of fininshing it... > > >> > I do agree that it is too easy to get guns in the US, and there are > >> > too many out there. > > >> You are right. Let's start by melting down yours. > > kiss mine. > > Your what? > > > and who are you again? > > Someone who knows you much better than you think. REALLY. Please do enlighten me and tell me about myself...who am I? What do I do for a living? Wait, so I have a college education? Did I go to graduate school. Am I a professional? Please do tell, I'm quite lost because someone knows more about me than myself....WOW You must be psychic? Are you? Are you? > > > i would love to be you! > > I know you do... Too bad for you the only life you have is the one > where you ride around with a useless firearm tucked securely in a fanny > pack while telling everyone else which weapons they should be allowed to > own. Yea, I would love to be someone who puts others down for no reason. And there is more to life than putting strangers down for their opinion....oh wait, Is this America??? Free speech? You don't have to agree with me, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. You have some major problems to get your panties in a waud for what I said. > > Watch out for that truck behind you... Will do! In the meantime, my gun will be ready to use if needed! Can you send me a pic? I would love to use it next time I go to the range for targe practice? > > -- > RCOS #7 > IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com     Date: 02 May 2007 23:09:44 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1178122901.249307.31150@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: (A whole bunch of drivel without *any* proper trimming or attribution... I'll try to make some sense of it) >> So many intelligent questions from which to choose... > so all you do is jugde people. Nope... nor do I judge them. > you don't know me, you know nothing about me I know that you ride a bicycle with a .38 revolver in a fanny pack. I know that you have zero chance of retrieving said revolver in any reasonable amount of time. I know that because I *have* been trained in self defense both armed and unarmed and I'm realistic enough to know that retrieving a revolver from a fanny pack takes *far* too long in any but the most contrived situations. >> Not really. By the time you figure out how to get it from yer butt >> pack anybody wishing to do you harm would have you on the ground and >> unconscious. > how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, Size and strength are absolutely no match for stealth and surprise. If someone wanted to harm you they'd be on you and it would be over before you even got the zipper open on your fanny pack. > you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. I am not assuming anything. I am stating plain fact. Fact based upon my and others' experience in self defense using a firearm. > have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, > NOTHING. Again. None of that matters. > with your attitude, maybe thats all you can get, was that smart enough > for you? What's with your hang-up on intelligence? > oh, yea, i'm sorry, again, you have no good arguements, other than > calling me a loser. You are not even listening. I try to point out a fatal flaw in your self-defense plan and *you* turn around and attack me like one of you fantasy rapists... >> Wow... Such intelligence and forthought. I'm glad you think I am >> fun. Would you like to buy a comma? > > what is your problem? you seriously need to get some help in you > anger managment. What part of that comment denotes anger? Sounds like *you* are the one with anger problems. > Thank god you don't carry a gun, we might read about > you sometime in the papers? I go nowhere without my S&W .40 with 11 in the mag and one in the pipe. (unless I'm carrying the .45 1911 with 13 in the mag and one in the pipe) I practice with it regularly, I keep it within easy reach, and I sure as hell don't hide it behind a zipper. >> >> If you get set off this easily, perhaps you should be carrying a >> cap pistol. > > Maybe I will, or how about a machine gun, and some grenades strapped > across my chest.... Nahh... as easily as you go off I think a cap pistol is best. > It was a comment...I'm not trying to restrict anyone, actually I'm one > of the most liberal people that I know. >> > and who are you again? >> >> Someone who knows you much better than you think. > > REALLY. Please do enlighten me and tell me about myself...who am I? > What do I do for a living? Wait, so I have a college education? Did > I go to graduate school. Am I a professional? Please do tell, I'm > quite lost because someone knows more about me than myself....WOW You > must be psychic? None of that is germane to the point at hand. As evidenced by your comments you are a self-righteous hothead who thinks that packing a snubnose revolver behind a zipper somehow makes you safer. If you really want to be able to use the pistol when your fantasy rapist attacks you, wear it in a holster. > Yea, I would love to be someone who puts others down for no reason. Better than someone with an obvious 'victim' mindset who is so blinded by their own self-importance that they cannot recognize good advice when they see it... > to agree with me, but you don't have to be a jerk about it. You have > some major problems to get your panties in a waud for what I said. You are the one all wadded up... > Will do! In the meantime, my gun will be ready to use if needed! No it won't. Can't you see that was the whole point *before* you got all freaked out? > Can you send me a pic? I would love to use it next time I go to the > range for targe practice? Sure... http://imagesdesavions.com/me.jpg -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com       Date: 03 May 2007 16:24:54 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen! wrote: <snip a well written response re. how to carry a pistol ie. NOT behind a zipper!) > >> Can you send me a pic? I would love to use it next time I go to the >> range for targe practice? > > Sure... > > http://imagesdesavions.com/me.jpg > God god man, you could have shaved! You obviously aren't one of those new age 'back, sac & crack' wax guys......         Date: 02 May 2007 23:37:04 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz > wrote in news:f1bo3l$sgp$2@lust.ihug.co.nz: >> http://imagesdesavions.com/me.jpg >> > > > God god man, you could have shaved! You obviously aren't one of those > new age 'back, sac & crack' wax guys...... To tell ya the truth, it ain't mine. It's something I pulled off the web to use as a redirect for all those fucking myspace (and a few other "friends" sites) assholes who were killing my bandwidth by linking directly to my best photos for their background... If ya got a myspace profile, try linking any of my images as a background and you'll see what happens. :) The day I discovered the uses of an .htacess file was a wonderful day... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com           Date: 03 May 2007 16:41:17 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen! wrote: > BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote in news:f1bo3l$sgp$2@lust.ihug.co.nz: > >>> http://imagesdesavions.com/me.jpg >>> >> >> God god man, you could have shaved! You obviously aren't one of those >> new age 'back, sac & crack' wax guys...... > > To tell ya the truth, it ain't mine. Thats what they all say....... :) > It's something I pulled off the > web to use as a redirect for all those fucking myspace (and a few other > "friends" sites) assholes who were killing my bandwidth by linking > directly to my best photos for their background... If ya got a myspace > profile, try linking any of my images as a background and you'll see what > happens. :) > > The day I discovered the uses of an .htacess file was a wonderful > day... >             Date: 02 May 2007 23:47:23 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz > wrote in news:f1bp2b$uje$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: >>> God god man, you could have shaved! You obviously aren't one of those >>> new age 'back, sac & crack' wax guys...... >> >> To tell ya the truth, it ain't mine. > > > Thats what they all say....... :) Really... I tried. You ever try to take a picture of yer own asshole? It ain't as easy as it sounds... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com               Date: 03 May 2007 07:01:10 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com > wrote in message news:Xns9924E7F83B6DEsmvsmv@216.196.97.142... > BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote in news:f1bp2b$uje$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: > >>>> God god man, you could have shaved! You obviously aren't one of those >>>> new age 'back, sac & crack' wax guys...... >>> >>> To tell ya the truth, it ain't mine. >> >> >> Thats what they all say....... :) > > Really... I tried. You ever try to take a picture of yer own asshole? > It ain't as easy as it sounds... Butt if you can and the lighting is perfect, the focus just how you want it...then it's art not an asshole!                 Date: 03 May 2007 20:51:05 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net > wrote in news:N- qdnd6oSbZ8QaTbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@bresnan.com: > Butt if you can and the lighting is perfect, the focus just how you want > it...then it's art not an asshole! I am not an artist. -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com               Date: 02 May 2007 21:53:31 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen! wrote: > You ever try to take a picture of yer own > asshole? It ain't as easy as it sounds... Thread ender! Bill "yeah, pun intended" S.                 Date: 03 May 2007 09:03:29 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Wed, 2 May 2007 21:53:31 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >Stephen! wrote: > >> You ever try to take a picture of yer own >> asshole? It ain't as easy as it sounds... Hard to get good sunlight on it. > >Thread ender! > >Bill "yeah, pun intended" S. > -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                   Date: 03 May 2007 14:47:01 From: dgk Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 03 May 2007 09:03:29 -0400, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >On Wed, 2 May 2007 21:53:31 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> >wrote: > >>Stephen! wrote: >> >>> You ever try to take a picture of yer own >>> asshole? It ain't as easy as it sounds... > > Hard to get good sunlight on it. > But SO many people have tried it on copiers.                 Date: 03 May 2007 00:02:32 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in news:46396acd$0$4675 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >> You ever try to take a picture of yer own >> asshole? It ain't as easy as it sounds... > > Thread ender! Good... Glad that's over. -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com     Date: 03 May 2007 09:07:45 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn wrote: > how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, > you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You > have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, > NOTHING. Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that assumption up for you. Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but prefers wearing womens clothes......       Date: 03 May 2007 00:50:57 From: Stephen Cowell Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "BrianNZ" <brian@itnz.co.nz > wrote in message news:f1aufv$djk$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... > evelyn wrote: > >> how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, >> you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You >> have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, >> NOTHING. > > > Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a > look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that > assumption up for you. > > Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but > prefers wearing womens clothes...... I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts like you guys! I like the way you handle that Evelyn pussy.... imagine, carrying a gun, yet admitting there are gun problems in our society! That's the good thing about being a gun nut... plenty of small penis friends out there. __ Steve '06 FXDI KI5YG #0627 .         Date: 04 May 2007 13:45:02 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message news:Rla_h.6788$2v1.2859@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts > like you guys! I like the way you handle that > Evelyn pussy.... imagine, carrying a gun, yet > admitting there are gun problems in our society! > > That's the good thing about being a gun nut... > plenty of small penis friends out there. > __ > Steve Why are sweet of things like you always concerned about the size of a man's penis?         Date: 04 May 2007 13:34:36 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <Rla_h.6788$2v1.2859@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net >, Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal.net > wrote: >I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts >like you guys! Very few guns even have nuts. Probably some Gatling-type guns do, and I'm sure they are big and strong. But they don't post on Usenet. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.         Date: 03 May 2007 13:19:26 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen Cowell wrote: > "BrianNZ" <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message > news:f1aufv$djk$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... >> evelyn wrote: >> >>> how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, >>> you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You >>> have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, >>> NOTHING. >> >> Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a >> look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that >> assumption up for you. >> >> Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but >> prefers wearing womens clothes...... > > I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts > like you guys! ?? I was just helping evelyn get a grip on what sex she/he is....... > I like the way you handle that > Evelyn pussy.... "I never had sexual relations with that woman!" > imagine, carrying a gun, yet > admitting there are gun problems in our society! There are lots of law abiding people with guns who cause no trouble. The problems come about with misuse, so it's more of a people problem than a gun problem. A gun problem would be something like misfires or not feeding the rounds into the chamber properly......... > > That's the good thing about being a gun nut... Why is it you add 'nut' to anything to do with guns? > plenty of small penis friends out there. I don't judge my friends by the size of their penis, but if thats what your'e into.......different strokes for different folks I suppose! > __ > Steve > '06 FXDI > KI5YG > #0627 > . >           Date: 05 May 2007 02:14:36 From: Stephen Cowell Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "BrianNZ" <brian@itnz.co.nz > wrote in message news:f1bd8c$9qt$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... > Stephen Cowell wrote: >> "BrianNZ" <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote in message >> news:f1aufv$djk$1@lust.ihug.co.nz... >>> evelyn wrote: >>> >>>> how do you know.? I could be bigger than you or stronger than you, >>>> you are makine lots of assumptions because I assume I am a woman. You >>>> have no idea of what kind of person i am, what type of shape I am in, >>>> NOTHING. >>> >>> Hmmmmm....you assume you are a woman!? Drop your pants and take a >>> look.....if you have a penis, you are a guy. Hope this helped clear that >>> assumption up for you. >>> >>> Unless you are one of those confused individuals who has a penis but >>> prefers wearing womens clothes...... >> >> I want to grow up and be big, strong gun nuts >> like you guys! > > > ?? I was just helping evelyn get a grip on what sex she/he is....... No, you're a big, bad gun nut bullying a nice bicycle lady. >> I like the way you handle that >> Evelyn pussy.... > "I never had sexual relations with that woman!" "Mission Accomplished!" >> imagine, carrying a gun, yet >> admitting there are gun problems in our society! > There are lots of law abiding people with guns who cause no trouble. There are lots of law-abiding previous child molesters that cause no trouble. > The problems come about with misuse, so it's more of a people problem than > a gun problem. NRA Stock Line #32. So we need to get rid of people? I know! We'll shoot off their trigger fingers, like Pecos Bill! > A gun problem would be something like misfires or not feeding the rounds > into the chamber properly......... NRA is for legalizing all drugs! You heard it here! It's not a 'drug problem', it's a 'people problem'. >> That's the good thing about being a gun nut... > Why is it you add 'nut' to anything to do with guns? 'Anything'? Hyperbole, your buddy. >> plenty of small penis friends out there. > I don't judge my friends by the size of their penis, but if thats what > your'e into.......different strokes for different folks I suppose! Would Freud have a Field Day, or would Field have a Freud Day? __ Steve '06 FXDI KI5YG #0627 .           Date: 02 May 2007 23:10:54 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz > wrote in news:f1bd8c$9qt$1@lust.ihug.co.nz: >> That's the good thing about being a gun nut... > > > > Why is it you add 'nut' to anything to do with guns? Triggerphobia... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com   Date: 02 May 2007 07:23:29 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 8:46 am, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com > wrote: > You must know > that there are rapist and murderers everywhere ... Doggone! You're right! I just found three of them hiding under my computer desk! > and I would use my gun for protection. Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. I recall, decades ago, being on a backpacking trip with my wife and young son, hiking the Appalachian Trail for a week. One night, we camped near a couple guys and spent some time talking. Turns out, despite tricks like cutting his toothbrush in half to save a few grams, one of the guys proudly showed us that he was carrying a revolver. He made it clear that it wasn't for snakes or bears. He was afraid of other people. I assume a guy like that would never get up the nerve to camp in, say, the Lake District of England, where he wouldn't be allowed to have his gun. Again, sad. Such a climate of fear! - Frank Krygowski     Date: 02 May 2007 09:10:16 From: Turby Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 2 May 2007 07:23:29 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On May 2, 8:46 am, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> You must know >> that there are rapist and murderers everywhere ... > >Doggone! You're right! I just found three of them hiding under my >computer desk! > >> and I would use my gun for protection. > >Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. -- Turby the Turbosurfer       Date: 02 May 2007 13:12:14 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <pmdh33hccers8ur47rns5i3h9jjq88q71m@4ax.com >, Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber > wrote: >Yeah, it is. The statistics say that one out of three women in America >will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Using some definition of "sexual assault" which includes crude come-ons, I'm sure. Or finding out the Mercedes was borrowed. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.     Date: 02 May 2007 09:31:52 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1178115809.098285.17380@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On May 2, 8:46 am, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> You must know >> that there are rapist and murderers everywhere ... > > Doggone! You're right! I just found three of them hiding under my > computer desk! >> and I would use my gun for protection. > > Again - so many fearful people in this country. It's kind of sad. According to the cop who stopped me while I was bicycling I should be affraid of all motorists because I don't know who they are and they might assault me for yelling 'go' at them when they don't move on a green signal or giving them a talking to when they drive rudely. I should have asked him if I should just carry a gun.... > revolver. He made it clear that it wasn't for snakes or bears. He > was afraid of other people. The cop wanted to scare me off the roads or at least into a submissive behavior where I should let motorists push me around by telling me to be affraid of other people. Telling me it's legal in his town to ride on the sidewalks... Considering his lack of knowledge of state law I wonder... Sad thing is, this is the 3rd cop who has told me not to ride on the roadway. You'd love riding here....   Date: 02 May 2007 05:55:14 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 12:55 am, "Stephen!" <N...@spam.com > wrote: > evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1178045631.680228.34360@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > > > Hi! I just read a couple of the items here...but I am a cyclist who > > packs. I have a 38 revolver that fits right into a fanny pack that I > > wear when I ride. > > ..and have never practiced drawing and firing it while riding yer > bike... Wow... So intimidating. Are you a jerk off? Why are you so angry...i just made some comments...And yea, My 38 is intimidating...again, why are you a jerk? > > > BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree > > with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't > > need them; the sole purpose is to kill. > > As opposed to yer .38 snub nose which was designed for making rainbow > colored farts. Apparently it's okay if to ristrict *other's* rights > so long as yours aren't infringed... Nice try, loser... you don't even know me and your calling me a loser? your a f** loser you idiot. I'm not trying to restrict others, i just posted some comments....you are such an ass. > > > I do agree that it is too easy to get guns in the US, and there are > > too many out there. > > You are right. Let's start by melting down yours. kiss mine. and who are you again? oh yea, some losser who gets off bloggin and calling other people names...great job, i would love to be you! > > -- > RCOS #7 > IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com     Date: 02 May 2007 10:47:20 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1178110514.586535.166810@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: >> ..and have never practiced drawing and firing it while riding yer >> bike... Wow... So intimidating. > Are you a jerk off? No. > Why are you so angry... So many intelligent questions from which to choose... > i just made some comments...And yea, My 38 is intimidating... Not really. By the time you figure out how to get it from yer butt pack anybody wishing to do you harm would have you on the ground and unconscious. > again, why are you a jerk? As opposed to a "jerk off"? >> Nice try, loser... > you don't even know me and your calling me a loser? Yup... Not only because of your comments, but because of your inability to compose a coherent thought or construct a simple message without screwing it all to hell. > your a f** loser you idiot. Wow... Such intelligence and forthought. I'm glad you think I am fun. Would you like to buy a comma? If you get set off this easily, perhaps you should be carrying a cap pistol. > I'm not trying to restrict others Yes you are. By delcaring "crazy machine guns" as unnecessary you are justifying restricting them. By telling other people "you don't need them" you are trying to restrict other people's rights. Typical east coast busy-body. > you are such an ass. At least do me the dignity of fininshing it... >> > I do agree that it is too easy to get guns in the US, and there are >> > too many out there. > >> You are right. Let's start by melting down yours. > kiss mine. Your what? > and who are you again? Someone who knows you much better than you think. > i would love to be you! I know you do... Too bad for you the only life you have is the one where you ride around with a useless firearm tucked securely in a fanny pack while telling everyone else which weapons they should be allowed to own. Watch out for that truck behind you... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com   Date: 02 May 2007 05:46:06 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 1, 5:49 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net > wrote: > On 1 May 2007 11:53:51 -0700, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> Curtis L. Russell wrote: > >> > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > >> > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > >> >> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > >> >> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > >> >> launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > >> > I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a > >> > little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia > >> > Tech campus? > > >> > And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being > >> > able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure > >> > there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think > >> > you made some point or another. > > >> > Curtis L. Russell > >> > Odenton, MD (USA) > >> > Just someone on two wheels... > > >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > >> those at the campus on Monday. > > >> Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to > >> carry around on my rides. > > >> Ken- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >Hi! I just read a couple of the items here...but I am a cyclist who > >packs. I have a 38 revolver that fits right into a fanny pack that I > >wear when I ride. I am a female and ride in rural areas by myself > >(haven't found a riding partner yet!) and I will not be a woman who > >goes out for a ride or a run and not come back. I am not concerned > >with time or the extra weight that the gun adds. I would rather be > >safe than sorry. > >BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree > >with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't > >need them; the sole purpose is to kill. > > What's your 38 for? Face it, some people just need killin'. You are stupid...yea, I carry my gun so that I can shoot people when I'm out riding my bike! Yep, thats me. Again, you are an idiot. I carry my legal gun (I have passed all the requirements for carring it) so that I am protected. You must know that there are rapist and murderers everywhere and I would use my gun for protection. I am not going out for a bike ride and looking to shoot someone! > > >I do agree that it is too > >easy to get guns in the US, > > No, there aren't. Having too many guns is like having too much money - its > impossible. > > >and there are too many out there. > > Too many for what? Too many that it is too easy for criminals to get weapons and use them on INNOCENT people. DUH! > > Dave Head > > >Thanks, > >Evelyn Ziennker-Lee > >Virginia > > You have all the rights that you're willing to fight for.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 03 May 2007 12:29:46 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 3, 3:01 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > The liberals have made the word meaningless over the last 40 > years. They've so redefined it and manipulated it so that now, if two > kids in college get ( willingly ) drunk and have consensual sex, > that's 'rape' ( against only one of them, apparently ), if the girl > decides the next day or the next week that she wished she'd have had > less to drink, and kept her panties on.. I can't wait until some dude beats her to the punch and sues a female party hose for getting him trashed & "raping" him when he wakes up feeling like a coyote with a paw in a beartrap. Right guy, right lawyer, right circumstances and it just might take. I hate that any of this nonsense is happening, don't get me wrong. I'm just not above laughing at the absurdity of it when I'm in no position to fix it.   Date: 01 May 2007 11:53:51 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: > Curtis L. Russell wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > >> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > >> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > >> launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > > I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a > > little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia > > Tech campus? > > > And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being > > able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure > > there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think > > you made some point or another. > > > Curtis L. Russell > > Odenton, MD (USA) > > Just someone on two wheels... > > Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > those at the campus on Monday. > > Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to > carry around on my rides. > > Ken- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi! I just read a couple of the items here...but I am a cyclist who packs. I have a 38 revolver that fits right into a fanny pack that I wear when I ride. I am a female and ride in rural areas by myself (haven't found a riding partner yet!) and I will not be a woman who goes out for a ride or a run and not come back. I am not concerned with time or the extra weight that the gun adds. I would rather be safe than sorry. BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't need them; the sole purpose is to kill. I do agree that it is too easy to get guns in the US, and there are too many out there. Thanks, Evelyn Ziennker-Lee Virginia     Date: 01 May 2007 23:55:19 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1178045631.680228.34360@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > Hi! I just read a couple of the items here...but I am a cyclist who > packs. I have a 38 revolver that fits right into a fanny pack that I > wear when I ride. ..and have never practiced drawing and firing it while riding yer bike... Wow... So intimidating. > BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree > with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't > need them; the sole purpose is to kill. As opposed to yer .38 snub nose which was designed for making rainbow colored farts. Apparently it's okay if to ristrict *other's* rights so long as yours aren't infringed... Nice try, loser... > I do agree that it is too easy to get guns in the US, and there are > too many out there. You are right. Let's start by melting down yours. -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com     Date: 01 May 2007 21:49:10 From: Dave Head Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 1 May 2007 11:53:51 -0700, evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 >> > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >> >> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >> >> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >> >> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >> >> > I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a >> > little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia >> > Tech campus? >> >> > And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being >> > able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure >> > there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think >> > you made some point or another. >> >> > Curtis L. Russell >> > Odenton, MD (USA) >> > Just someone on two wheels... >> >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >> those at the campus on Monday. >> >> Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to >> carry around on my rides. >> >> Ken- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Hi! I just read a couple of the items here...but I am a cyclist who >packs. I have a 38 revolver that fits right into a fanny pack that I >wear when I ride. I am a female and ride in rural areas by myself >(haven't found a riding partner yet!) and I will not be a woman who >goes out for a ride or a run and not come back. I am not concerned >with time or the extra weight that the gun adds. I would rather be >safe than sorry. >BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree >with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't >need them; the sole purpose is to kill. What's your 38 for? Face it, some people just need killin'. >I do agree that it is too >easy to get guns in the US, No, there aren't. Having too many guns is like having too much money - its impossible. >and there are too many out there. Too many for what? Dave Head >Thanks, >Evelyn Ziennker-Lee >Virginia You have all the rights that you're willing to fight for.       Date: 03 May 2007 21:20:11 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 3, 2:41 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber > wrote: > On 3 May 2007 10:08:43 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > >On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > > >> The first cite says, > >> "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her > >> lifetime." > > >Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the > >number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to > >tell if it has any validity. > > Once again, somebody wants to quibble about numbers, rather than > address the issue. Numbers are important. They tell us how much of an issue there is, and how seriously it needs to be addressed. I've seen too many distorted, misleading or flat-out false numbers used to raise support for people's pet issues. Some numbers I used to believe turned out to be completely off-base. Nowadays, I'm not as gullible. If someone prints an unbelievable number about a hot-button issue without a proper citation, I assume that it's fiction until proven otherwise. And that's where your "one in three" claim now sits with me. > Do you deny that the number of reported rapes is > ridiculously excessive? Without citing numbers, virtually all > authorities agree that the actual incidence of rape is far higher than > what is reported. If only one in 3 million women were ever raped, and if only 75% of them reported it, one could say the number was ridiculously excessive, and the incidence was far higher than reported. But it would be a far different matter than the one-in-three you claimed. I certainly don't condone rape. But numbers are important. We can't fix all the world's problems at once. We need to prioritize, and accurate numbers lead to realistic priorities. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 01 May 2007 19:41:00 From: Jim Yanik Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1178045631.680228.34360@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > > Hi! I just read a couple of the items here...but I am a cyclist who > packs. I have a 38 revolver that fits right into a fanny pack that I > wear when I ride. I am a female and ride in rural areas by myself > (haven't found a riding partner yet!) and I will not be a woman who > goes out for a ride or a run and not come back. I am not concerned > with time or the extra weight that the gun adds. I would rather be > safe than sorry. > BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree > with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't > need them; the sole purpose is to kill. Uh,the Second Amendment is not about hunting or sporting.It's about having the means to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as it states in the Declaration of Independence. It's not about "need",either.Government does not get to determine what law abiding citizens "need" or don't need. And sometimes,it's necessary to kill a bad guy. (and why do YOU carry a gun then?) Are you aware that to legally OWN a machine gun,one must have a REGISTERED MG,and be background checked,fingerprinted,pay a $200 Federal tax,and get the approval of a local law enforcement official(LEO)? And in some states,you STILL can't own a full-auto weapon. The number of legal registered MGs is FIXED,and one cannot buy NEW full- auto firearms since 1968.(excluding government and LEOs) Also,only ONE legally owned,registered machine gun has been criminally used since the 1934 NFA was enacted. However lots of people DO own full-auto firearms,and shoot them for sport.They are VERY expensive because of the limited supply of *registered* weapons. Any time you see or read about machine guns being used in crimes,they are not LEGALLY OWNED,and were likely smuggled into the US,or illegal conversions of legal semi-auto guns. BTW,the Federal Gov't is missing over 600 of their guns,some machine guns. Orlando police had two MG's stolen from a unmarked patrol car,one a silenced machine pistol.Other PDs are missing/"lost" some of their guns. One year,it was found that 40% of guns recovered from crimes in DC were missing from the DC police EVIDENCE LOCKER.Police were illegally selling guns from the evidence lockers. > I do agree that it is too > easy to get guns in the US, and there are too many out there. > Thanks, > Evelyn Ziennker-Lee > Virginia > > I hope you have the proper carry permit for legal concealed carry. Otherwise,you also are a criminal. IIRC,open carry is legal in VA. That means you could legally carry it in a *visible* holster,but not IN a fanny pack. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net     Date: 01 May 2007 15:32:24 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 1 May 2007 11:53:51 -0700, evelyn <eziennker@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 >> > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >> >> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >> >> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >> >> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >> >> > I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a >> > little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia >> > Tech campus? >> >> > And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being >> > able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure >> > there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think >> > you made some point or another. >> >> > Curtis L. Russell >> > Odenton, MD (USA) >> > Just someone on two wheels... >> >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >> those at the campus on Monday. >> >> Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to >> carry around on my rides. >> >> Ken- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Hi! I just read a couple of the items here...but I am a cyclist who >packs. I have a 38 revolver that fits right into a fanny pack that I >wear when I ride. I am a female and ride in rural areas by myself >(haven't found a riding partner yet!) and I will not be a woman who >goes out for a ride or a run and not come back. Rock on ! > I am not concerned >with time or the extra weight that the gun adds. I would rather be >safe than sorry. Think of it as a weight on a training belt - people pay good money for that stuff ! :-) >BUT....As I agree that I have the right to carry a gun, I don't agree >with owning the crazy machine guns, we don't need them, hunters don't >need them; the sole purpose is to kill. I do agree that it is too >easy to get guns in the US, and there are too many out there. >Thanks, >Evelyn Ziennker-Lee >Virginia -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/     Date: 01 May 2007 14:26:31 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? > On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >> those at the campus on Monday. It absolutely does not need to be "re thought". It chafes already that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow came to mean "you can keep small arms if you don't overly frighten your neighbors".       Date: 01 May 2007 20:11:28 From: Neil Brooks Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Tue, 1 May 2007 14:26:31 -0500, "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com > wrote: >> On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >>> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >>> those at the campus on Monday. > >It absolutely does not need to be "re thought". It chafes already that "the >right to bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow came to mean "you can >keep small arms if you don't overly frighten your neighbors". Continuing the OT jaunt.... Here's the text of the 2d Amendment: "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." I tend to focus in on the words "well-regulated." It isn't. I also tend to think that ... maybe it was written at a different time--perhaps a time when the Redcoats were coming (or had already come). Theoretically, they aren't coming now (all DUE respect to the Michigan Militia, the Montana Freemen, and those who share their beliefs). The evolution of the text that eventually led to the above version clearly implies that the weapons were for a _collective_ defense against a _common_ threat. I'm not sure that means individual liberty or self-defense. YMMV Neil God made man Sam Colt made them equal (err .. umm .....)       Date: 01 May 2007 15:36:39 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Tue, 1 May 2007 14:26:31 -0500, "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com > wrote: >> On Apr 19, 11:51 am, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >>> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >>> those at the campus on Monday. Yes, in fact, they do. >It absolutely does not need to be "re thought". It chafes already that "the >right to bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow came to mean "you can >keep small arms if you don't overly frighten your neighbors". > -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 26 Apr 2007 08:30:25 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 26, 7:22 am, "DI" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > > > Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot off > with the real thing... "Likely"? Got data? - Frank Krygowski     Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:13:37 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177601425.526743.127050@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 26, 7:22 am, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >> >> >> Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot >> off >> with the real thing... > > "Likely"? > > Got data? > > - Frank Krygowski > Got data? Stupidity doesn't keep data, if you doubt it, get yourself a CO2 pistol, walk up to a policeman and point it at him. Have a valid Will first.       Date: 26 Apr 2007 13:34:48 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:13:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote: > ><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1177601425.526743.127050@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 26, 7:22 am, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot >>> off >>> with the real thing... >> >> "Likely"? >> >> Got data? >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> >Got data? Stupidity doesn't keep data, if you doubt it, get yourself a >CO2 pistol, walk up to a policeman and point it at him. Have a valid Will >first. > You could also have a stamped envelope with a letter to DarwinAwards.com on you, describing your plan, and hope that it gets mailed. You might win a book or something. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 26 Apr 2007 08:09:58 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 26, 7:22 am, "DI" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot off > with the real thing, and they would be justified in doing so. Those > things are one of the most dangerous things you could ever carry. Agreed. The most dangerous thing you can do with a gun is pull it out and aim it at someone without the intent of using it, usually as a scare tactic. To pull a gun without the _ability_ to use it is just plain stupid. If the other guy has a gun, he now has both the law and his survival instincts on the side of shooting you before you shoot him. If you're waving your gun around, and he's properly trained, you'll likely never see his firearm - though you'll feel it even if just for a moment. Also, his buddy you didn't notice or know about may be watching the altercation with great amusement, until you pull out a gun. Now he's going to protect his friend and himself, and you're going to get shot. I am a cyclist by passion and a motorist for practical purposes. Still, I have had confrontations with cyclists while driving. If one of those cyclists ever pulled a gun, I would be in immedieate survival mode. My first action, before even trying to shoot them, would be to get low in the truck to lessen the chances of a round finding its mark (me) and run them over. If they pulled a pellet gun, they'd still be dead and I'd still be in the clear legally. I'm not saying that there is no case to carry a firearm, I'm just saying it's not something to bluff. If you're going to draw a weapon, plan on taking down your target. If you can't safely and surely drop your mark with said weapon (likely the case if the mark is human and the weapon a pellet gun), don't draw it.     Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:51:34 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 26, 7:22 am, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote: >> Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot off >> with the real thing, and they would be justified in doing so. Those >> things are one of the most dangerous things you could ever carry. > > Agreed. The most dangerous thing you can do with a gun is pull it out > and aim it at someone without the intent of using it, usually as a > scare tactic. To pull a gun without the _ability_ to use it is just > plain stupid. If the other guy has a gun, he now has both the law and > his survival instincts on the side of shooting you before you shoot > him. If you're waving your gun around, and he's properly trained, > you'll likely never see his firearm - though you'll feel it even if > just for a moment. Also, his buddy you didn't notice or know about > may be watching the altercation with great amusement, until you pull > out a gun. Now he's going to protect his friend and himself, and > you're going to get shot. > > I am a cyclist by passion and a motorist for practical purposes. > Still, I have had confrontations with cyclists while driving. If one > of those cyclists ever pulled a gun, I would be in immedieate survival > mode. My first action, before even trying to shoot them, would be to > get low in the truck to lessen the chances of a round finding its mark > (me) and run them over. If they pulled a pellet gun, they'd still be > dead and I'd still be in the clear legally. > > I'm not saying that there is no case to carry a firearm, I'm just > saying it's not something to bluff. If you're going to draw a weapon, > plan on taking down your target. If you can't safely and surely drop > your mark with said weapon (likely the case if the mark is human and > the weapon a pellet gun), don't draw it. > Ummm, Guys, I meant to shoot a dog, not a person, and only then if it is in the country, big, and about to take a chunk out of you. I don't even want to know what the motorists around here are packing. Everyone should own a gun, but keep it inside the house, not on the bike. I would rather a dog running away from getting shot again than have a chunk of my leg chewed on, or worse. Bill Baka       Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:32:45 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:1e5Yh.2031$H84.1828@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote: > Ummm, > Guys, > I meant to shoot a dog, not a person, and only then if it is in the > country, big, and about to take a chunk out of you. I don't even want to > know what the motorists around here are packing. > Everyone should own a gun, but keep it inside the house, not on the bike. > I would rather a dog running away from getting shot again than have a > chunk of my leg chewed on, or worse. > Bill Baka I read in your original post that you mentioned taking out the windshield of a SUV, do dogs drive SUV's in your neighborhood?         Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:33:44 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? DI wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1e5Yh.2031$H84.1828@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote: >> Ummm, >> Guys, >> I meant to shoot a dog, not a person, and only then if it is in the >> country, big, and about to take a chunk out of you. I don't even want to >> know what the motorists around here are packing. >> Everyone should own a gun, but keep it inside the house, not on the bike. >> I would rather a dog running away from getting shot again than have a >> chunk of my leg chewed on, or worse. >> Bill Baka > > I read in your original post that you mentioned taking out the windshield > of a SUV, do dogs drive SUV's in your neighborhood? > > Only the big ones. That was only an off the cuff reply since some of the people around here carry rocks in their pockets for the completely obnoxious drivers and dogs. No real guns that I know of. Bill Baka           Date: 26 Apr 2007 13:25:26 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:zR5Yh.2040$H84.1054@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > DI wrote: >> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:1e5Yh.2031$H84.1828@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >>> DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote: >>> Ummm, >>> Guys, >>> I meant to shoot a dog, not a person, and only then if it is in the >>> country, big, and about to take a chunk out of you. I don't even want to >>> know what the motorists around here are packing. >>> Everyone should own a gun, but keep it inside the house, not on the >>> bike. >>> I would rather a dog running away from getting shot again than have a >>> chunk of my leg chewed on, or worse. >>> Bill Baka >> >> I read in your original post that you mentioned taking out the >> windshield of a SUV, do dogs drive SUV's in your neighborhood? > Only the big ones. > That was only an off the cuff reply since some of the people around here > carry rocks in their pockets for the completely obnoxious drivers and > dogs. > No real guns that I know of. > Bill Baka I knew what you meant, but still couldn't resist,   Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:06:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the lynching happens by "accident." --From what I've read, all 50 states give cyclist exactly the same rights as a car. I'm not sure any make it illegal to ride two abreast, though.-- Only on paper. In real life, they make you go near the gutter, where you find potholes, glass, etc, and where you become invisible. This is a form of discrimination, only that the lynching happens by "accident."   Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:57:03 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: let's come to an agreement On Apr 21, 10:04 pm, "B. Peg" <bent_...@worldnet.att.net > wrote: > > No. Getting chased by the Leo's and a $300 ticket "Because the bicyclists > have the road for their rally" keeps us off it. If they (pansies) would > learn to ride their bicycles without taking up riding side-by-side, often 3 > or 4 at a time, and not using (more like refusing) their *designated* bike > lanes, there wouldn't be a need to shut the road down. I can see you are a car chauvinist, but still see a legitimate concern with cyclists out of their lane (if any). OK, let's come to an agreement: WHEN WE GET BIKE LANES WE STICK TO IT, but if someone decides to go on their on their own, hey, open season!   Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:49:33 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: when in fear, TAKE THE LANE --We have bike lanes on a low traffic but high speed four lane road near us. You might as well be invisible to truckers and autos if you are in the bike lane.-- Hey, if you have that fear the only reasonable option left is TAKE THE LANE. They would see you there for sure. Well, almost sure if they are glued to their phone or something.   Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:00:56 From: mitosis Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? donquijote1954 Wrote: > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > > Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > you draw and... > > I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > Here's a good identifying T-shirt... > http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories > > Still Bush defends the right to bear arms > > EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the > victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect > "every American classroom and community", a White House official said > Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". > > http://tinyurl.com/22qkce > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > BIKE FOR PEACE > http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace Everyone should carry a gun. Then we can argue about whether it is o to carry a rocket launcher. If there are no guns people can't get shot -- mitosis     Date: 24 Apr 2007 10:29:54 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? mitosis wrote: > > Everyone should carry a gun. Then we can argue about whether it is ok > to carry a rocket launcher. > > If there are no guns people can't get shot. > > Then only the police would have guns and they are just as dangerous as the criminals sometimes. Or, you could go hunting with Cheney. Bill Baka   Date: 22 Apr 2007 10:59:12 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 22, 1:27 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Thumper wrote: > >> > > No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like for > > deer, yearly. > > As a motorcyclist and a bicyclist, I'm offended by meatheads like you. > > Wayne Give him a break, Wayne. He probably rides a Harley. He can't help himself. ;-) - Frank Krygowski 1972 BMW R75/5     Date: 22 Apr 2007 21:04:18 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:27 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>Thumper wrote: >> >>>No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like for >>>deer, yearly. >> >>As a motorcyclist and a bicyclist, I'm offended by meatheads like you. >> >>Wayne > > > Give him a break, Wayne. He probably rides a Harley. He can't help > himself. ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski 1972 BMW R75/5 > Frank, He probably doesn't ride a bicycle. Can't get any worse than that. Wayne 1978 Suzuki GS1000E 2003 Kestrel Talon SL 1996 Rivendell 1996 Santana Arriva 1992 Fisher 1983 Trek 600     Date: 22 Apr 2007 12:09:49 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177264752.694918.313320@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 22, 1:27 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> Thumper wrote: >> >> >> > No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like for >> > deer, yearly. >> >> As a motorcyclist and a bicyclist, I'm offended by meatheads like you. >> >> Wayne > > Give him a break, Wayne. He probably rides a Harley. He can't help > himself. ;-) > > - Frank Krygowski 1972 BMW R75/5 Hmmp, ride an old Honda if you want opposed twin reliability. Or a 2 stroke Suzuki for the excitement of properly adjusted drum brakes.   Date: 21 Apr 2007 12:19:12 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 21, 1:47 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 21 Apr 2007 10:32:31 -0700, donquijote1954 > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Apr 20, 5:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >wrote: > >> In article <1177034506.065296.316...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John Kane wrote: > >> > Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a > >> > bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars > >> > and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a > >> > strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal > >> > Saturday night. > > >> Even 15 year olds with guns in their HS lockers worked fine for many > >> decades until people became children of the government. > > >Or maybe it has to do with having a cowboy in office. > > As opposed to a redneck from Arkansas ? Or maybe a peanut > farmer ? > > > Monkey see > >monkey do, you know. > > Based on that, we'd all be getting blow jobs from our > secretaries, dontch'a think ? > > Come to think of it ..... MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR?   Date: 21 Apr 2007 11:36:46 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident? On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only > fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns > (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be > demonstrated). > > http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html > > http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html > > "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other > place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." I think the main problem here is the jungle where poverty reigns compounded by violence everywhere, from TV to foreign policy. Ah, also made worst by the stupid drug prohibition.     Date: 21 Apr 2007 22:13:31 From: Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident? On 21 Apr 2007 11:36:46 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > >> There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only >> fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns >> (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be >> demonstrated). >> >> http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html >> >> http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html >> >> "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other >> place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." > >I think the main problem here is the jungle where poverty reigns >compounded by violence everywhere, from TV to foreign policy. Ah, also You're blaming crime on TV now ? Figures. Maybe we should ban TV ??? >made worst by the stupid drug prohibition. Bzzzt. Try again. Cocaine, Heroin, and pot are all illegal in Switzerland. Do you figure they don't have TV there either ? Or maybe it's just that the only channel they get is the 24 hour Barney channel. That, and Tele-tubbies. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/       Date: 22 Apr 2007 21:24:00 From: Bill Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 21 Apr 2007 11:36:46 -0700, donquijote1954 > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> >>> There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only >>> fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns >>> (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be >>> demonstrated). >>> >>> http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html >>> >>> http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html >>> >>> "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other >>> place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." >> I think the main problem here is the jungle where poverty reigns >> compounded by violence everywhere, from TV to foreign policy. Ah, also > > You're blaming crime on TV now ? Figures. Maybe we should > ban TV ??? > >> made worst by the stupid drug prohibition. This is a correct statement here in the states. > > Bzzzt. Try again. Cocaine, Heroin, and pot are all illegal > in Switzerland. Do you figure they don't have TV there either ? Or > maybe it's just that the only channel they get is the 24 hour Barney > channel. That, and Tele-tubbies. > > Remember that the states had alcohol prohibition and the 1920's had more crime over bootleg liquor than one could imagine. Al Capones' guys invented the "Drive-by shooting", not the drug punks of today. Cocaine and Heroin should be illegal since they can easily kill you, but Pot has gotten a bad rap as a 'gateway' drug. Legalizing that would drop the floor out of the rest of the drug trade. You could go to the corner liquor store and buy a six pack of beer and a pack of pot smokes (over 21 age limit) and the government would make tax money and the smugglers and crime base would be broke. Just up the penalty for the other drugs to 5 years for the first offense, 20 for the second, and life for a third offense. The only real reason that pot is illegal in many countries is because the united states puts political pressure on them. As for the violence thing, right now I would say that television is the big culprit for kids thinking it is cool to play with guns and gangs. Progress??? Bill Baka         Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:50:13 From: proehling Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote > Just up the penalty for the other drugs to 5 years for the first offense, > 20 for the second, and life for a third offense. And exactly who's going to pay for all those new prisons we're going to have to construct to house all of those new three-strike lifers? You? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure!           Date: 22 Apr 2007 16:02:29 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident? "proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org > wrote in message news:132nm9277s6498e@corp.supernews.com... > > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote > >> Just up the penalty for the other drugs to 5 years for the first offense, 20 >> for the second, and life for a third offense. > > And exactly who's going to pay for all those new prisons we're going to have > to construct to house all of those new three-strike lifers? You? > > > Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure! His "last name" ought to give you a clue. I know thick cunts that are smarter...he's not even worth leading on into a raging froth. Hen3y is more fun and makes sense in a deluded sort of way. -- Keith Schiffner History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. Robert Heinlein             Date: 22 Apr 2007 22:19:04 From: Bill Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular Keith Schiffner wrote: > "proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote in message > news:132nm9277s6498e@corp.supernews.com... >> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote >> >>> Just up the penalty for the other drugs to 5 years for the first offense, 20 >>> for the second, and life for a third offense. >> And exactly who's going to pay for all those new prisons we're going to have >> to construct to house all of those new three-strike lifers? You? >> >> >> Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure! Actually our laws and prison system tend to create criminals, not rehabilitate them. Throw a kid in jail for pot and he makes lots of new friends, all criminals. When he gets out he has learned a trade, crime. Eliminate that legal excuse to throw a kid in with the lions and he would most likely never learn the seedier side of life. > > His "last name" ought to give you a clue. I know thick cunts that are > smarter...he's not even worth leading on into a raging froth. Hen3y is more fun > and makes sense in a deluded sort of way. If you mean MY last name then you are not making sense. I just look at what has happened in the last 58 years and see a sinking ship called the United States. Life's a bitch, then you get to die. And since I don't drink or do anything more than the occasional pot I can say that it is interesting to be riding stoned, even if a little more paranoid about the traffic. I only did that once because I met an old time hippie at the top of a hill waiting for his VW bus to cool off. We had a few sodas and 'burned one' for old times sake, then I did my 50 MPH descent, feeling a little more vulnerable than usual. The flat ride home was more interesting though. Live life or give up and die. I'll take the former. Bill Baka   Date: 21 Apr 2007 11:27:43 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the Revolution's official stance regarding bike lanes --You want to make instant enemies: stop traffic flow.-- Nope. They got other lanes. Besides, the stated purpose is to "RIDE THE LANE, until you get BIKE LANES..." So the small nuisance given to drivers can be compensated with a solution which doesn't hurt them in any way, and which can actually help them when they themselves want to ride a bike and when there so many fewer cars on the road. --The Critical Mass rides in my town, Bellingham, Wa, have people lolly gagging around at 5 or 9 miles an hour, HOLDING UP TRAFFIC. I'm talking 50 to 150 riders TAKING THE LANE @ LESS THAN 10 MPH IN A 25, 35, or 45MPH TWO LANE MAIN THOROUGH FARE. AND EVERY LAST ONE OF THOSE RIDERS HAS THE "What are you going to do, drive over me?" SMILE ON THERE FACES.-- OK, I already rejected their tactics. I called them stupid monkeys, I think. --Yes, they have lost me as a potential team mate. No they are not the solution, they are part of the problem. No they are not our future leaders, they are our current "rebels without a clue" partaking in the protest du jour.-- Rebels with a cause, but using the wrong methods, you may say. --Somebody really needs to take a better look at your Revolution's official stance.-- The revolution committee decided to stick to the stated policy above with no votes against it. However you are free to come up with your own revolution, and your proposals shall be considered.   Date: 21 Apr 2007 11:11:47 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 20, 10:20 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > Well that is one way to look at it. An alternative viewpoint is that > your country has managed to fuck up your social system so badly that > violence is the only survival mechanism left to a lot of desperate > people and the 'haves' are left desparately trying to defend the > status quo with armed might. > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada How do you get such a good picture of the jungle down here? The lions hide behind the safety of walled communities and guns, while the monkeys shoot each other and steal from each other. Meanwhile the resources that could have gone to correct that go to creating another jungle in a far away land. I guess the jungle is another money-making scheme. ;)   Date: 21 Apr 2007 11:03:17 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the righteous path is a bicycle path. On Apr 20, 8:31 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > You really should stop portraying cycling as some > sort of martyr thing. It's quite the opposite. > It's a pleasurable indulgence. I say it is a lot of fun (http://cafepress.com/putsomefun), just that some drivers and the lack of facilities make it a martyrdom. Well, you can actually die for a cause by riding a bike, and that's exactly what I'm doing by riding a bicycle in all types of roads and making it part of THE REVOLUTION. Jesus on a bike. "But Jesus is not to be diverted from his path - which is, being who he is, naturally a righteous path," which is, of course, a bicycle path.   Date: 21 Apr 2007 10:38:54 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the Bicycle Liberation Front On Apr 20, 5:28 pm, "B. Peg" <bent_...@worldnet.att.net > wrote: > Pay your fair portion - or get off the vehicular roadway and stay in your > own "supposedly taxed-paid-by-all" lanes. Oh, and quit depriving people > access to their property as well (you Spandex pixies are the only ones who > do that!). Cars stole roads from the bike, and the Bicycle Liberation Front should take them back. Either that or we get bike lanes. ;) "Bicycling was so popular in the 1880s and 1890s that cyclists formed the League of American Wheelman (still in existence and now called the League of American Bicyclists). The League lobbied for better roads, literally paving the road for the automobile." http://www.pedalinghistory.com/PHhistory.html   Date: 21 Apr 2007 10:32:31 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 5:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1177034506.065296.316...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John Kane wrote: > > Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a > > bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars > > and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a > > strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal > > Saturday night. > > Even 15 year olds with guns in their HS lockers worked fine for many > decades until people became children of the government. Or maybe it has to do with having a cowboy in office. Monkey see monkey do, you know.     Date: 21 Apr 2007 13:47:16 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 21 Apr 2007 10:32:31 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 20, 5:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: >> In article <1177034506.065296.316...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John Kane wrote: >> > Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a >> > bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars >> > and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a >> > strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal >> > Saturday night. >> >> Even 15 year olds with guns in their HS lockers worked fine for many >> decades until people became children of the government. > >Or maybe it has to do with having a cowboy in office. As opposed to a redneck from Arkansas ? Or maybe a peanut farmer ? > Monkey see >monkey do, you know. Based on that, we'd all be getting blow jobs from our secretaries, dontch'a think ? Come to think of it ..... -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 21 Apr 2007 09:47:09 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The final insult The final insult... I walk in into this supermarket (bags and bike seat in shopping cart to prevent theft) and I spot wine degustation attended by a sexy lady. Here's the dialog: -"Can I have one?" -"Sure" [she keeps staring at me] -"Where are you from,?" adding that she must be Colombian (Colombian ladies are very sexy) -"No, I'm from Ecuador" [I start on the banana subject, since it's the main weapon of the revolution, so to speak] -"What do you drive," she asks -"Well see, I ride a bike all the time. It's because I'm leading an international campaign" [I'm hiding from her that my girlfriend lends me her car] -"And how are you going to take a lady out?" [At that point I knew she wasn't for me. If I'd driven an SUV it would have been so different, but then I don't care for ladies that like SUVs anyway. And she hated the canoe! A final insult that I couldn't take lightly. So I walked away insulted but proud, perhaps understanding now why my girlfriend doesn't insist too much in me having a car. I remain faithful...] MORAL: No wonder so many people choose to drive. But we must emphasize that riding a bike is a fun activity. Something like... http://www.cafepress.com/putsomefun   Date: 21 Apr 2007 09:23:18 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, but not the right to use them? --Have to say it was a good day, didnt have to use the AK-- Yep. That's pretty good given that you are the victims of so many aggressions if you ride a bike. It's also good that you got THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, but not the right to use them! Maybe it should be the next campaign for the NRA. ;)   Date: 21 Apr 2007 01:32:37 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > writes: > Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > you draw and... Already you are wrong and probably a troll. A carry gun is a tool for self defence, not revenge. -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling   Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:46:04 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 19, 9:51 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence > > > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, > > > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the > > > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and > > > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things > > > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a > > > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf > > > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > > > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old > > > secretary. > > > The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to > > the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas > > with the most constrictive gun laws. > > ^ restrictive ? > > Good. Quarantine the inner cities , have custom checks and body > searches on everyone entering or leaving the inner cities and get back > to us. The arguement is idiotic. If I can buy a gun in Virginia or > Maryland and take the Metro back to DC. then the law is useless. Let me just say this as well. I wasn't making any argument, I was stating fact. If you fail to realize that the inner city culture is the cause of the crime and not the availability to guns, then you'll never even start to solve the plague that destroys the families that live there.     Date: 20 Apr 2007 23:09:43 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On 20 Apr 2007 19:46:04 -0700, Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 9:51 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence >> > > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, >> > > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the >> > > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >> > > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >> > > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >> > > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >> > > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any >> > > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old >> > > secretary. >> >> > The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to >> > the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas >> > with the most constrictive gun laws. >> >> ^ restrictive ? >> >> Good. Quarantine the inner cities , have custom checks and body >> searches on everyone entering or leaving the inner cities and get back >> to us. The arguement is idiotic. If I can buy a gun in Virginia or >> Maryland and take the Metro back to DC. then the law is useless. > >Let me just say this as well. I wasn't making any argument, I was >stating fact. If you fail to realize that the inner city culture is >the cause of the crime and not the availability to guns, then you'll >never even start to solve the plague that destroys the families that >live there. Yep. You NEVER hear about 'rich white guys from the suburbs going into the ghetto to shoot people', because it don't happen. Whne they decide to throw a riot Rotney King style, etc, it's not white folk going into Da Hood and setting it on fire. When the 15 year old girls there have babies, the Daddy's aren't white guys from good neighborhoods. When the Daddy's get shot, it's by other black guys from Da Hood, not whites from some other town. When there's another drive-by, the folks in the car aren't from some nice nieghborhood. And they didn't get their guns legally. When a 12 year old boy gets 'beat in' to a gang, it's not white guys standing around hitting him. When the Mayor gets caught smoking crack with a whore, goes to prison, and then gets re-elected to public office, it's not white folk choosing their leaders and role models for them. When they have 4 generations of women, from old ladies down to babies, living in some tenement, with 5 little kids by 5 different Daddy's, that are all long gone, it's not white Daddy's that abandoned their own kids and families. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:43:17 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 19, 9:51 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence > > > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, > > > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the > > > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and > > > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things > > > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a > > > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf > > > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > > > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old > > > secretary. > > > The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to > > the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas > > with the most constrictive gun laws. > > ^ restrictive ? > > Good. Quarantine the inner cities , have custom checks and body > searches on everyone entering or leaving the inner cities and get back > to us. The arguement is idiotic. If I can buy a gun in Virginia or > Maryland and take the Metro back to DC. then the law is useless. Why isn't the murder rate higher where the gun can be purchased rather than in the area that has the most restrictive gun laws? If you're a bad guy, you're going to get a gun no matter what the laws. The difference is that you're going to commit the most crimes where there's less of a chance of the good guy protecting himself.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:42:59 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 12:27 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 20, 10:59 am, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com> wrote: > > > > > You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. > > > Thumper > > Hilarious! Talk about the bottom of the bell curve... :-) > > - Frank Krygowski Err, Frank I think you're being too kind in assuming that the poster knows what a 'Bell Curve" is. :)     Date: 21 Apr 2007 15:49:31 From: Thumper Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177123379.290852.18100@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 20, 12:27 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Apr 20, 10:59 am, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. >> >> > Thumper >> >> Hilarious! Talk about the bottom of the bell curve... :-) >> >> - Frank Krygowski > > Err, Frank I think you're being too kind in assuming that the poster > knows what a 'Bell Curve" is. :) Of course I know what a Bell Helmet is. Thumper >   Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:35:06 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 5:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1177034506.065296.316...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, John Kane wrote: > > Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a > > bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars > > and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a > > strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal > > Saturday night. > > Even 15 year olds with guns in their HS lockers worked fine for many > decades until people became children of the government. I think you are talking about 2 different things. Taking a gun to school because you're going hunting after school is not the same as taking a gun to school just in case you need to shoot someone. I remember taking a.22 rifle to school for a play when I was 15 or 16 . No problem,; we used it as prop in a reading of "The shooting of dangerous Dan McGrew". (blancs) I was not carrying it for some dubious idea of self-protection. Nowadays given the mad paranoia about guns the only ones on school property are likely to be there with no such good excuse. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada   Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:27:11 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, "Pork Torpedo" <porktorp...@charter.net > wrote: > "John Kane" <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1177034506.065296.316690@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a > > bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars > > and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a > > strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal > > Saturday night. > > We're talking about LEGALLY posessed firearms. In order to buy a handgun > you have to be at least 21. Also being in possesion of a firearm while > intoxicated is against the law where I live and probably is everywhere else > as well. Sorry, age of majority is 19 not 21 here and do you reallly expect a 19 or 21 year old to say 'Oops I cannot have drink "I'm in possesion of a firearm"'? If you do, please explain drunk drivers. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:14:18 From: Pork Torpedo Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177122431.824978.239670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > Sorry, age of majority is 19 not 21 here and do you reallly expect a > 19 or 21 year old to say 'Oops I cannot have drink "I'm in possesion > of a firearm"'? If you do, please explain drunk drivers. > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada Well, actually I do expect someone who is legally permitted to carry a firearm to obey the law. Most do by the way. Abuses by legally carrying citizens are very rare. If the same small percentage of the population who have carry permits had drivers licenses, you would hardly ever hear about drunk drivers either.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:20:09 From: John Kane Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 19, 11:28 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 18:51:46 -0700, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence > >> > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, > >> > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the > >> > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and > >> > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things > >> > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a > >> > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf > >> > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > >> > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old > >> > secretary. > > >> The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to > >> the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas > >> with the most constrictive gun laws. > > ^ restrictive ? > > >Good. Quarantine the inner cities , have custom checks and body > >searches on everyone entering or leaving the inner cities and get back > >to us. The arguement is idiotic. If I can buy a gun in Virginia or > >Maryland and take the Metro back to DC. then the law is useless. > > Predictably, you miss the point. No, you do. Your argument was that inner cities have the most stringent gun law and that that should have deceased crime. The problem with that argument is that there is no control on the import of illegal guns. If you have criminal or otherwise law-abiding citizen who wants a gun there is nothing to stop him from getting one elsewhere and bringing it home. Until you have decent customs control over D.C then expect illegal guns to be imported with impunity. > > The point is, the vast majority of law-abiding people in this > country should not have their rights taken away in some vain attempt > to control the behavior of the monkeys in our ghettos. Of course, I am not American and don't see any real rights being violated. I must say, though, I am impressed with your level of vitriol. I > > By definition, only the criminals in DC have guns. Where / > how they got them is not the issue. The issue is that law-abiding > peole have been defacto unilaterally disarmed. Thus, the little > gang-bangers and other deviants have free reign, knowing that no > law-abiding person has the ability to shoot back, which makes them > safer targets. Well that is one way to look at it. An alternative viewpoint is that your country has managed to fuck up your social system so badly that violence is the only survival mechanism left to a lot of desperate people and the 'haves' are left desparately trying to defend the status quo with armed might. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me > 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' > 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' > HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's > Free demo now available onlinehttp://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:05:58 From: John Kane Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence > > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, > > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the > > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and > > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things > > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a > > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf > > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old > > secretary. > > The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to > the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas > with the most constrictive gun laws. And? The England and Wales stats include everyone just as the US stats do. That suggests that even in the UK equivalent of an American inner city one is much safer. Oh and when did the customs searchs start at the borders to the inner cities.     Date: 20 Apr 2007 23:00:08 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On 20 Apr 2007 19:05:58 -0700, John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence >> > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, >> > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the >> > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >> > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >> > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >> > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >> > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any >> > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old >> > secretary. >> >> The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to >> the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas >> with the most constrictive gun laws. > >And? The England and Wales stats include everyone just as the US >stats do. That suggests that even in the UK equivalent of an American >inner city one is much safer. They don't HAVE anything equivalent to our inner city. France does - and the police are scared to go into those areas, scared of the riots, etc, and the immigrants from Africa that live there like to set cars on fire. > >Oh and when did the customs searchs start at the borders to the inner >cities. Irrelevant. The fact is, we are a HUGELY more diverse country than the UK, have VASTLY more freedom, 500 % more people, etc , etc. To say 'All of America is one pureed sameness' is pureed idiocy. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:31:16 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: You must remember Christ In article <1177094711.917209.184400@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > writes: > On Apr 19, 8:56 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > >> Last Saturday night I was riding my bicycle around (unarmed), >> to destinations where I became engaged in more creative >> and sociable forms of debauchery. > > You mean you enjoy sociable behavior, which is why you ride a bike, > but selfish people in cars (sometimes) make your day miserable. No they don't. Not my whole day, anyways. What makes my whole day miserable is not being able to ride at all. Now that winter's snow and ice are long past, that's not a concern now. > Have > you tried wearing horse blinders? I'm not into that; I'm quite straight & vanilla. But good luck in your quest for a compatible gay pony boy. >> I wasn't in anybody's way -- drivers could easily pass me -- >> but just because I was there on a bicycle, I wouldn't be >> surprised if I was cussed-out by some drivers for "being in >> the way." > > You must remember when riding a bike of how much Christ suffered at > the cross. Let's just say I'm no Mel Gibson fan. Say, weren't his Mad Max movies more-or-less contemporaneous with the coining of the term: "road rage"? Hmmmm ... Seems to me, drivers are the ones doing most of the (self-inflicted) suffering, judging from their complainin' and bickerin'. Statistically, they're the ones doing most of the dying, too. largely at each other's hands. Sure, sometimes they might take out a non-driver along with themselves (especially pedestrians) but for the most part it's better to not even be in a car. I must remember when riding a bike of what to pick up for dinner. As a matter of fact I returned from a nice li'l cycling coffee-stop/shopping outing just a little while ago. Now I've got a nice, thick, onion-slathered, sherry-moistened chuck steak and a big spud baking in the oven. And some moro oranges to snack on while I'm waiting. And you're telling me to think about suffering? Okay, it grieves me to think about the waste of human life incurred by drivers. You really should stop portraying cycling as some sort of martyr thing. It's quite the opposite. It's a pleasurable indulgence. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:37:30 From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? donquijote1954 wrote: > > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > > Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > you draw and... THUD!!! Car is still bigger than bicycle. At least now the driver has an excuse (self defense). -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky   Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:15:15 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: If you arm everybody... I guess we are gonna find this problem with arming NUN (everybody)... (needless to say someone my just shoot the priest for rape) Two students injured in parking lot before school starts What began as an argument in a convenience store parking lot spilled onto the campus of Western High School Tuesday morning, bringing gunfire and bloodshed with it. The shooting in the school parking lot sent students scattering for cover and left two freshmen injured by gunfire. The two injured students, a boy and a girl, were sent home after being treated at University Medical Center. The shooting began about 6:30 a.m. as students began arriving at the campus at Decatur Boulevard and Bonanza Road. Sophomore Celia Gonzalez said she heard the shots as she was about to enter a school building. She turned her head and saw a student lying on the pavement holding his leg, she said. She and her classmates, many of whom were getting off buses, took off. "I started running. I wasn't about to get shot," Gonzalez said. "There were a lot of people running. Nobody knew what was going on." http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-10-Wed-2007/news/11886461.html   Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:03:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 3:48 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber > wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:07:34 -0400, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com> > wrote: > > >And most bicyclists are also motorists. > > I'd bet most bicyclists are schoolchildren too young to drive. We are motorcyclists without the need to have an engine do the job for us. So we have better legs, less stomach and can eat more pizza.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:00:03 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 20, 10:01 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote: > Sanctioned gun violence is out of hand in the U.S. as well - and as > reported by the conservative side of the think tanks - but at least > most of it is reported. If you think sanctioned gun violence by police > and paramilitary units are even reported in much of SA, you are living > in a fool's paradise. Then you can work on figuring out the level of > criminal violence. Perhaps American cities are the worst IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, meaning not as bad as Brazil or South Africa but not as good as Berlin or London.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:57:23 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 8:18 am, bob zee <bobz...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 11:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > > Republicans), > > I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. If you choose one over > the other, you are just proving to the rest of the world that you are > a sheep and can't think for yourself. > > I think everyone should have a gun. Then you should vote for NUN (http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2003/ NunsWithGuns.jpg). Even nuns should pack a gun.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:51:43 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE... http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2003/NunsWithGuns.jpg Meaning we should arm everybody to be able to defend him/herself from everybody else, or just give it to none so nobody has one. Fair?     Date: 20 Apr 2007 18:38:35 From: sleazy Subject: Re: The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE On 20 Apr 2007 12:51:43 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE... > >http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2003/NunsWithGuns.jpg > > >Meaning we should arm everybody to be able to defend him/herself from >everybody else, or just give it to none so nobody has one. Fair? When you manage to get the Constitution amended to reflect that no one gets a weapon, get back with us. In the meantime, picture me as capable of defending myself. Think 9mm and thank Kel-Tec.       Date: 20 Apr 2007 23:17:40 From: Polarhound Subject: Re: The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE sleazy wrote: > On 20 Apr 2007 12:51:43 -0700, donquijote1954 > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE... >> >> http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2003/NunsWithGuns.jpg >> >> >> Meaning we should arm everybody to be able to defend him/herself from >> everybody else, or just give it to none so nobody has one. Fair? > > When you manage to get the Constitution amended to reflect that no one > gets a weapon, get back with us. In the meantime, picture me as > capable of defending myself. Think 9mm and thank Kel-Tec. I used to have a P-11 as a carry gun .. A bit too small for my hand, but I could drop it into a jeans pocket without printing. Now, it is an Essex 1911A1 for me.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:27:57 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: We the Cyclists of the United States On Apr 19, 10:05 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental > > rights now matter HOW much the left-wing nutters would like to ignore > > those things in their never ending drive to engineer a society more to > > their own liking ! > > Of course, you do realise that most > people (other than USA citizens) view your Constitution as an > amusing > anachronism? > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada I didn't know it was amusing. A more updated version of it though would start with something like... "We the Cyclists of the United States, ir order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common transportation, promote Traffic Laws and get rid of SUVs, etc, etc..."   Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:15:58 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 9:54 pm, John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:34 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:18:19 -0400, Just A User > > > <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > > >Curtis L. Russell wrote: > > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User > > >> <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > > > >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > > >>> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > > >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > > >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > > >>> those at the campus on Monday. > > > >> Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, and > > >> they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was > > >> there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several > > >> in Canada. > > > >> Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell > > >> everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much > > >> stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. > > > >> Curtis L. Russell > > >> Odenton, MD (USA) > > >> Just someone on two wheels... > > >I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are > > >banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until that > > >time comes, control is the key. > > > >Ken > > > Yeh, right. Let's only let the Government have them. > > > Where did you get that one, Mein Kampf ? > > Don't you know any history? The Nazi introduced gun control about 5-6 > years after attaining power. They were not particularally worried > about a few burgers with guns. They know that the sheep won't use it against the wolf. They may use it against the Black Sheep first.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:57:01 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: They are driving the monkey to the edge They are driving the monkey to the edge and there's no way to know when he can explode... http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q82/boomn4x4/Gifs/Monkey20Shoots20Gun.gif But the smart monkey knows better. The smart monkey shows his cleverness... The monkey knows that the lion is more powerful than him, and knows he better use his own weapons, so he decides to be funny, that being his natural gift. The story goes like this: The Hungry Lion roars: "Monkey, I'm made to eat meat, so you better come down right now." And the monkey replies very cool: "HUNGRY? YOU CAN EAT MY BANANA!" T-SHIRTS TO CHANGE THE WORLD (while some of these products may not seem related to a revolution, they emphasize our slogan: MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR) http://cafepress.com/peacebanana   Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:47:09 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 9:31 pm, "DI" <di9...@cox.net > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > "should cyclists pack guns" > > This one does when the situation to need one might exist, and I do it > legally. But I'm not crazy and obsessed like Donquijote and would never > think about opening fire on a big bad evil SUV. Well, they may not be evil but they can kill you easily and pollute like they are alone in this world. You called that Christian behavior?   Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:45:11 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: You must remember Christ On Apr 19, 8:56 pm, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > Last Saturday night I was riding my bicycle around (unarmed), > to destinations where I became engaged in more creative > and sociable forms of debauchery. You mean you enjoy sociable behavior, which is why you ride a bike, but selfish people in cars (sometimes) make your day miserable. Have you tried wearing horse blinders? > > I wasn't in anybody's way -- drivers could easily pass me -- > but just because I was there on a bicycle, I wouldn't be > surprised if I was cussed-out by some drivers for "being in > the way." You must remember when riding a bike of how much Christ suffered at the cross. > > The thought of shooting anybody didn't enter my mind, > as per usual. I don't wanna hurt anybody. That's why > I ride a bike instead of driving a car. > > > Guns dont' > > work that way. > > It's an old, inherited, single-action revolver, with > the hammer stupidly sitting on a loaded chamber. > > Squirt-gun "wars" on bikes can be kinda fun. Especially > on hot summer days. Actually, on hot summer days I'm not > above requesting people washing their cars on the curbside > to give me a squirt from their garden hoses as I ride by, > and they often gladly oblige. It's quite refreshing. > Especially after a bunch of urban hill climbing, like > escaping from New Westminster BC. I see it like a quite an innocent activity, but my concern is that the guy in the car sees you draw, and...   Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:55:54 From: Olebiker Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 10:59 am, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com > wrote: > > You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. That's an interesting thing for a member of the "loud pipes save lives" group to say.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:51:26 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident? On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > > Still Bush defends the right to bear arms > > > EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the > > victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect > > "every American classroom and community", a White House official said > > Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". > > Naaaa, guns are fun. Everybody should have one. > > Regular people should be allowed to carry firearms if they want > to--*nothing* ruins a criminal's day faster than an armed victim. > > ----------- > > Here's a fun question (totally off-topic for this newsgroup)--narcotics > are already illegal in the USA and criminals don't have any problem > getting them; what makes you think that declaring guns illegal will get > rid of guns? > > Anti-gun activists are (a few) liars and (the rest) fools. > Anyone telling you that they're going to *take* *away* some of your > rights to *protect* you is a liar--and if you believe it, you're a fool. > > Two of the classic high-crime areas in the US are NYC and Washington > DC--and both of those places have handgun bans in effect..... > > Come to think of it, narcotics is illegal in NYC and DC too, and guess > what? ;) Fine, let's legalize (or regulate) narcotics. But how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident, an armed professor or armed students? This is fine in Switzerland where people are trained in the militias and they take a rifle (not a handgun) home. But America can't even make fine cheese! (or chocolate)     Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:13:53 From: Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident? On 20 Apr 2007 10:51:26 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote: >> donquijote1954 wrote: >> >> > Still Bush defends the right to bear arms >> >> > EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the >> > victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect >> > "every American classroom and community", a White House official said >> > Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". >> >> Naaaa, guns are fun. Everybody should have one. >> >> Regular people should be allowed to carry firearms if they want >> to--*nothing* ruins a criminal's day faster than an armed victim. >> >> ----------- >> >> Here's a fun question (totally off-topic for this newsgroup)--narcotics >> are already illegal in the USA and criminals don't have any problem >> getting them; what makes you think that declaring guns illegal will get >> rid of guns? >> >> Anti-gun activists are (a few) liars and (the rest) fools. >> Anyone telling you that they're going to *take* *away* some of your >> rights to *protect* you is a liar--and if you believe it, you're a fool. >> >> Two of the classic high-crime areas in the US are NYC and Washington >> DC--and both of those places have handgun bans in effect..... >> >> Come to think of it, narcotics is illegal in NYC and DC too, and guess >> what? ;) > > >Fine, let's legalize (or regulate) narcotics. But how your armed >citizens would have prevented this particular incident, an armed >professor or armed students? Ummm.... they would have shot back ? Just a wild guess ..... >This is fine in Switzerland where people are trained in the militias >and they take a rifle (not a handgun) home. A full-auto one, I might add :-) And they DO have handguns also. So, you would have no problem with the National Guard here taking their M-16's home, right ? http://www.guncite.com/tpgswiss.html Purchase of handguns is licensed on a "must issue" basis at the cantonal (state) level, with "firearms purchase certificates" issued to all adult residents without criminal records or history of mental illness. There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be demonstrated). http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." "While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home." > But America can't even >make fine cheese! (or chocolate) -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:41:10 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Can't we all get along? On Apr 19, 6:02 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.soc Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 2:22 pm, asshat1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Apr 19, 1:11 pm, Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Hopefully a door opener gets you some day, so we don't have to put up > >> > with your retarded cross-posts anymore. > > >> I'd consider it an act of terrorism. Bicycles should have the right to > >> be free from opening doors as well as from invasive cars. If someone > >> has the right ot bear arms, we should have the right to ride a bike > >> SAFELY on the streets, ie. WE NEED BIKE LANES. > > > You've got a newsgroup for bicycles which you don't stay in. No > > reason to suppose, if you had bike lanes, you'd stay in them either. > > I've never seen him post to the bicycle group except to troll via > crosspost. He's a miserable hypocritical mouth breathing cretin, and > I'm not sure he's ever seet foot to pedal on a bicycle. > > > You've got a lot to learn about responsible use and sharing before you > > start preaching to others, retard. > > I've got a call from the Mentally Handicapped Anti-Defamation League on > line one for you. :-) Are you a member of the NRA, or you are a partaker of that mentality that bikers are fair game? Do you realize that the law of the jungle that prevails on our roads should be replaced with rules of the roads, and that all those sharing the road --bikes, motorcycles and cars-- should agree to it? Can't we all get along? ;)     Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:55:58 From: Subject: Re: Can't we all get along? On 20 Apr 2007 10:41:10 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 6:02 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> In rec.bicycles.soc Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Apr 19, 2:22 pm, asshat1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Apr 19, 1:11 pm, Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Hopefully a door opener gets you some day, so we don't have to put up >> >> > with your retarded cross-posts anymore. >> >> >> I'd consider it an act of terrorism. Bicycles should have the right to >> >> be free from opening doors as well as from invasive cars. If someone >> >> has the right ot bear arms, we should have the right to ride a bike >> >> SAFELY on the streets, ie. WE NEED BIKE LANES. >> >> > You've got a newsgroup for bicycles which you don't stay in. No >> > reason to suppose, if you had bike lanes, you'd stay in them either. >> >> I've never seen him post to the bicycle group except to troll via >> crosspost. He's a miserable hypocritical mouth breathing cretin, and >> I'm not sure he's ever seet foot to pedal on a bicycle. >> >> > You've got a lot to learn about responsible use and sharing before you >> > start preaching to others, retard. >> >> I've got a call from the Mentally Handicapped Anti-Defamation League on >> line one for you. :-) > >Are you a member of the NRA, or you are a partaker of that mentality >that bikers are fair game? Do you realize that the law of the jungle >that prevails on our roads should be replaced with rules of the roads, >and that all those sharing the road --bikes, motorcycles and cars-- >should agree to it? Can't we all get along? ;) > Shut up, Rotney :-) -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:27:24 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the official viewpoint of the revolution --Why do they do this? Are they environmentalists protesting car usage? Not a very good way to bring positive attention to their cause. I can't understand why someone being attacked like that wouldn't just step on the gas or door the heck out them. Sound's like self-defense to me. The means to end rarely justify actions like this regardless of the value in a cause.-- The way to do it --and this is the official viewpoint of the revolution-- we should not block the streets (stupid), but WE SHOULD TAKE THE LANE (smart), because WE TOO ARE VEHICLES and driving on the right hand gutter only lends to invisibility and discrimination. So as our official T-shirt says, "We will TAKE THE LANE, until we get BIKE LANES, so we can RIDE FOR PEACE"...   Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:07:15 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 5:18 pm, sqidbait <sqid_b...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 8:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote:> Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > > [snip] > > SpikeBike did this *years* ago. Weren't you paying attention? > > http://members.aol.com/clubnbc/spike_1.htm > > -- Michael Is he in Guantanamo now (along with other terrorists) or still doing his war? I read chapter one and enjoyed it thoroughly. This time however we only aim with a banana. It's entirely legal, and can be replaced with the middle finger if the need arises.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 09:53:52 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 4:35 pm, "M. MacDonald" <mmacdon...@bc.cc.ca.us > wrote: > >"Thumper" wrote: > > Definitely, all motorcycle riders should carry sidearm's (not bicyclists > > though, they're all fruitcakes). > > LOL! > > I wish they'd (bicyclists) would pay something to ride the things on the > streets. Around here, they take one entire lane away from vehicle traffic > and give it to bicyclists who I rarely see riding in one. They sure get a > lot of free asphalt and impede the traffic flow for their selfishness. You must envious that we hold the moral ground. Otherwise they can make bike lanes for us --which take no more than 3 feet-- and then you can trade your bike for this other bike... http://www.sunbicycles.com/sun/bicycles/cruiserBikes/stretchCruiser/stretchCruiser.htm   Date: 20 Apr 2007 09:27:45 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 20, 10:59 am, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com > wrote: > > > You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. > > Thumper Hilarious! Talk about the bottom of the bell curve... :-) - Frank Krygowski     Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:20:26 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177086465.861156.149830@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 20, 10:59 am, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com> wrote: >> >> >> You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. >> >> Thumper > > Hilarious! Talk about the bottom of the bell curve... :-) > > - Frank Krygowski Okay freakier...I ride push bike and I ride motorcycle and EVERY punter that pulled out in front of the motorcycle deliberately on their push bike (think Mass cunts) was left in the ditch with a bent bike and a hell of a lot more respect than they had before. The one who didn't learn got punted a panel van.       Date: 21 Apr 2007 06:43:06 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net > wrote in message news:evidnfETtqlhDbTbnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@bresnan.com... > > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1177086465.861156.149830@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 20, 10:59 am, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. >>> >>> Thumper >> >> Hilarious! Talk about the bottom of the bell curve... :-) >> >> - Frank Krygowski > > Okay freakier...I ride push bike and I ride motorcycle and EVERY punter > that pulled out in front of the motorcycle deliberately on their push bike > (think Mass cunts) was left in the ditch with a bent bike and a hell of a > lot more respect than they had before. The one who didn't learn got punted > a panel van. > A good example of a reason to carry some protection while riding a bike. I know he's just talking big here because no one knows who he is, but the attitude is still there.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 05:38:46 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 9:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > > Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > you draw and... > > I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > Here's a good identifying T-shirt...http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories > > Still Bush defends the right to bear arms > > EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the > victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect > "every American classroom and community", a White House official said > Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/04/17/1176696841532.html?from=top5 > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > BIKE FOR PEACEhttp://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace I think there are way to many guns, way to easy to get them BUT they are there and are not going to go away but a clearly insane person like Cho should not have been able to buy a gun..THAT needs to be fixed somehow.     Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:13:17 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 20 Apr 2007 05:38:46 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 9:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >wrote: >> Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and >> even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other >> Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those >> careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? >> >> Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement >> you draw and... >> >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >> >> Here's a good identifying T-shirt...http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories >> >> Still Bush defends the right to bear arms >> >> EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the >> victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect >> "every American classroom and community", a White House official said >> Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". >> >> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/04/17/1176696841532.html?from=top5 >> >> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote >> >> BIKE FOR PEACEhttp://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace > >I think there are way to many guns, way to easy to get them BUT they >are there and are not going to go away but a clearly insane person >like Cho should not have been able to buy a gun..THAT needs to be >fixed somehow. It would be nice. Then again, the largest mass murder in US history occured in 1990 ( I may have the year wrong ) when an unemployed Cuban in NYC torched a nightclub called, funny enough, HappyLand, killing 87 people. His weapon was a gallon of gas and a match. In 1986, an arson in a hotel in SAn Jaun killed 97. How do we stop deadly things from falling into the wrong hands ? Often we can't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll#Murder_.28criminal_rather_than_terrorism_or_state_sponsored.29 Murder (criminal rather than terrorism or state sponsored) See also List of serial killers by country and Spree killer 50,000 - Thugee cult, India ~1700 - 1890 931 - Behram, Thugee cult leader, India, (1790 - 1830) ~650 - Erzsébet Báthory, Kingdom of Hungary, (c.1585 - 1610) - total disputed 500 - Circus arson, (Niterói, Brazil, 1961) 400 - Abadan theater arson (Abadan, Iran, 1978) 300+ - Pedro Lopez, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, (1969 - 1980) - total disputed ~250 - Dr. Harold Shipman, Hyde, United Kingdom, (1970s?-1998) 198 - Daugu Subway Fire (Daegu, South Korea, 2003) 163+ - Dr John Bodkin Adams, Eastbourne, United Kingdom, (1946-1956). Acquitted controversially but pathologist Francis Camps suspected him of killing 163 patients.[6] 140 - Luis Garavito, Colombia, (1992-1998) 100 - Donald Henry "Pee Wee" Gaskins, serial killer from Johnsonville, South Carolina who prior to his execution, claimed over 100 killed 97 - Dupont Plaza Hotel arson, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1986) 87 - Happyland Fire, New York City, (1990) 80+ - Bruno Ludke, Germany, (1928 - 1943) there is some evidence that Ludke may have been framed by the Nazis 65 - Yang Xinhai, China (PRC), (1999 - 2004) 63 - Arson at a Macedonian disco in Gothenburg, Sweden (1998) 58+ - Giuseppe Greco, Mafiosi from Sicily (1977 - 1985) 57 - Woo Bum-Kon, South Korea (1982) 53 - Andrei Chikatilo, Ukraine, (1982 - 1990) 52 - Anatoly Onopriyenko, Ukraine, (1996) 48+ - Gary Ridgway, Green River Killer, Washington, USA (1980s) 45 - Bath School Disaster, Bath, Michigan, USA (1927) 38 - Moses Sithole, South Africa, (1994 - 1995) 35 - Port Arthur Massacre, Australia (1996) 33 - Virginia Tech Massacre, (2007) 33 - John Wayne Gacy, Chicago, (1970s) 29-40 - Charles Cullen, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA (1988 - 2003) 27–63 Marcel Petiot, France, (1926 - 1944) 27+ - Cedric Maake, South Africa, (1996 -1997) 27 - Dean Corll, Houston, Texas, USA (1970 - 1973) 27 - Maria Swanenburg Leiden, Netherlands, (1880-1883) 24+ - Fritz Haarmann, Hanover, Germany (1919-1924) 24 - Bela Kiss, Cinkota, Hungary (1912 - 1916) 23 - Albert Guay, Quebec, (1949) 23 - Ted Bundy, Florida, (1970s) -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/     Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:51:07 From: JP Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C78342.27478FF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message = ://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<=20 > I think there are way to many guns, way to easy to get them BUT they > are there and are not going to go away but a clearly insane person > like Cho should not have been able to buy a gun..THAT needs to be > fixed somehow. >=20 I got a handgun permit. Took an application asking for EVERY job and residence I've ever had. And references, all of which they called. Took six months for it to be approved. Then I had to go to the main police station to get interviewed and=20 fingerprinted. Now I've got a permit that allows me to buy a handgun. That entails going to the gun shop, buying the handgun, bringing the receipt back out to the main station to be examined=20 and the serial number recorded, returning to the shop with a signed approval, taking possession of the gun, and bringing it back to the=20 station so they can examine the gun and make sure the numbers match. Then I can bring it home. =20 One wonders why some states make it easier to buy a gun than=20 get a driver's license. =20 JP ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C78342.27478FF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" > <HTML ><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=3DGENERATOR > <STYLE ></STYLE> </HEAD > <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff > <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV > </DIV> <DIV >"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:peter@vecchios.com" >peter@vecchios.com</A>> wrote in = message=20 ://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace<BR >>>>>>>>>&= gt; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g= t;snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<= ;<<<<<<<=20 <BR >> I think there are way to many guns, way to easy to get them BUT = they<BR >> are there and are not going to go away but a clearly insane = person<BR >> like Cho should not have been able to buy a gun..THAT = needs to=20 be<BR >> fixed somehow.<BR>> </DIV> <DIV > </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I got a handgun permit.</FONT></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Took an application asking for EVERY = job and=20 residence I've ever had.</FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>And references,  all of which they = called.</FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Took six months for it to be = approved.</FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Then I had to go to the main police = station to get=20 interviewed and </FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>fingerprinted.</FONT></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Now I've got a permit that allows me = to  buy a=20 handgun.</FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That entails going to the gun shop, = buying the=20 handgun,</FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>bringing the receipt back out to the = main station=20 to be examined </FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and the serial number recorded, = returning to the=20 shop with a signed</FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>approval, taking possession of the gun, = and=20 bringing it back to the </FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>station so they can examine the gun and = make sure=20 the numbers match.</FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Then I can bring it home.  = </FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One wonders why some states make = it easier to=20 buy a gun than </FONT ></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>get a driver's license.</FONT></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> </FONT></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>JP</FONT></DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C78342.27478FF0--       Date: 21 Apr 2007 18:22:08 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "JP" <vze2wx8p@verizon.net > wrote in news:Lj5Wh.14$bZ2.9@trndny01: > Now I've got a permit that allows me to buy a handgun. > That entails going to the gun shop, buying the handgun, > bringing the receipt back out to the main station to be examined > and the serial number recorded, returning to the shop with a signed > approval, taking possession of the gun, and bringing it back to the > station so they can examine the gun and make sure the numbers match. > Then I can bring it home. You are Don Ho and I claim my Mai Tai... (sounds like the shit I went through on Oahu to get a 'piece') -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com   Date: 20 Apr 2007 05:18:40 From: bob zee Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 11:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > Republicans), I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. If you choose one over the other, you are just proving to the rest of the world that you are a sheep and can't think for yourself. I think everyone should have a gun. bob z.     Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:07:34 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? bob zee wrote: > On Apr 19, 11:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >> Republicans), > > I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. If you choose one over > the other, you are just proving to the rest of the world that you are > a sheep and can't think for yourself. > > I think everyone should have a gun. > > bob z. > I'm a Democrat at heart but it should be legal to at least carry a .22 pistol for the occasional big out of control dog who is determined to take a bite out of your leg. If it is out of it's yard it is fair game. I've been bitten twice so far and in one case a gun would have been no use but in the other incident way out in the country there would have been one less dog. Bill Baka     Date: 20 Apr 2007 08:26:44 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 20 Apr 2007 05:18:40 -0700, bob zee <bobzee1@gmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 11:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> >wrote: > >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >> Republicans), You probably like spinach pizza, too. > >I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. If you choose one over >the other, you are just proving to the rest of the world that you are >a sheep and can't think for yourself. > >I think everyone should have a gun. > >bob z. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:50:50 From: Mike A Schwab Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 11:29 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > > Heaven knows the criminals will abide by laws and regulations. (Or, just > use gasoline and fertilizer.) Actually, it is 6% diesel fuel. And you can't use ammonium nitrate fertilizer, it is coated to prevent moisture absorbtion. And once you buy the uncoated variety, you must immediately mix and explode with a blasting cap. You wait one week, and you get duds like the follow up to the London bombings.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:19:53 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 10:15 pm, "B. Peg" <bent_...@worldnet.att.net > wrote: > > "Wayne Pein" wrote: > > .... bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because they > > do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment. > > Oh really? > > So how come you don't pay for your special little piece of tarmac? Actually, I do. I pay taxes and fees for my cars and motorcycle, plus other taxes that end up used for construction and maintenance of roads. When I ride my bicycle, I'm on roads I helped pay for. And I'm causing far less damage and expense than I do when I'm using my other vehicles. > Should it be free at the exclusion of vehicular traffic? In my state, bikes _are_ vehicular traffic. They're defined that way in state law. But no, I don't care to exclude motor vehicle traffic (assuming that's what you mean). I'm competent at sharing the road, and most drivers are. Some yahoos in cars are not, but you can't prevent a bell curve from having a bottom tail. > Why should vehicular > taxes pay for your free asphalt that impedes their travel? 'Taint free. I help pay for it. And if my presence impedes your travel, it's likely because you're not as competent at driving as one would hope. But again, there's that bell curve... > > Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with > > generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists. > > So you have no problem riding in the middle of the road with traffic? I certainly don't. Like Wayne, I'm no fan of bike lanes. > So we don't need bicycle lanes then. Many, many cyclists are of that opinion. > Give them back to those who did pay for them and could use them. You're misinformed about the issue of paying for them, but I'm willing to give them up. > I hope by "generously sharing" you weren't > referring to bicyclists who ride side-by-side and take up the entire rural > byways. In actual fact, that is generally legal. Read the state laws, or the Uniform Vehicle Code. Most states specifically permit two-abreast riding. And it is sometimes necessary for a cyclist to take a lane, for reasons many motorists don't comprehend. One difficulty cyclists have is that there are too many people who think they know all about how it should be done, but who actually are - well, the bottom of yet another bell curve. Cyclists you think of as rude may simply be careful, and reacting to situations you're not even dimly aware of. Of course, it _is_ possible some cyclists are just rude. But motorists are hardly innocent of that! > Sorry, but you seem more inept at understanding your selfish demands on road > usage and encroach into the lanes of those who do pay for their use. As it > is, you pay nothing for something that costs a lot to maintain and build. Sorry, but you seem to be inept at understanding the relevant laws, and the reasons cyclist sometimes must be in your precious way, as well as the economics of road and traffic expense. > I agree that the debris problem comes from their lack of usage - which could > be put to better use for traffic flow and parking. If you want it clean, why > not pay for it? It shouldn't be paid out of the pockets of those who don't > or cannot use a bicycle. If you're talking about debris in bike lanes, I don't want to clean them, because I don't want bike lanes at all, at least in any situation I've encountered. Take that issue up with a bike lane fan. > I wouldn't have a problem with bicycles paying a license fee in states where > they wish to have exclusive lanes or paved trails. Might even serve to help > locate lost or stolen bikes as well. Would you be opposed to paying a $100 > year for a license/sticker like dirt bikers who don't use the tarmac? Hell yes. It would be like paying a $100 fee for a walking license. Cyclists cause zero road damage. They require zero police enforcement expense. They don't generate the need for expensive infrastructure like freeways, heavy-duty bridges, or even traffic lights. They generate zero pollution, zero health problems. They cause nearly zero injuries to any other road user. If you accurately figured the true costs of your motoring, you'd probably find you're paying a tiny fraction of it. Non-drivers are subsidizing you. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:59:50 From: Thumper Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177039193.766275.119360@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 19, 10:15 pm, "B. Peg" <bent_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> > "Wayne Pein" wrote: >> > .... bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because >> > they >> > do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment. >> >> Oh really? >> >> So how come you don't pay for your special little piece of tarmac? > > Actually, I do. I pay taxes and fees for my cars and motorcycle, plus > other taxes that end up used for construction and maintenance of > roads. When I ride my bicycle, I'm on roads I helped pay for. > > And I'm causing far less damage and expense than I do when I'm using > my other vehicles. > >> Should it be free at the exclusion of vehicular traffic? > > In my state, bikes _are_ vehicular traffic. They're defined that way > in state law. But no, I don't care to exclude motor vehicle traffic > (assuming that's what you mean). I'm competent at sharing the road, > and most drivers are. Some yahoos in cars are not, but you can't > prevent a bell curve from having a bottom tail. > >> Why should vehicular >> taxes pay for your free asphalt that impedes their travel? > > 'Taint free. I help pay for it. And if my presence impedes your > travel, it's likely because you're not as competent at driving as one > would hope. But again, there's that bell curve... > > >> > Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with >> > generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists. >> >> So you have no problem riding in the middle of the road with traffic? > > I certainly don't. Like Wayne, I'm no fan of bike lanes. > >> So we don't need bicycle lanes then. > > Many, many cyclists are of that opinion. > >> Give them back to those who did pay for them and could use them. > > You're misinformed about the issue of paying for them, but I'm willing > to give them up. > >> I hope by "generously sharing" you weren't >> referring to bicyclists who ride side-by-side and take up the entire >> rural >> byways. > > In actual fact, that is generally legal. Read the state laws, or the > Uniform Vehicle Code. Most states specifically permit two-abreast > riding. And it is sometimes necessary for a cyclist to take a lane, > for reasons many motorists don't comprehend. > > One difficulty cyclists have is that there are too many people who > think they know all about how it should be done, but who actually are > - well, the bottom of yet another bell curve. Cyclists you think of > as rude may simply be careful, and reacting to situations you're not > even dimly aware of. > > Of course, it _is_ possible some cyclists are just rude. But > motorists are hardly innocent of that! > >> Sorry, but you seem more inept at understanding your selfish demands on >> road >> usage and encroach into the lanes of those who do pay for their use. As >> it >> is, you pay nothing for something that costs a lot to maintain and build. > > Sorry, but you seem to be inept at understanding the relevant laws, > and the reasons cyclist sometimes must be in your precious way, as > well as the economics of road and traffic expense. > >> I agree that the debris problem comes from their lack of usage - which >> could >> be put to better use for traffic flow and parking. If you want it clean, >> why >> not pay for it? It shouldn't be paid out of the pockets of those who >> don't >> or cannot use a bicycle. > > If you're talking about debris in bike lanes, I don't want to clean > them, because I don't want bike lanes at all, at least in any > situation I've encountered. Take that issue up with a bike lane fan. > >> I wouldn't have a problem with bicycles paying a license fee in states >> where >> they wish to have exclusive lanes or paved trails. Might even serve to >> help >> locate lost or stolen bikes as well. Would you be opposed to paying a >> $100 >> year for a license/sticker like dirt bikers who don't use the tarmac? > > Hell yes. It would be like paying a $100 fee for a walking license. > > Cyclists cause zero road damage. They require zero police enforcement > expense. They don't generate the need for expensive infrastructure > like freeways, heavy-duty bridges, or even traffic lights. They > generate zero pollution, zero health problems. They cause nearly zero > injuries to any other road user. > > If you accurately figured the true costs of your motoring, you'd > probably find you're paying a tiny fraction of it. Non-drivers are > subsidizing you. > > - Frank Krygowski You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. Thumper > >       Date: 21 Apr 2007 18:15:39 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Thumper" <roadapple@unclewebster.com > wrote in news:Gz4Wh.3468$j63.517 @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: > You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. I *love* kicking them in the ass as I ride by... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com       Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:58:00 From: B. Peg Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? > "Thumper" wrote: > You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. ...hey, but at least they are in touch with their effeminate side by wearing brightly-colored Spandex. B~         Date: 21 Apr 2007 13:57:13 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? B. Peg wrote: > ...hey, but at least they are in touch with their effeminate side by wearing > brightly-colored Spandex. > > B~ > > Hey, so do football players! Wayne       Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:15:56 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Thumper wrote: > > > You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. > > Thumper Better watch out Thumper. Spike Bike is gonna get you. Wayne         Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:24:59 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:4628e74a$0$8965$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Thumper wrote: > > >> >> >> You guys are rude, inconsiderate and a danger to motorists. >> >> Thumper > > Better watch out Thumper. Spike Bike is gonna get you. Why for telling the truth? Don't ask what happened to the last Mass...what ever those morons call themselves that tried one of their little trick when I when by at the legal limit. Insurance is a good thing to have a vehicle why don't you have it on that push bike?           Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:53:32 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Keith Schiffner wrote the unintelligible jibber jabber: > Why for telling the truth? Don't ask what happened to the last Mass...what ever > those morons call themselves that tried one of their little trick when I when by > at the legal limit. Insurance is a good thing to have a vehicle why don't you > have it on that push bike? > Because it is not required by law. Wayne             Date: 21 Apr 2007 08:38:13 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46290c2c$0$24731$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Keith Schiffner wrote the unintelligible jibber jabber: > > >> Why for telling the truth? Don't ask what happened to the last Mass...what >> ever those morons call themselves that tried one of their little trick when I >> when by at the legal limit. Insurance is a good thing to have a vehicle why >> don't you have it on that push bike? > > Because it is not required by law. > > Wayne If you use the roads you should have insurance...for that matter a tag also and depending on the state you reside in an inspection sticker. Yep I ride both types...currently the MB6 is inop due to a "U" shaped axle tube and a skew that is in more parts than intended. Comes from aggressive dam riding. -- Keith Schiffner History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. Robert Heinlein               Date: 21 Apr 2007 14:06:33 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Keith Schiffner wrote: > > If you use the roads you should have insurance...for that matter a tag also and > depending on the state you reside in an inspection sticker. Yep I ride both > types...currently the MB6 is inop due to a "U" shaped axle tube and a skew that > is in more parts than intended. Comes from aggressive dam riding. Uh, bicyclists are not required to have insurance or a tag. That's the law. If the law said we had to have those things we would, but it doesn't. How much more simpler can I explain it? If you don't like those rules, change them. Wayne                 Date: 22 Apr 2007 16:35:02 From: Thumper Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:462a52a8$0$17151$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Keith Schiffner wrote: > >> >> If you use the roads you should have insurance...for that matter a tag >> also and depending on the state you reside in an inspection sticker. Yep >> I ride both types...currently the MB6 is inop due to a "U" shaped axle >> tube and a skew that is in more parts than intended. Comes from >> aggressive dam riding. > > Uh, bicyclists are not required to have insurance or a tag. That's the > law. If the law said we had to have those things we would, but it doesn't. > How much more simpler can I explain it? If you don't like those rules, > change them. > > Wayne No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like for deer, yearly. Thumper                   Date: 22 Apr 2007 18:13:10 From: Outback Jon Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Thumper wrote: > > No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like for > deer, yearly. > Can we get extra bicyclist management tags like they give out for the overpopulated deer herds here in NY? -- "Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net AMD Opteron 146 (@2.8) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power... http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 48435 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 1980 CB750F SuperSport "CoolerKing"                   Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:27:26 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Thumper wrote: >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>Uh, bicyclists are not required to have insurance or a tag. That's the >>law. If the law said we had to have those things we would, but it doesn't. >>How much more simpler can I explain it? If you don't like those rules, >>change them. >> >>Wayne > > > No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like for > deer, yearly. > As a motorcyclist and a bicyclist, I'm offended by meatheads like you. Wayne                     Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:09:08 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in news:462b9afd$0$9895$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >> No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like >> for deer, yearly. >> > > As a motorcyclist and a bicyclist, I'm offended by meatheads like you. Yer not from around here (Reeky), are ya, Boy? -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                     Date: 22 Apr 2007 12:08:13 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:462b9afd$0$9895$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Thumper wrote: > >>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > >>>Uh, bicyclists are not required to have insurance or a tag. That's the law. >>>If the law said we had to have those things we would, but it doesn't. How >>>much more simpler can I explain it? If you don't like those rules, change >>>them. >>> >>>Wayne >> >> >> No, we motorcyclist's should be allowed to draw bicyclist tags, like for >> deer, yearly. >> > > As a motorcyclist and a bicyclist, I'm offended by meatheads like you. > > Wayne What you are wayne is a hypocrite...period. I ride and when I do I ALWAYS follow the rules of the road period as such I do not nor ever will need a "bike lane" only wimps in cities need them. I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. They always have the right of way when over taking. Due to injury I'm not as quick as I used to be but a 56 mile ride in 2' 30' on a department store bike assembled from garage sales is good when you share a two lane county road. If a schmuck like me can ride those places safely what is everyone else's excuse? I rode in Boston traffic for a good amount of time also...what bike lanes? Safe as sleeping in bed it was. Now take yourself and your crybaby girlfriends down to a bar and drink couple of grasshoppers and leave the grownups to discuss grown up things. Sheesh, you are such a whining crybaby wimp it's pathetic. -- Keith Schiffner History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. Robert Heinlein                       Date: 03 May 2007 11:29:55 From: evelyn Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 2, 9:54 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Mike Young wrote: > > > "Wayne Pein" <w...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > > It's safer. Traffic doesn't have to "squeeze by". And they will squeeze by. > > So? Squeezing by sucks, but few collsions are caused by this. Thus it is > not dangerous. By being in the traffic line, motorists slow and exhibit > caution. On the other hand, most collisions occur via turning/merging > movements, and riding far to the side out of the normal traffic line > exacerbates these. > > >> When I ride in a group we use the full lane. So? > > > So. Do tell. Do you have thoughts resembling: "So what? I'm well within > > my right. By law!" > > I think, "I'm with a large group enjoying myself. I'm sorry some > motorists are inconvenienced for a short spell." > > > > >> Hey Boy, the reason motor vehicles require licensing and restrictions > >> is because they are dangerous to others. Bicycles are not, hence they > >> are not required to have those things. Nothing is "granted" to > >> bicyclists. Others are restricted. > > > That's really warped. Do you consider yourself extreme? Or just typical? > > I consider myself knowledgeble and you not. > > > > >> You seem to think 40 is a right in your scenario. That is a MAX. In > >> all my years of riding a bike, I've never had a queue behind me to the > >> extent I had to pull over. > > > In other words, it never occurred to you that you should pull over. Fair > > enough, but hard to believe. A queue of even 1 should be plenty. > > My word! A queue by definition in the states that have such a law is > typically 6 motor vehicles. If a slow user (bicyclist, front loader, > farm tractor) had to pull over every time there was one vehicle delayed > they would never get anywhere. > > If the > > > MAX is 40, and the only other impediment is your slow ass, what do you > > say to removing that from the picture? I think we're back on topic now. > > I say you need to understand the rules of the road and quit thinking > that you can travel at whatever speed you like when you like. > > > > > The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of or > > actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the imposition of > > your discourteous view of fair road use? > > Idiot. That is not the role of a handgun. Grow up. > I agree, the role of my handgun is to not impose my personal will, it is for protection. > Wayne                       Date: 22 Apr 2007 20:52:38 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Keith Schiffner wrote: >>As a motorcyclist and a bicyclist, I'm offended by meatheads like you. >> >>Wayne > > > What you are wayne is a hypocrite...period. I ride and when I do I ALWAYS follow > the rules of the road period as such I do not nor ever will need a "bike lane" > only wimps in cities need them. So we're in agreement. Haven't I repeatedly said in this thread that I oppose bike lanes. I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. > They always have the right of way when over taking. No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and behind. Due to injury I'm not as > quick as I used to be but a 56 mile ride in 2' 30' on a department store bike > assembled from garage sales is good when you share a two lane county road. If a > schmuck like me can ride those places safely what is everyone else's excuse? I > rode in Boston traffic for a good amount of time also...what bike lanes? Safe as > sleeping in bed it was. Now take yourself and your crybaby girlfriends down to a > bar and drink couple of grasshoppers and leave the grownups to discuss grown up > things. Sheesh, you are such a whining crybaby wimp it's pathetic. Damn you are an ignoramus. Read and understand. I've said I oppose bike lanes you idiot. They are best described as Bike Reservations. And what putz would ride a department store bike? Get a real one or three. But if you do ride a bike, good for you. It's WAY harder than sitting on top of an engine. Wayne                         Date: 01 May 2007 11:21:36 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? - 1 attachment On May 1, 1:23 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > Pedal-pushing faggot. > - Show quoted text - Excellent show of both your point and intelligence. Did you get off the couch to post that, or just use a wireless keyboard? I still see nothing in the the regs you posted that would prohibit a bicyclist from riding in the road. This doesn't mean I ride in the middle of the lane when I ride, just that your post is irrelevant.                         Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:58:12 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein wrote: > > > I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. >> They always have the right of way when over taking. > > No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to > control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and behind. > Nice in theory, but do you really expect car drivers to slow down to your speed to give you a buffer? Aren't there also rules about impeding the flow of traffic? If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........                           Date: 24 Apr 2007 10:32:32 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? BrianNZ wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >> >> >> I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. >>> They always have the right of way when over taking. >> >> No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to >> control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and behind. >> > > > Nice in theory, but do you really expect car drivers to slow down to > your speed to give you a buffer? Aren't there also rules about impeding > the flow of traffic? If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your > cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........ > > Anybody who wants to try to take the lane on a 70 MPH road definitely has more than one screw loose. I ride on the car emergency shoulder which does nice double duty as a bike lane and the semi's and cars going by at 70+ give me a nice tailwind boost. Taking the lane from a semi? Somebodies nuts, and this time it sure isn't me. Bill Baka                           Date: 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? BrianNZ wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >> >> >> I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. >> >>> They always have the right of way when over taking. >> >> >> No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to >> control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and behind. >> > > > Nice in theory, but do you really expect car drivers to slow down to > your speed to give you a buffer? Yes. Don't they do that for you? They do that for me, for farm tractors, for stopped busses and delivery vehicles, etc. Aren't there also rules about impeding > the flow of traffic? Yes, so what? You should know yours in your state/country. Most people don't fully understand them. If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your > cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........ I do. Wayne                             Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:13:38 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in news:462c07ba$0$19455 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > Yes, so what? You should know yours in your state/country. Most people > don't fully understand them. I've yet to see one of you pedalestrians sporting a slow moving vehicle sign... Get with the program or get the hell out of the way. -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                               Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:02:39 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen! wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:462c07ba$0$19455 > $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > > >>Yes, so what? You should know yours in your state/country. Most people >>don't fully understand them. > > > I've yet to see one of you pedalestrians sporting a slow moving vehicle > sign... Get with the program or get the hell out of the way. > > When the law requires it, bicycle drivers will use it. If the law requires it and bicyclists don't, then blame the authorities for not enforcing it. If you don't like that, tough. You can cry all the way to the gas pump and licence/registration office. Wayne                             Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:27:15 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein wrote: > BrianNZ wrote: > >> Wayne Pein wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. >>> >>>> They always have the right of way when over taking. >>> >>> >>> No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to >>> control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and behind. >>> >> >> >> Nice in theory, but do you really expect car drivers to slow down to >> your speed to give you a buffer? > > Yes. Don't they do that for you? No way!....especially when I'm on the main road and the traffic is whizzing by at 60-70 mph! I keep as close to the edge of the road as possible. > They do that for me, for farm tractors, > for stopped busses and delivery vehicles, etc. > Farm tractors, buses and delivery vehicles are all much wider than a bicycle which is why cars 'have' to slow down when they are in the way. > Aren't there also rules about impeding >> the flow of traffic? > > Yes, so what? You should know yours in your state/country. Most people > don't fully understand them. > We have the 'no more than two abreast' rule, and if that is going to impede the flow of traffic, ride single file. > If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your >> cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........ > > I do. > > Wayne > LOL. Good on you then..... The me vs. a car scenario keeps me on the side of the road as I know who would come off second best! So, really, if you were cycling on a highway,with traffic averaging 70mph, you would ride near the centreline?....death wish!                             Date: 22 Apr 2007 21:22:42 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >BrianNZ wrote: > >> Wayne Pein wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. >>> >>>> They always have the right of way when over taking. >>> >>> >>> No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to >>> control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and behind. >>> >> >> >> Nice in theory, but do you really expect car drivers to slow down to >> your speed to give you a buffer? > >Yes. Don't they do that for you? They do that for me, for farm tractors, >for stopped busses and delivery vehicles, etc. Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes. > >Aren't there also rules about impeding >> the flow of traffic? > >Yes, so what? You should know yours in your state/country. Most people >don't fully understand them. In the USA, there are not only 'maximum speed limits', but also MINIMUM speeds that are legally required. Drive BELOW that, you can be ticketed for creating a hazard. > >If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your >> cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........ > >I do. Try it on some road where traffic is moving at 50 + MPH some time. You'll find out why cars have BUMPERS. > >Wayne -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                               Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:40:49 From: Chris Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in news:se2o23ho9cpebckedq9a1jmo1s4eg4tga7@4ax.com: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> > wrote: > >>BrianNZ wrote: >> >>> Wayne Pein wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. >>>> >>>>> They always have the right of way when over taking. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, you are wrong. Whoever is in front in a lane has the right to >>>> control that lane space and is entitled to a buffer in front and >>>> behind. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Nice in theory, but do you really expect car drivers to slow down to >>> your speed to give you a buffer? >> >>Yes. Don't they do that for you? They do that for me, for farm >>tractors, for stopped busses and delivery vehicles, etc. > > Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in > fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes. Not true. Look up your state statues. I live in Colorado (Here is the link: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes.ht m) You will see that a bicycle is defined as a vehicle and must follow all the rules of the road as a motorist must. The right-of-way order is: 1) Pedestrian 2) Bicyclist 3) Motorist So…… I actuality, you as a motorist must yield to a cyclist and are required to pass safely. If that means slowing down and waiting, then you must > > >> >>Aren't there also rules about impeding >>> the flow of traffic? >> >>Yes, so what? You should know yours in your state/country. Most people >>don't fully understand them. > > In the USA, there are not only 'maximum speed limits', but > also MINIMUM speeds that are legally required. Drive BELOW that, you > can be ticketed for creating a hazard. > >> >>If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your >>> cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........ >> >>I do. > > Try it on some road where traffic is moving at 50 + MPH some > time. You'll find out why cars have BUMPERS. > > > > >> >>Wayne > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                 Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:59:01 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 30 Apr 2007 19:40:49 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >news:se2o23ho9cpebckedq9a1jmo1s4eg4tga7@4ax.com: > >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >>>BrianNZ wrote: >> >> Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in >> fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes. > > > >Not true. Look up your state statues. I live in Colorado >(Here is the link: >http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes.ht >m) > >You will see that a bicycle is defined as a vehicle and must follow all >the rules of the road as a motorist must. The right-of-way order is: >1) Pedestrian >2) Bicyclist >3) Motorist And in Colorado, you will see this law : 42-4-1103. Minimum speed regulation. Statute text (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for safe operation of such vehicle or in compliance with law. (2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation as described in the state traffic control manual, that slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, said department or such local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. (3) Notwithstanding any minimum speed that may be authorized and posted pursuant to this section, if any person drives a motor vehicle on a highway outside an incorporated area or on any controlled-access highway at a speed less than the normal and reasonable speed of traffic under the conditions then and there existing and by so driving at such slower speed impedes or retards the normal and reasonable movement of vehicular traffic following immediately behind, then such driver shall: (a) Where the width of the traveled way permits, drive in the right-hand lane available to traffic or on the extreme right side of the roadway consistent with the provisions of section 42-4-1001 (2) until such impeded traffic has passed by; or (b) Pull off the roadway at the first available place where such movement can safely and lawfully be made until such impeded traffic has passed by. (4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less than the normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or turnouts to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic flow. (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction. >So…… I actuality, you as a motorist must yield to a cyclist and are >required to pass safely. If that means slowing down and waiting, then >you must Wrong. Read above. THAT is the law, in your state, according to the link you provided. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                                   Date: 01 May 2007 12:32:19 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > And in Colorado, you will see this law : > > 42-4-1103. Minimum speed regulation. > > Statute text > > (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a > slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward > movement of traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for safe > operation of such vehicle or in compliance with law. Bicycles are not motor vehicles. Wayne                                   Date: 01 May 2007 12:55:24 From: Chris Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in news:5m0d33dvp8grmfnlsgl85e6jcsqbtgbgd0@4ax.com: > On 30 Apr 2007 19:40:49 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >>news:se2o23ho9cpebckedq9a1jmo1s4eg4tga7@4ax.com: >> >>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>BrianNZ wrote: > >>> >>> Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in >>> fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes. >> >> >> >>Not true. Look up your state statues. I live in Colorado >>(Here is the link: >> http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes.ht >>m) >> >>You will see that a bicycle is defined as a vehicle and must follow all >>the rules of the road as a motorist must. The right-of-way order is: >>1) Pedestrian >>2) Bicyclist >>3) Motorist > > And in Colorado, you will see this law : > > 42-4-1103. Minimum speed regulation. > > Statute text > > (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a > slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward > movement of traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for safe > operation of such vehicle or in compliance with law. > > (2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities > within their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of an > engineering and traffic investigation as described in the state > traffic control manual, that slow speeds on any part of a highway > consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, > said department or such local authority may determine and declare a > minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, > except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. > > (3) Notwithstanding any minimum speed that may be authorized and > posted pursuant to this section, if any person drives a motor vehicle > on a highway outside an incorporated area or on any controlled-access > highway at a speed less than the normal and reasonable speed of > traffic under the conditions then and there existing and by so driving > at such slower speed impedes or retards the normal and reasonable > movement of vehicular traffic following immediately behind, then such > driver shall: > > (a) Where the width of the traveled way permits, drive in the > right-hand lane available to traffic or on the extreme right side of > the roadway consistent with the provisions of section 42-4-1001 (2) > until such impeded traffic has passed by; or > > (b) Pull off the roadway at the first available place where such > movement can safely and lawfully be made until such impeded traffic > has passed by. > > (4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are > provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less than > the normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or > turnouts to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic > flow. > > (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a > class A traffic infraction. > >>So…… I actuality, you as a motorist must yield to a cyclist and are >>required to pass safely. If that means slowing down and waiting, then >>you must > > Wrong. Read above. THAT is the law, in your state, according > to the link you provided. > > Did you actually read what it said: "(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway" Are all roads highways? and Bicycles are not motor vehicles. What you cited does not apply. Wanna try again?? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                     Date: 01 May 2007 16:42:17 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Well done Chris. Even without a bike lane you have to imagine there is one when you are a driver because the only rule for cyclists is to stay to the right unless turning left. Rules are made for everyone's safety nothing else. If you do not understand that you are a menace to society. : )                                     Date: 01 May 2007 09:58:51 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 01 May 2007 12:55:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >news:5m0d33dvp8grmfnlsgl85e6jcsqbtgbgd0@4ax.com: > >> On 30 Apr 2007 19:40:49 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >>>news:se2o23ho9cpebckedq9a1jmo1s4eg4tga7@4ax.com: >>> >>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>BrianNZ wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in >>>> fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes. >>> >>> >>> >>>Not true. Look up your state statues. I live in Colorado >>>(Here is the link: >>> >http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes.ht >>>m) >>> >>>You will see that a bicycle is defined as a vehicle and must follow >all >>>the rules of the road as a motorist must. The right-of-way order is: >>>1) Pedestrian >>>2) Bicyclist >>>3) Motorist >> >> And in Colorado, you will see this law : >> >> 42-4-1103. Minimum speed regulation. >> >> Statute text >> >> (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a >> slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward >> movement of traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for safe >> operation of such vehicle or in compliance with law. >> >> (2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities >> within their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of an >> engineering and traffic investigation as described in the state >> traffic control manual, that slow speeds on any part of a highway >> consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, >> said department or such local authority may determine and declare a >> minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, >> except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. >> >> (3) Notwithstanding any minimum speed that may be authorized and >> posted pursuant to this section, if any person drives a motor vehicle >> on a highway outside an incorporated area or on any controlled-access >> highway at a speed less than the normal and reasonable speed of >> traffic under the conditions then and there existing and by so driving >> at such slower speed impedes or retards the normal and reasonable >> movement of vehicular traffic following immediately behind, then such >> driver shall: >> >> (a) Where the width of the traveled way permits, drive in the >> right-hand lane available to traffic or on the extreme right side of >> the roadway consistent with the provisions of section 42-4-1001 (2) >> until such impeded traffic has passed by; or >> >> (b) Pull off the roadway at the first available place where such >> movement can safely and lawfully be made until such impeded traffic >> has passed by. >> >> (4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are >> provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less than >> the normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or >> turnouts to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic >> flow. >> >> (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a >> class A traffic infraction. >> >>>So…… I actuality, you as a motorist must yield to a cyclist and are >>>required to pass safely. If that means slowing down and waiting, >then >>>you must >> >> Wrong. Read above. THAT is the law, in your state, according >> to the link you provided. >> >> > >Did you actually read what it said: > >"(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway" > > >Are all roads highways? Yes. The term 'any highway' is used in laws to refer to 'all public roads', not just some that you might loosely refer to with the colloquial use of the term. It legally includes the tiniest little dead end street, etc, if the road is public. >and >Bicycles are not motor vehicles. > >What you cited does not apply. > > >Wanna try again?? -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                                       Date: 01 May 2007 13:17:28 From: Chris Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? - 1 attachment .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in news:4nhe3397evo8b9amennajgdo58dmtth37m@4ax.com: > On 01 May 2007 12:55:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >>news:5m0d33dvp8grmfnlsgl85e6jcsqbtgbgd0@4ax.com: >> >>> On 30 Apr 2007 19:40:49 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >>>>news:se2o23ho9cpebckedq9a1jmo1s4eg4tga7@4ax.com: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:11:23 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>BrianNZ wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in >>>>> fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Not true. Look up your state statues. I live in Colorado >>>>(Here is the link: >>>> >> http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/colorado_revised_statutes.h >>t >>>>m) >>>> >>>>You will see that a bicycle is defined as a vehicle and must follow >>all >>>>the rules of the road as a motorist must. The right-of-way order >>>>is: 1) Pedestrian >>>>2) Bicyclist >>>>3) Motorist >>> >>> And in Colorado, you will see this law : >>> >>> 42-4-1103. Minimum speed regulation. >>> >>> Statute text >>> >>> (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway at such a >>> slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward >>> movement of traffic, except when a reduced speed is necessary for >>> safe operation of such vehicle or in compliance with law. >>> >>> (2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities >>> within their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of an >>> engineering and traffic investigation as described in the state >>> traffic control manual, that slow speeds on any part of a highway >>> consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, >>> said department or such local authority may determine and declare a >>> minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, >>> except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. >>> >>> (3) Notwithstanding any minimum speed that may be authorized and >>> posted pursuant to this section, if any person drives a motor >>> vehicle on a highway outside an incorporated area or on any >>> controlled-access highway at a speed less than the normal and >>> reasonable speed of traffic under the conditions then and there >>> existing and by so driving at such slower speed impedes or retards >>> the normal and reasonable movement of vehicular traffic following >>> immediately behind, then such driver shall: >>> >>> (a) Where the width of the traveled way permits, drive in the >>> right-hand lane available to traffic or on the extreme right side of >>> the roadway consistent with the provisions of section 42-4-1001 (2) >>> until such impeded traffic has passed by; or >>> >>> (b) Pull off the roadway at the first available place where such >>> movement can safely and lawfully be made until such impeded traffic >>> has passed by. >>> >>> (4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are >>> provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less than >>> the normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or >>> turnouts to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic >>> flow. >>> >>> (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a >>> class A traffic infraction. >>> >>>>So…… I actuality, you as a motorist must yield to a cyclist and >>>>are required to pass safely. If that means slowing down and >>>>waiting, >>then >>>>you must >>> >>> Wrong. Read above. THAT is the law, in your state, according >>> to the link you provided. >>> >>> >> >>Did you actually read what it said: >> >>"(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on any highway" >> >> >>Are all roads highways? > > Yes. The term 'any highway' is used in laws to refer to 'all > public roads', not just some that you might loosely refer to with the > colloquial use of the term. It legally includes the tiniest little > dead end street, etc, if the road is public. Are bicycles a motor vehicle? You are wrong motor head, bicycles have as much (actually more) right- of-way to the road as any car. Ask a cop, or better yet, the judge at your sentencing when you hit a cyclist > > >>and >>Bicycles are not motor vehicles. >> >>What you cited does not apply. >> >> >>Wanna try again?? > begin 644 Microsoft Word.lnk M3`````$4`@``````P````````$;-4``````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````0```````````````````%$!%``?4.!/T"#J.FD0 MHM@(`"LP,)T9`"]#.EP`````````````````````````2@`Q``````"1-F%X M$0!04D]'4D%^,0``,@`#``0`[[X+, >RXH3:A;!0```!0`'(`;P!G`'(`80!M M`"``1@!I`&P`90!S````&`!0`#$``````&PVMY40`$U)0U)/4WXR```X``,` M!`#OOE,V(X:A-J]L%````$T`:0!C`'(`;P!S`&\`9@!T`"``3P!F`&8`:0!C M`&4````8`$``,0``````5#8S.Q``3V9F:6-E,3```"@``P`$`.^^4S8CAJ$V MKVP4````3P!F`&8`:0!C`&4`,0`P````&`!(`#(`8.6C`#$VJ38A`%=)3E=/ M4D0N15A%`"X``P`$`.^^,3:I-IXV\J,4````5P!)`$X`5P!/`%(`1``N`$4` M6`!%````&@```&T`0P!R`&4`80!T`&4`(`!A`&X`9``@`&4`9`!I`'0`(`!T M`&4` >`!T`"``80!N`&0`(`!G`'(`80!P`&@`:0!C`',`(`!I`&X`(`!L`&4` M=`!T`&4`<@!S`"P`(`!R`&4`<`!O`'(`=`!S`"P`(`!7`&4`8@`@`'``80!G M`&4`<P`L`"``;P!R`"``90`M`&T`80!I`&P`(`!M`&4`<P!S`&$`9P!E`',` M(`!B`'D`(`!U`',`:0!N`&<`(`!-`&D`8P!R`&\`<P!O`&8`=``@`%<`;P!R M`&0`+@`\`"X`+@!<`"X`+@!<`"X`+@!<`%``<@!O`&<`<@!A`&T`(`!&`&D` M;`!E`',`7`!-`&D`8P!R`&\`<P!O`&8`=``@`$\`9@!F`&D`8P!E`%P`3P!F M`&8`:0!C`&4`,0`P`%P`5P!)`$X`5P!/`%(`1``N`$4`6`!%`$@`0P`Z`%P` M5P!)`$X`1`!/`%<`4P!<`$D`;@!S`'0`80!L`&P`90!R`%P` >P`Y`#``,0`R M`#``-``P`#D`+0`V`#``,``P`"T`,0`Q`$0`,P`M`#@`0P!&`$4`+0`P`#`` M-0`P`#``-``X`#,`.``S`$,`.0!]`%P`=P!O`'(`9`!I`&,`;P!N`"X`90!X M`&4`%`,```8``*`H8W!!5FXM?68H65)=94%2-BYJ:5=/4D1&:6QE<SY,)G)F M56U7+F-'+F4E9DDT1WUJ9````````&T`:0!S`&,`+@!E`'@`90``````8*XD M`2SCB@!1!9%\V`T+`&T%D7SP+@L`8*XD`0`````0Z(H``@````!Y+P&XL2$! M```+`,*JGGSHYHH`5VGV=PD$```!```0?.J*`"D```"009U\*0```)1N]G=A M:?9W<`61?/____]M!9%\V.**``,G7W3@DR\!Z$(O`1SKB@!2)F!TX),O`:". M+P%B)F!T0.N*`$SB`0`:`````````."3+P%(XXH`&.Z0?'`%D7S_____;061 M?"@`8P!P`$$`5@!N`"T`?0!F`"@`60!2`%T`90!!`%(`-@`N`&H`:0!7`$\` M4@!$`$8`:0!L`&4`<P`^`$P`)@!R`&8`50!M`%<`+@!C`$<`+@!E`"4`9@!) M`#0`1P!]`&H`9````)Y\`0```````$`0Z(H``````)CCB@!-K)Y\9*XD`=SE MB@"M%I]\8*XD`8#LB@"`[(H`S1:??!#HB@#?+P\`=P%`0'"N)`$"````D$&1 M?`#0_7\%$)!\UN2*``````!#`#H`7`!$`&\`8P!U`&T`90!N`'0`<P`@`&$` M;@!D`"``4P!E`'0`=`!I`&X`9P!S`%P`00!L`&P`(`!5`',`90!R`',`7`!3 M`'0`80!R`'0`(`!-`&4`;@!U`%P`4`!R`&\`9P!R`&$`;0!S`%P`30!I`&,` M<@!O`',`;P!F`'0`(`!/`&8`9@!I`&,`90`@`%0`;P!O`&P`<P```$T`:0!C M`'(`;P!S`&\`9@!T`"``3P!F`&8`:0!C`&4`(`!3`&@`;P!R`'0`8P!U`'0` M(`!"`&$`<@`N`&P`;@!K````B@`A$```X`#B`(#LB@#8Y(H``@`````5)@$( M```!0P`Z`%P`1`!O`&,`=0!M`&4`;@!T`',`(`!A`&X`9``@`%,`90!T`'0` M:0!N`&<`<P!<`$$`;`!L`"``50!S`&4`<@`4`P``!P``H"53 >7-T96U2;V]T M)5Q);G-T86QL97)< >SDP,3(P-#`Y+38P,#`M,3%$,RTX0T9%+3`P-3`P-#@S M.#-#.7U<=V]R9&EC;VXN97AE``#)+OUV.%,#`!3KB@`!````)))G=.#GB@!$ M5`,`*!C]=@````!T`&4`_____P``````````M.J*`.'-_784ZXH``0```.#J MB@#<ZHH`0.N*`!3KB@``````%.N*`.#JB@``````6.N*`(+._7;P+@L````` M`%PN_798ZXH`B.B*````````````0.N*`-3IB@#<ZHH`X.J*`!3KB@`!``!` MB.F*`/____^4Z(H````+`#('D7P<````)0!3`'D`<P!T`&4`;0!2`&\`;P!T M`"4`7`!)`&X`<P!T`&$`;`!L`&4`<@!<`'L`.0`P`#$`,@`P`#0`,``Y`"T` M-@`P`#``,``M`#$`,0!$`#,`+0`X`$,`1@!%`"T`,``P`#4`,``P`#0`.``S M`#@`,P!#`#D`?0!<`'<`;P!R`&0`:0!C`&\`;@`N`&4` >`!E``````!(!PL` M```+``A^$@`$Z8H`".F*`$CKB@`8[I!\.` >1?/____\R!Y%\JP:1?.L&D7ST M`0``&````(",)`'\G",!@&H#`&3IB@`1H?UV\.F*`%`P"P``````(`4,`'3I MB@"<Z8H````+`#('D7P&````J`<+````"P"TZ8H````+`#('D7P%```` >`<+ M````"P"H'!0`C.F*`*L&D7S0ZXH`&.Z0?#@'D7S_____Z.F*````"P`R!Y%\ M"@```&@("P````L`R!XD`<#IB@```P``!.R*`!CND'PX!Y%\_____S('D7RK M!I%\ZP:1?`````#H,2\!Z#$O`33JB@````L`,@ >1?!$```"X"0L````+`.@Q M+P$,ZHH`F*0/`%#LB@`8[I!\.` >1?/____\R!Y%\JP:1?.L&D7P`````F*0/ M``````!L[HH``````````````````````'#KB@"\ZHH`&.Z0?'C[D'S_____ (<?N0?``````` ` end -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                         Date: 01 May 2007 10:22:59 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? - 1 attachment On 01 May 2007 13:17:28 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >news:4nhe3397evo8b9amennajgdo58dmtth37m@4ax.com: > >> On 01 May 2007 12:55:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> (2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities >>>> within their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of an >>>> engineering and traffic investigation as described in the state >>>> traffic control manual, that slow speeds on any part of a highway >>>> consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, >>>> said department or such local authority may determine and declare a >>>> minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, >>>> except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. >>>> (4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are >>>> provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less than >>>> the normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or >>>> turnouts to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic >>>> flow. >>>> >>>> (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a >>>> class A traffic infraction. > >Are bicycles a motor vehicle? Where in the above law do you find the phrase 'motor vehicle' ? I can't seem to find it there. > >You are wrong motor head, bicycles have as much (actually more) right- >of-way to the road as any car. Ask a cop, or better yet, the judge at >your sentencing when you hit a cyclist Bwahahahaha !!!!!! -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                                           Date: 01 May 2007 16:15:57 From: Chris Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? - 1 attachment .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in news:t5je33pn2m7rri2v97cleisvda8tsgn3f9@4ax.com: > On 01 May 2007 13:17:28 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >>news:4nhe3397evo8b9amennajgdo58dmtth37m@4ax.com: >> >>> On 01 May 2007 12:55:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> (2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities >>>>> within their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of an >>>>> engineering and traffic investigation as described in the state >>>>> traffic control manual, that slow speeds on any part of a highway >>>>> consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, >>>>> said department or such local authority may determine and declare a >>>>> minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, >>>>> except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. > >>>>> (4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are >>>>> provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less than >>>>> the normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or >>>>> turnouts to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal traffic >>>>> flow. >>>>> >>>>> (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a >>>>> class A traffic infraction. > >> >>Are bicycles a motor vehicle? > > Where in the above law do you find the phrase 'motor vehicle' > ? I can't seem to find it there. > >> >>You are wrong motor head, bicycles have as much (actually more) right- >>of-way to the road as any car. Ask a cop, or better yet, the judge at >>your sentencing when you hit a cyclist > > Bwahahahaha !!!!!! > > You can cherry pick the law all you want, but bicyclist do have a right to the road, and motorist must pass safely SO..... blow it out your ass pal -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                             Date: 01 May 2007 13:23:33 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? - 1 attachment On 01 May 2007 16:15:57 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >news:t5je33pn2m7rri2v97cleisvda8tsgn3f9@4ax.com: > >> On 01 May 2007 13:17:28 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >>>news:4nhe3397evo8b9amennajgdo58dmtth37m@4ax.com: >>> >>>> On 01 May 2007 12:55:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) Whenever the department of transportation or local authorities >>>>>> within their respective jurisdictions determine, on the basis of >an >>>>>> engineering and traffic investigation as described in the state >>>>>> traffic control manual, that slow speeds on any part of a highway >>>>>> consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, >>>>>> said department or such local authority may determine and declare >a >>>>>> minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, >>>>>> except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with >law. >> >>>>>> (4) Wherever special uphill traffic lanes or roadside turnouts are >>>>>> provided and posted, drivers of all vehicles proceeding at less >than >>>>>> the normal and reasonable speed of traffic shall use such lanes or >>>>>> turnouts to allow other vehicles to pass or maintain normal >traffic >>>>>> flow. >>>>>> >>>>>> (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits >a >>>>>> class A traffic infraction. >> >>> >>>Are bicycles a motor vehicle? >> >> Where in the above law do you find the phrase 'motor vehicle' >> ? I can't seem to find it there. >> >>> >>>You are wrong motor head, bicycles have as much (actually more) right- >>>of-way to the road as any car. Ask a cop, or better yet, the judge at >>>your sentencing when you hit a cyclist >> >> Bwahahahaha !!!!!! >> >> > >You can cherry pick the law all you want, but bicyclist do have a right >to the road, and motorist must pass safely > > >SO..... blow it out your ass pal Pedal-pushing faggot. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                                               Date: 01 May 2007 16:58:52 From: Chris Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? - 1 attachment .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >> >> >>SO..... blow it out your ass pal > > Pedal-pushing faggot. > > gas gussling fart sucker -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                                           Date: 01 May 2007 16:47:27 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? - 1 attachment Where in the above law do you find the phrase 'motor vehicle' ? I can't seem to find it there. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< No. 1 for instance and all the way through.                                     Date: 01 May 2007 09:55:08 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 01 May 2007 12:55:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >news:5m0d33dvp8grmfnlsgl85e6jcsqbtgbgd0@4ax.com: > > >Wanna try again?? No, you're a waste of my time. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                                       Date: 01 May 2007 16:44:49 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? <.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com > wrote in message news:3lhe33to6s8rlmc93jjep9p39rq283iuhq@4ax.com... > On 01 May 2007 12:55:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote in >>news:5m0d33dvp8grmfnlsgl85e6jcsqbtgbgd0@4ax.com: >> > >> >>Wanna try again?? > > No, you're a waste of my time. > > > -- > Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! > http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ > > Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me > 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' > 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' > HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's > Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ Actually, you are wasting everybody's time. A big amount of text to read and nothing relevant.                                         Date: 01 May 2007 12:55:20 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in news:58KZh.150815$6m4.13015@pd7urf1no: > Actually, you are wasting everybody's time. A big amount of text to > read and nothing relevant. Perhaps he was... but then again, the number of hours it took you pedalestrians to read those few lines was that many more hours you weren't out impeding the flow of traffic. -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                                           Date: 01 May 2007 18:27:01 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen! wrote: > Perhaps he was... but then again, the number of hours it took you > pedalestrians to read those few lines was that many more hours you weren't > out impeding the flow of traffic. > Quit your whining. Bicyclists are traffic, and by definition don't impede it. I've never been "impeded" by biyclists when I drive my car or motorcycle, so why are you so inept that passing such a slow vehicle is a problem? Wayne                                             Date: 02 May 2007 22:42:20 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in news:4637beb5$0$5787 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > Bicyclists are traffic, and by definition don't impede it. CVC 21202. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time *shall* ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                                             Date: 01 May 2007 22:48:57 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:4637beb5$0$5787$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Stephen! wrote: > > >> Perhaps he was... but then again, the number of hours it took you >> pedalestrians to read those few lines was that many more hours you >> weren't out impeding the flow of traffic. >> > > Quit your whining. > > Bicyclists are traffic, and by definition don't impede it. > > I've never been "impeded" by biyclists when I drive my car or motorcycle, > so why are you so inept that passing such a slow vehicle is a problem? By law in IL, bicyclists are entitled to the full width of the traffic lane. Most of the time, especially in the city, they tend to hug the curb side of the curb lane, allowing motorized traffic to go by. Every now and again, though, a militant bunch or another blocks up the two lane suburban artery roads here with their 15 mph asses. Traffic? Yeah, I suppose they are. Special status in the law, however, shouldn't preclude courtesy and consideration for others. Come to think of it, grown men wearing brightly colored leotards have very little to say that might interest me.                                               Date: 01 May 2007 22:21:56 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Mike Young wrote: > By law in IL, bicyclists are entitled to the full width of the traffic > lane. Most of the time, especially in the city, they tend to hug the > curb side of the curb lane, allowing motorized traffic to go by. How thoughtful of them. I don't suppose bicyclists get any credit in your accounting scheme for that? Of course, you should know that there is no advantage to riding near the side of the road, only disadvantages like poor sight lines, less conspicuity, and motorists trying to squeeze by when its unsafe to do so. But I guess if motorists are allowed to pass and you are a motorist its all good for you. Every > now and again, though, a militant bunch or another blocks up the two > lane suburban artery roads here with their 15 mph asses. What makes you think they are militant rather than merely exercising their right to use the lane? And why don't you pass in the oncoming lane? Oh I know, its full of other motorists. Traffic? Yeah, > I suppose they are. Special status in the law, however, shouldn't > preclude courtesy and consideration for others. No special status. Just status. According to your logic, although bicyclists are entitled to use of the full lane like other road users, they must be "courteous" and allow you to use it for passing them. If they don't, then they are militant. Come to think of it, > grown men wearing brightly colored leotards have very little to say that > might interest me. Why would they want to talk to you? You're a selfish, illogical lout who doesn't ride a bike unless it has a mechanical engine and who doesn't have the sense to understand that hi viz clothing is useful. Wayne                                                 Date: 02 May 2007 22:42:57 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in news:4637f5c3$0$9878 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > Of course, you should know that there is no advantage to riding near the > side of the road, only disadvantages like poor sight lines, less > conspicuity, and motorists trying to squeeze by when its unsafe to do so. ...and following the law. CVC 21202. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time *shall* ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                                                 Date: 02 May 2007 04:10:04 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:4637f5c3$0$9878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mike Young wrote: > > >> By law in IL, bicyclists are entitled to the full width of the traffic >> lane. Most of the time, especially in the city, they tend to hug the curb >> side of the curb lane, allowing motorized traffic to go by. > > How thoughtful of them. I don't suppose bicyclists get any credit in your > accounting scheme for that? I'm one of them, or at least, was until I moved to the 'burbs. Credit? For what? Sharing the road? Keep your award, Sonny. > > Of course, you should know that there is no advantage to riding near the > side of the road, only disadvantages like poor sight lines, less > conspicuity, and motorists trying to squeeze by when its unsafe to do so. Sure. All that. And trash, gravel, leaves, and car doors, too. I'm happier there. Motorists don't have to squeeze by. It's better this way; safer this way. But you already know all that, and can't be told anything. > > But I guess if motorists are allowed to pass and you are a motorist its > all good for you. > > > Every >> now and again, though, a militant bunch or another blocks up the two lane >> suburban artery roads here with their 15 mph asses. > > What makes you think they are militant rather than merely exercising their > right to use the lane? And why don't you pass in the oncoming lane? Oh I > know, its full of other motorists. You tell me. You're one of them. Am I right? > > > Traffic? Yeah, >> I suppose they are. Special status in the law, however, shouldn't >> preclude courtesy and consideration for others. > > No special status. Just status. Special status. Capital 'S'. Little school bus special. The only other unlicensed vehicles granted that use are farm implements, and then only with restrictions. > > According to your logic, although bicyclists are entitled to use of the > full lane like other road users, they must be "courteous" and allow you to > use it for passing them. If they don't, then they are militant. According to my logic, when I'm doing 15 in a 40 with traffic queuing behind me, I should find someplace to pull over and help them pass, no matter what I'm riding or driving. > > Come to think of it, >> grown men wearing brightly colored leotards have very little to say that >> might interest me. > > Why would they want to talk to you? You're a selfish, illogical lout who > doesn't ride a bike unless it has a mechanical engine and who doesn't have > the sense to understand that hi viz clothing is useful. ;) I like 'em skintight myself. I feel so... so visible.                                                   Date: 02 May 2007 11:46:35 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Mike Young wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4637f5c3$0$9878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> Mike Young wrote: >> >> >>> By law in IL, bicyclists are entitled to the full width of the >>> traffic lane. Most of the time, especially in the city, they tend to >>> hug the curb side of the curb lane, allowing motorized traffic to go by. >> >> >> How thoughtful of them. I don't suppose bicyclists get any credit in >> your accounting scheme for that? > > > I'm one of them, or at least, was until I moved to the 'burbs. Credit? > For what? Sharing the road? Keep your award, Sonny. Hey Boy, "Sharing" by your and other's definition seems to mean, "Bicyclists stay right in the lane so motorists can pass." So, how do *motorists* share in this scheme? > >> >> Of course, you should know that there is no advantage to riding near >> the side of the road, only disadvantages like poor sight lines, less >> conspicuity, and motorists trying to squeeze by when its unsafe to do so. > > > Sure. All that. And trash, gravel, leaves, and car doors, too. I'm > happier there. Motorists don't have to squeeze by. It's better this way; > safer this way. But you already know all that, and can't be told anything. No it's not safer. Perhaps you should examine bicyclist collision causality. I'm glad you are happier in the trash, gravel, leaves and car doors. Are you happier with a noose around your neck too? > >> >> But I guess if motorists are allowed to pass and you are a motorist >> its all good for you. >> >> >> Every >> >>> now and again, though, a militant bunch or another blocks up the two >>> lane suburban artery roads here with their 15 mph asses. >> >> >> What makes you think they are militant rather than merely exercising >> their right to use the lane? And why don't you pass in the oncoming >> lane? Oh I know, its full of other motorists. > > > You tell me. You're one of them. Am I right? When I ride in a group we use the full lane. So? > >> >> >> Traffic? Yeah, >> >>> I suppose they are. Special status in the law, however, shouldn't >>> preclude courtesy and consideration for others. >> >> >> No special status. Just status. > > > Special status. Capital 'S'. Little school bus special. The only other > unlicensed vehicles granted that use are farm implements, and then only > with restrictions. Hey Boy, the reason motor vehicles require licensing and restrictions is because they are dangerous to others. Bicycles are not, hence they are not required to have those things. Nothing is "granted" to bicyclists. Others are restricted. > >> >> According to your logic, although bicyclists are entitled to use of >> the full lane like other road users, they must be "courteous" and >> allow you to use it for passing them. If they don't, then they are >> militant. > > > According to my logic, when I'm doing 15 in a 40 with traffic queuing > behind me, I should find someplace to pull over and help them pass, no > matter what I'm riding or driving. You seem to think 40 is a right in your scenario. That is a MAX. In all my years of riding a bike, I've never had a queue behind me to the extent I had to pull over. Wayne                                                     Date: 02 May 2007 22:41:47 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in news:4638b259$0$9929 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > Hey Boy, "Sharing" by your and other's definition seems to mean, > "Bicyclists stay right in the lane so motorists can pass." CVC 21202. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time *shall* ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                                                       Date: 03 May 2007 08:25:14 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Stephen! wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:4638b259$0$9929 > $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > > >>Hey Boy, "Sharing" by your and other's definition seems to mean, >>"Bicyclists stay right in the lane so motorists can pass." > > > CVC 21202. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed > less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction > at that time *shall* ride as close as practicable to the right-hand > curb or edge of the roadway > > NC§20-146(b) “Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway...” In NC bicyclists use the right lane, or if the lanes are not marked then, like other vehicles, as far to the right as practicable. Your state attempts to be discriminatory to bicyclists. However, practicable means that the bicyclist chooses what that distance is. And, the "normal" speed of traffic is subject to interpretation. If bicyclists are traffic, which they are, then "normal" is bicyclist speed. Further, your statute doesn't explicity say motorists can pass in the same lane. It merely implies it. I doubt that statute would hold up in court. Wayne                                                         Date: 04 May 2007 10:23:41 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne Pein wrote: > Stephen! wrote: >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:4638b259$0$9929 >> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >> >> >>> Hey Boy, "Sharing" by your and other's definition seems to mean, >>> "Bicyclists stay right in the lane so motorists can pass." >> >> >> CVC 21202. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed >> less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction >> at that time *shall* ride as close as practicable to the right-hand >> curb or edge of the roadway >> > > NC§20-146(b) “Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the > legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then > available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand > curb or edge of the highway...” > > In NC bicyclists use the right lane, or if the lanes are not marked > then, like other vehicles, as far to the right as practicable. > > Your state attempts to be discriminatory to bicyclists. However, > practicable means that the bicyclist chooses what that distance is. And, > the "normal" speed of traffic is subject to interpretation. If > bicyclists are traffic, which they are, then "normal" is bicyclist > speed. Further, your statute doesn't explicity say motorists can pass in > the same lane. It merely implies it. I doubt that statute would hold up > in court. > > Wayne > So when vehicular traffic slows down at an intersection, do you wait in the line of traffic or do you filter up the inside? If you go for the inside line, wouldn't that be an illegal passing move (by being in the same lane & passing on the wrong side)? It's about time bicycles were treated more like 'traffic' by getting them all registered for a start. Numberplates on bicycles would be great as they could be identified when riding on the footpath, cutting through red lights or holding up the flow of traffic. Compulsory insurance as well, since your'e on the road......and a licence to prove you know the road rules......and a tax added to bicycles to help pay for roading.                                                         Date: 03 May 2007 16:44:48 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:4639d4ac$0$19438$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Stephen! wrote: >> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:4638b259$0$9929 >> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >> >> >>>Hey Boy, "Sharing" by your and other's definition seems to mean, >>>"Bicyclists stay right in the lane so motorists can pass." >> >> >> CVC 21202. Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed >> less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction >> at that time *shall* ride as close as practicable to the right-hand >> curb or edge of the roadway > > NC§20-146(b) “Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the > legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then > available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand > curb or edge of the highway...” > > In NC bicyclists use the right lane, or if the lanes are not marked then, > like other vehicles, as far to the right as practicable. > > Your state attempts to be discriminatory to bicyclists. However, > practicable means that the bicyclist chooses what that distance is. And, > the "normal" speed of traffic is subject to interpretation. If bicyclists > are traffic, which they are, then "normal" is bicyclist speed. Further, > your statute doesn't explicity say motorists can pass in the same lane. It > merely implies it. I doubt that statute would hold up in court. > > Wayne Yeah, I do not see any cyclists shaking their fists and honking because cars are going faster than normal for him. Count your blessings. >                                                     Date: 02 May 2007 21:27:32 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:4638b259$0$9929$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mike Young wrote: > >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:4637f5c3$0$9878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >>> Mike Young wrote: >>> >>> >>>> By law in IL, bicyclists are entitled to the full width of the traffic >>>> lane. Most of the time, especially in the city, they tend to hug the >>>> curb side of the curb lane, allowing motorized traffic to go by. >>> >>> >>> How thoughtful of them. I don't suppose bicyclists get any credit in >>> your accounting scheme for that? >> >> >> I'm one of them, or at least, was until I moved to the 'burbs. Credit? >> For what? Sharing the road? Keep your award, Sonny. > > Hey Boy, "Sharing" by your and other's definition seems to mean, > "Bicyclists stay right in the lane so motorists can pass." So, how do > *motorists* share in this scheme? See below. > > >> >>> >>> Of course, you should know that there is no advantage to riding near the >>> side of the road, only disadvantages like poor sight lines, less >>> conspicuity, and motorists trying to squeeze by when its unsafe to do >>> so. >> >> >> Sure. All that. And trash, gravel, leaves, and car doors, too. I'm >> happier there. Motorists don't have to squeeze by. It's better this way; >> safer this way. But you already know all that, and can't be told >> anything. > > No it's not safer. Perhaps you should examine bicyclist collision > causality. I'm glad you are happier in the trash, gravel, leaves and car > doors. Are you happier with a noose around your neck too? It's safer. Traffic doesn't have to "squeeze by". And they will squeeze by. > >> >>> >>> But I guess if motorists are allowed to pass and you are a motorist its >>> all good for you. >>> >>> >>> Every >>> >>>> now and again, though, a militant bunch or another blocks up the two >>>> lane suburban artery roads here with their 15 mph asses. >>> >>> >>> What makes you think they are militant rather than merely exercising >>> their right to use the lane? And why don't you pass in the oncoming >>> lane? Oh I know, its full of other motorists. >> >> >> You tell me. You're one of them. Am I right? > > > When I ride in a group we use the full lane. So? So. Do tell. Do you have thoughts resembling: "So what? I'm well within my right. By law!" >> >>> >>> >>> Traffic? Yeah, >>> >>>> I suppose they are. Special status in the law, however, shouldn't >>>> preclude courtesy and consideration for others. >>> >>> >>> No special status. Just status. >> >> >> Special status. Capital 'S'. Little school bus special. The only other >> unlicensed vehicles granted that use are farm implements, and then only >> with restrictions. > > Hey Boy, the reason motor vehicles require licensing and restrictions is > because they are dangerous to others. Bicycles are not, hence they are not > required to have those things. Nothing is "granted" to bicyclists. Others > are restricted. That's really warped. Do you consider yourself extreme? Or just typical? > > > >> >>> >>> According to your logic, although bicyclists are entitled to use of the >>> full lane like other road users, they must be "courteous" and allow you >>> to use it for passing them. If they don't, then they are militant. >> >> >> According to my logic, when I'm doing 15 in a 40 with traffic queuing >> behind me, I should find someplace to pull over and help them pass, no >> matter what I'm riding or driving. > > You seem to think 40 is a right in your scenario. That is a MAX. In all my > years of riding a bike, I've never had a queue behind me to the extent I > had to pull over. In other words, it never occurred to you that you should pull over. Fair enough, but hard to believe. A queue of even 1 should be plenty. If the MAX is 40, and the only other impediment is your slow ass, what do you say to removing that from the picture? I think we're back on topic now. The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of or actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the imposition of your discourteous view of fair road use?                                                       Date: 02 May 2007 21:54:23 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Mike Young wrote: > > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > It's safer. Traffic doesn't have to "squeeze by". And they will squeeze by. So? Squeezing by sucks, but few collsions are caused by this. Thus it is not dangerous. By being in the traffic line, motorists slow and exhibit caution. On the other hand, most collisions occur via turning/merging movements, and riding far to the side out of the normal traffic line exacerbates these. >> When I ride in a group we use the full lane. So? > > > So. Do tell. Do you have thoughts resembling: "So what? I'm well within > my right. By law!" I think, "I'm with a large group enjoying myself. I'm sorry some motorists are inconvenienced for a short spell." > >> >> Hey Boy, the reason motor vehicles require licensing and restrictions >> is because they are dangerous to others. Bicycles are not, hence they >> are not required to have those things. Nothing is "granted" to >> bicyclists. Others are restricted. > > > That's really warped. Do you consider yourself extreme? Or just typical? I consider myself knowledgeble and you not. > >> You seem to think 40 is a right in your scenario. That is a MAX. In >> all my years of riding a bike, I've never had a queue behind me to the >> extent I had to pull over. > > > In other words, it never occurred to you that you should pull over. Fair > enough, but hard to believe. A queue of even 1 should be plenty. My word! A queue by definition in the states that have such a law is typically 6 motor vehicles. If a slow user (bicyclist, front loader, farm tractor) had to pull over every time there was one vehicle delayed they would never get anywhere. If the > MAX is 40, and the only other impediment is your slow ass, what do you > say to removing that from the picture? I think we're back on topic now. I say you need to understand the rules of the road and quit thinking that you can travel at whatever speed you like when you like. > > The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of or > actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the imposition of > your discourteous view of fair road use? Idiot. That is not the role of a handgun. Grow up. Wayne                                                         Date: 03 May 2007 03:06:53 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:463940d0$0$27095$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > If a slow user (bicyclist, front loader, farm tractor) had to pull over > every time there was one vehicle delayed they would never get anywhere. Bingo! Take a prize from the top shelf. You've earned it. >> The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of or >> actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the imposition of >> your discourteous view of fair road use? > > Idiot. That is not the role of a handgun. Grow up. Then, pray tell. What is the role of a handgun?                                                           Date: 03 May 2007 08:29:25 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Mike Young wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:463940d0$0$27095$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> If a slow user (bicyclist, front loader, farm tractor) had to pull >> over every time there was one vehicle delayed they would never get >> anywhere. > > > Bingo! Take a prize from the top shelf. You've earned it. Bingo! Do not collect a prize. Bicyclists are not going to pull over for Mike Young. > >>> The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of >>> or actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the >>> imposition of your discourteous view of fair road use? >> >> >> Idiot. That is not the role of a handgun. Grow up. > > > Then, pray tell. What is the role of a handgun? > For criminals, it's to impose personal will by threat or actual use of deadly force. For law abiding citizens, its for self defense from criminals. For you, it's to stuff in your mouth and remove yourself from the gene pool. Wayne                                                             Date: 03 May 2007 15:23:29 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:4639d5a7$0$1394$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mike Young wrote: > >> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:463940d0$0$27095$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >>> If a slow user (bicyclist, front loader, farm tractor) had to pull over >>> every time there was one vehicle delayed they would never get anywhere. >> >> >> Bingo! Take a prize from the top shelf. You've earned it. > > Bingo! Do not collect a prize. Bicyclists are not going to pull over for > Mike Young. > >> >>>> The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of or >>>> actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the imposition of >>>> your discourteous view of fair road use? >>> >>> >>> Idiot. That is not the role of a handgun. Grow up. >> >> >> Then, pray tell. What is the role of a handgun? >> > For criminals, it's to impose personal will by threat or actual use of > deadly force. For law abiding citizens, its for self defense from > criminals. For you, it's to stuff in your mouth and remove yourself from > the gene pool. Funny. Your earlier messages prompted me to ponder on how society coddles the weak, and interferes with Darwinian natural selection. Have a nice ride today. Be careful out there; the impatient poke behind you could be me. BTW, self defense *is* imposition of personal will.                                                               Date: 03 May 2007 11:52:03 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Mike Young wrote: > "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>> >> For criminals, it's to impose personal will by threat or actual use of >> deadly force. For law abiding citizens, its for self defense from >> criminals. For you, it's to stuff in your mouth and remove yourself >> from the gene pool. > > > Funny. Your earlier messages prompted me to ponder on how society > coddles the weak, and interferes with Darwinian natural selection. Have > a nice ride today. Be careful out there; the impatient poke behind you > could be me. > > BTW, self defense *is* imposition of personal will. > Seems to me that those who have to rely on an engine are the weak. Bicyclists are the strong. But, I'll be careful. BTW, if you are the impatient poke behind me you should think twice about being an idiot. I might be packing a gun and would hate to be forced to impose my personal will. Wayne                                                               Date: 03 May 2007 11:43:54 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 03 May 2007 15:23:29 GMT, "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com > wrote: >"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >news:4639d5a7$0$1394$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Mike Young wrote: >> >>> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:463940d0$0$27095$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> >>>> If a slow user (bicyclist, front loader, farm tractor) had to pull over >>>> every time there was one vehicle delayed they would never get anywhere. >>> >>> >>> Bingo! Take a prize from the top shelf. You've earned it. >> >> Bingo! Do not collect a prize. Bicyclists are not going to pull over for >> Mike Young. >> >>> >>>>> The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of or >>>>> actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the imposition of >>>>> your discourteous view of fair road use? >>>> >>>> >>>> Idiot. That is not the role of a handgun. Grow up. >>> >>> >>> Then, pray tell. What is the role of a handgun? >>> >> For criminals, it's to impose personal will by threat or actual use of >> deadly force. For law abiding citizens, its for self defense from >> criminals. For you, it's to stuff in your mouth and remove yourself from >> the gene pool. > >Funny. Your earlier messages prompted me to ponder on how society coddles >the weak, and interferes with Darwinian natural selection. Have a nice ride >today. Be careful out there; the impatient poke behind you could be me. > >BTW, self defense *is* imposition of personal will. > My ass. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                                                           Date: 02 May 2007 23:12:56 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 03 May 2007 03:06:53 GMT, "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com > wrote: >"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message >news:463940d0$0$27095$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> If a slow user (bicyclist, front loader, farm tractor) had to pull over >> every time there was one vehicle delayed they would never get anywhere. > >Bingo! Take a prize from the top shelf. You've earned it. > >>> The role of a handgun is to impose your personal will, by threat of or >>> actual use of deadly force. How should one respond to the imposition of >>> your discourteous view of fair road use? >> >> Idiot. That is not the role of a handgun. Grow up. > >Then, pray tell. What is the role of a handgun? > They actually don't role worth a damn. They're flat on the sides. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                                                       Date: 02 May 2007 23:13:58 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? A queue of even 1 should be plenty <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is not traffic because it is a plural noun. has to be 3-4 vehicles to be considered traffic. And BTW do you pull out of the way of semis whenever you see them. Doubt it. Your lucky we pay your way baby don't make me come down there. To your level that is. I would ride extra distance to get where I am going but sometimes you have no choice ever think of that. besides a sidewalk, no thank-you                                                       Date: 02 May 2007 23:02:42 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Maybe you should have seen Law and Order Special Victims Unit last night. Violence is a virus. One out of three witnessing it will do the same. Same as passing on a cold. No motivation required supposedly. So be mindful of everyone. They could be affected by a disease and not know it. We are not talking violence on TV this is in person only.                               Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:32:38 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > Those are vehicles legally on the road. Bicycles are, in > fact, NOT legally allowed to ride in traffic lanes. Only in your fantasy world. Sometimes where a bike lane exist bicyclists may be required to use it, but in general bicycles ARE allowed in traffic lanes because they ARE traffic, though they may be restricted from limited access freeways. > > > In the USA, there are not only 'maximum speed limits', but > also MINIMUM speeds that are legally required. Drive BELOW that, you > can be ticketed for creating a hazard. Doofus, minimum speed limits are on limited access freeways which often do not allow bicycles anyway. Where did you get your Driver's Education, from a Cracker Jacks box? > > >>If you have this 'right', feel free to ride your >> >>>cycle near the centreline and claim your 'entitlement'........ >> >>I do. > > > Try it on some road where traffic is moving at 50 + MPH some > time. You'll find out why cars have BUMPERS. > Idle threat. Wayne                       Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:04:39 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net > wrote in message news:MeGdndvkj5L1ObbbnZ2dnUVZ_oqmnZ2d@bresnan.com... > > ... ... I ride and when I do I ALWAYS follow the rules of the road > period as such I do not nor ever will need a "bike lane" only wimps in > cities need them. I ride highways with 70+mph traffic going by. They > always have the right of way when over taking. Due to injury I'm not as > quick as I used to be but a 56 mile ride in 2' 30' on a department store > bike assembled from garage sales is good when you share a two lane county > road. If a schmuck like me can ride those places safely what is everyone > else's excuse? I rode in Boston traffic for a good amount of time > also...what bike lanes? Safe as sleeping in bed it was. Now take yourself > and your crybaby girlfriends down to a bar and drink couple of > grasshoppers and leave the grownups to discuss grown up things. Sheesh, > you are such a whining crybaby wimp it's pathetic. Bill Baka has a rival. ROTFL                         Date: 22 Apr 2007 15:37:43 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? SNIP > Bill Baka has a rival. ROTFL That thick cunt? When he starts cracking frames because you ride to hard let me know. I believe in taking responsibility for my own actions. Cunts like him want to blame everyone else...why at 40+ years I still go bombing down damns is a mystery to me. But by damn it's fun. -- I know the voices in my head aren't real. But, I think some of their ideas are pretty neat. "When your balls are free, you will find inner peace." Squirrels In My Brain!                           Date: 22 Apr 2007 22:30:25 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Keith Schiffner wrote: > SNIP >> Bill Baka has a rival. ROTFL > > That thick cunt? When he starts cracking frames because you ride to hard let me > know. I believe in taking responsibility for my own actions. Cunts like him want > to blame everyone else...why at 40+ years I still go bombing down damns is a > mystery to me. But by damn it's fun. Cunt? Isn't that a sissy Brit hiding behind some slanderous wording? Idiot. I will go bombing down a dam spillway as long as there is water at the bottom and not so deep I'm going to lose the bike. I can dive to about 20 feet and drag the bike to shallower water until I can just stand up and carry it out. More than 20 feet deep and I may lose a bicycle. I don't blame anyone else for anything, except politicians for screwing things up. The last time I wound up in the water was at the bottom of a very steep road that ended with a boat launch area, and I skidded into the wet stuff. That might have made a funny video but I wasn't laughing since my cell phone and camera went into the drink with me. They survived sitting on the pier while I dove for my bike. At least I washed off the sweat from the initial climb. No replay coming on that stunt. Bill Baka                             Date: 22 Apr 2007 16:36:19 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:5mRWh.17530$JZ3.4322@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > Keith Schiffner wrote: >> SNIP >>> Bill Baka has a rival. ROTFL >> >> That thick cunt? When he starts cracking frames because you ride to hard let >> me know. I believe in taking responsibility for my own actions. Cunts like >> him want to blame everyone else...why at 40+ years I still go bombing down >> damns is a mystery to me. But by damn it's fun. > > Cunt? > Isn't that a sissy Brit hiding behind some slanderous wording? > Idiot. I will go bombing down a dam spillway as long as there is water at the > bottom and not so deep I'm going to lose the bike. I can dive to about 20 feet > and drag the bike to shallower water until I can just stand up and carry it > out. More than 20 feet deep and I may lose a bicycle. > I don't blame anyone else for anything, except politicians for screwing things > up. > The last time I wound up in the water was at the bottom of a very steep road > that ended with a boat launch area, and I skidded into the wet stuff. That > might have made a funny video but I wasn't laughing since my cell phone and > camera went into the drink with me. They survived sitting on the pier while I > dove for my bike. > At least I washed off the sweat from the initial climb. > No replay coming on that stunt. > Bill Baka Then your screwed up sweetie, who said I was riding spillways? That's just asking to die...take risks smartly not dumbly. Baka(Nipponese)=fool named your self well you slavering fool.                               Date: 22 Apr 2007 16:03:22 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Keith Schiffner wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:5mRWh.17530$JZ3.4322@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... >> Keith Schiffner wrote: >>> SNIP >>>> Bill Baka has a rival. ROTFL >>> That thick cunt? When he starts cracking frames because you ride to hard let >>> me know. I believe in taking responsibility for my own actions. Cunts like >>> him want to blame everyone else...why at 40+ years I still go bombing down >>> damns is a mystery to me. But by damn it's fun. >> Cunt? >> Isn't that a sissy Brit hiding behind some slanderous wording? >> Idiot. I will go bombing down a dam spillway as long as there is water at the >> bottom and not so deep I'm going to lose the bike. I can dive to about 20 feet >> and drag the bike to shallower water until I can just stand up and carry it >> out. More than 20 feet deep and I may lose a bicycle. >> I don't blame anyone else for anything, except politicians for screwing things >> up. >> The last time I wound up in the water was at the bottom of a very steep road >> that ended with a boat launch area, and I skidded into the wet stuff. That >> might have made a funny video but I wasn't laughing since my cell phone and >> camera went into the drink with me. They survived sitting on the pier while I >> dove for my bike. >> At least I washed off the sweat from the initial climb. >> No replay coming on that stunt. >> Bill Baka > > Then your screwed up sweetie, who said I was riding spillways? That's just > asking to die...take risks smartly not dumbly. > > Baka(Nipponese)=fool > > named your self well you slavering fool. > Fool yourself, or just look in the mirror to see an idiot. My actual Polish name is Mruk, but my grandfather chose Baka as sounding more 'American'. That happened a lot on Ellis Island around 1908. He bailed on Poland because it was that bad to live there what with the communist revolution and tensions heating up to WWI. I will ride a spillway up to about a 40% gradient with no more than 20 feet of water at the bottom. More than that and water hurts at an impact over 30 MPH and I would need scuba gear to dive more than 20 feet. YOU brought up the subject, and now I am going to look for a spillway that is not a near vertical drop, just to say "I did it.", hah! I would dare you to do even half the stuff I have done without messing yourself, but I suspect you are the sissy here. Bill (death wish???) Baka                 Date: 21 Apr 2007 13:54:16 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:462a52a8$0$17151$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Keith Schiffner wrote: > >> >> If you use the roads you should have insurance...for that matter a tag also >> and depending on the state you reside in an inspection sticker. Yep I ride >> both types...currently the MB6 is inop due to a "U" shaped axle tube and a >> skew that is in more parts than intended. Comes from aggressive dam riding. > > Uh, bicyclists are not required to have insurance or a tag. That's the law. If > the law said we had to have those things we would, but it doesn't. How much > more simpler can I explain it? If you don't like those rules, change them. > > Wayne Obviously you are a product of the american uneducation system...not to mention your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension skills. I've 13 y/o autistic son with more comprehension skills. -- Keith Schiffner Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of the Ministry of Silly Walks. "terrorist organization" is a redundancy     Date: 20 Apr 2007 09:44:42 From: Pat Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? One thing I have never understood is why some people think bicyclists pay no taxes! And yet, the more idiotic of them will bring up this red-herring again and again. Do they think that we are all monks who do not own other vehicles? Do they think we're all homeless, or something? I don't get it! Pat in TX       Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:14:13 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Pat wrote: > One thing I have never understood is why some people think bicyclists pay no > taxes! And yet, the more idiotic of them will bring up this red-herring > again and again. Do they think that we are all monks who do not own other > vehicles? Do they think we're all homeless, or something? > > I don't get it! > Like you said, they are idiots. And whiners. And instead of taking advantage of something that they deride as "free," they CHOOSE to use a motor vehicle which they upfront know has registration, licensing, and gas tax requirements. They see bicyclists as freeloaders, but it is not bicyclists who make the rules that bicycling is "free," it's motor vehicle driving legislators. Wayne   Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:05:45 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 12:03 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > > > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > >even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > >Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > >careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > > >Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > >you draw and... > > >I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > >Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > >we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > >launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > >Here's a good identifying T-shirt... > >http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories > > >Still Bush defends the right to bear arms > > Still, it's the Constitution that affirms ( not 'gives' ) that > RIGHT, and he abides by the Constitution. > > > > >EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the > >victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect > >"every American classroom and community", a White House official said > >Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". > > Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental > rights now matter HOW much the left-wing nutters would like to ignore > those things in their never ending drive to engineer a society more to > their own liking ! Of course, you do realise that most people (other than USA citizens) view your Constitution as an amusing anachronism? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > -- > Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ > > Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me > 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' > 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' > HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's > Free demo now available onlinehttp://pmilligan.net/palm/     Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:22:09 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177034745.439092.216400@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 19, 12:03 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > > Of course, you do realise that most > people (other than USA citizens) view your Constitution as an > amusing > anachronism? > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >> >> -- Why have so many countries copied the US Constitution in some form or another in the past 200 years.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:01:46 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 9:01 pm, jcr <nos...@nospam.com > wrote: > Brent P wrote: > > In article <7dmdndnaQcKfDbrbnZ2dnUVZ_vqpn...@giganews.com>, Just A User wrote: > > >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > >> those at the campus on Monday. > > > 1) They do. > > 2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if > > they don't have guns just use other weapons. > > 3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative > > activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into > > people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking > > tickets) owed to the government. > > > Gun bans increase crime by making working conditions safe for criminals. > > Allowing people to carry guns decreases crime by making working > > conditions unsafe for criminals. > > > In the same part of the country there was another school shooting prior > > to this one, except in that case students went and got their guns from > > their cars and ended it at 3 dead. Relying on the police to do something > > hours later is folly and bans will never keep the guns out of the hands > > of someone bent on doing something. > > I suppose one could make the case that if only a couple of the students > in those classrooms were packing heat (legally registered to carry a > concealed weapon), the outcome would likely have been quite different. > The fight would certainly have been more fair! Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal Saturday night. Check the odds. Mad psyco vs. pissed off adolescent. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:05:34 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1177034506.065296.316690@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, John Kane wrote: > Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a > bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars > and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a > strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal > Saturday night. Even 15 year olds with guns in their HS lockers worked fine for many decades until people became children of the government.     Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:13:15 From: Pork Torpedo Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177034506.065296.316690@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Certainly would have been. On the other hand do you really want a > bunch of 19 year old students, whooping it up in the local univ bars > and carrying all sorts of heavy weaponry when the males get into a > strutting contest? Hell, you'd probably lose more people on a normal > Saturday night. We're talking about LEGALLY posessed firearms. In order to buy a handgun you have to be at least 21. Also being in possesion of a firearm while intoxicated is against the law where I live and probably is everywhere else as well.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:54:57 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 12:34 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:18:19 -0400, Just A User > > > > <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >Curtis L. Russell wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User > >> <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > > >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > >>> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > >>> those at the campus on Monday. > > >> Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, and > >> they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was > >> there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several > >> in Canada. > > >> Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell > >> everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much > >> stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. > > >> Curtis L. Russell > >> Odenton, MD (USA) > >> Just someone on two wheels... > >I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are > >banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until that > >time comes, control is the key. > > >Ken > > Yeh, right. Let's only let the Government have them. > > Where did you get that one, Mein Kampf ? Don't you know any history? The Nazi introduced gun control about 5-6 years after attaining power. They were not particularally worried about a few burgers with guns. > > -- > Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ > > Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me > 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' > 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' > HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's > Free demo now available onlinehttp://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:51:46 From: John Kane Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence > > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, > > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the > > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and > > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things > > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a > > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf > > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old > > secretary. > > The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to > the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas > with the most constrictive gun laws. ^ restrictive ? Good. Quarantine the inner cities , have custom checks and body searches on everyone entering or leaving the inner cities and get back to us. The arguement is idiotic. If I can buy a gun in Virginia or Maryland and take the Metro back to DC. then the law is useless. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada     Date: 19 Apr 2007 23:28:14 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On 19 Apr 2007 18:51:46 -0700, John Kane <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 7:45 pm, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence >> > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, >> > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the >> > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >> > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >> > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >> > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >> > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any >> > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old >> > secretary. >> >> The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to >> the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas >> with the most constrictive gun laws. > ^ restrictive ? > >Good. Quarantine the inner cities , have custom checks and body >searches on everyone entering or leaving the inner cities and get back >to us. The arguement is idiotic. If I can buy a gun in Virginia or >Maryland and take the Metro back to DC. then the law is useless. Predictably, you miss the point. The point is, the vast majority of law-abiding people in this country should not have their rights taken away in some vain attempt to control the behavior of the monkeys in our ghettos. By definition, only the criminals in DC have guns. Where / how they got them is not the issue. The issue is that law-abiding peole have been defacto unilaterally disarmed. Thus, the little gang-bangers and other deviants have free reign, knowing that no law-abiding person has the ability to shoot back, which makes them safer targets. > >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:31:13 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... "should cyclists pack guns" This one does when the situation to need one might exist, and I do it legally. But I'm not crazy and obsessed like Donquijote and would never think about opening fire on a big bad evil SUV.     Date: 24 Apr 2007 14:09:02 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <cJUVh.205144$7g3.49154@newsfe14.phx >, DI <di9999@cox.net> wrote: > >"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >"should cyclists pack guns" > >This one does when the situation to need one might exist, and I do it >legally. But I'm not crazy and obsessed like Donquijote and would never >think about opening fire on a big bad evil SUV. Quijote doesn't have the cojones to do it, though he does lack the sense. I think he's said he's actually afraid to use a bicycle anyway. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.       Date: 25 Apr 2007 21:08:40 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <cJUVh.205144$7g3.49154@newsfe14.phx>, DI <di9999@cox.net> wrote: >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> "should cyclists pack guns" >> >> This one does when the situation to need one might exist, and I do it >> legally. But I'm not crazy and obsessed like Donquijote and would never >> think about opening fire on a big bad evil SUV. > > Quijote doesn't have the cojones to do it, though he does lack the > sense. I think he's said he's actually afraid to use a bicycle anyway. Come on. Get real and carry a CO2 powered semi-auto bb or pellet gun. A few shots in the nose, eye, or even down his throat is going to discourage any dog without killing him. Same for SUV's. Shoot out a windshield and then be prepared to ride like all hell to get away. OTOH, they might think you are totally nuts and leave on their own. Bill Baka         Date: 26 Apr 2007 06:22:49 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:oCVXh.1003$H84.301@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >> In article <cJUVh.205144$7g3.49154@newsfe14.phx>, DI <di9999@cox.net> >> wrote: >>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>> > > Come on. > Get real and carry a CO2 powered semi-auto bb or pellet gun. > A few shots in the nose, eye, or even down his throat is going to > discourage any dog without killing him. > Same for SUV's. Shoot out a windshield and then be prepared to ride like > all hell to get away. > OTOH, they might think you are totally nuts and leave on their own. > Bill Baka Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot off with the real thing, and they would be justified in doing so. Those things are one of the most dangerous things you could ever carry.           Date: 26 Apr 2007 06:25:07 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? DI wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:oCVXh.1003$H84.301@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >>> In article <cJUVh.205144$7g3.49154@newsfe14.phx>, DI <di9999@cox.net> >>> wrote: >>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>> > >> Come on. >> Get real and carry a CO2 powered semi-auto bb or pellet gun. >> A few shots in the nose, eye, or even down his throat is going to >> discourage any dog without killing him. >> Same for SUV's. Shoot out a windshield and then be prepared to ride like >> all hell to get away. >> OTOH, they might think you are totally nuts and leave on their own. >> Bill Baka > > Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot off > with the real thing, and they would be justified in doing so. Those > things are one of the most dangerous things you could ever carry. > > Bow and arrow? Bill             Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:14:07 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:25:07 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >DI wrote: >> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:oCVXh.1003$H84.301@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >>>> In article <cJUVh.205144$7g3.49154@newsfe14.phx>, DI <di9999@cox.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >> >>> Come on. >>> Get real and carry a CO2 powered semi-auto bb or pellet gun. >>> A few shots in the nose, eye, or even down his throat is going to >>> discourage any dog without killing him. >>> Same for SUV's. Shoot out a windshield and then be prepared to ride like >>> all hell to get away. >>> OTOH, they might think you are totally nuts and leave on their own. >>> Bill Baka >> >> Point a CO2 BB gun at someone and you are likely to get your butt shot off >> with the real thing, and they would be justified in doing so. Those >> things are one of the most dangerous things you could ever carry. >> >> >Bow and arrow? >Bill Wrist rocket on a crotch rocket ? -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:23:25 From: Kenny Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? I would not "pack" unless there was a real threat against me. I've felt road rage as a driver and a cyclist and I don't like it. A gun would only make things worse.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:56:28 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <38qf231koknr32atstjoc3i1n00t08pcnb@4ax.com >, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:23:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >>In article <1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes: >>> Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and >>> even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other >>> Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those >>> careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? >> >>I think you'll find your feelings of worthlessness >>are rooted within. having a gun won't fix that, any >>more than will driving a motor vehicle, getting drunk, >>or any combination of the above. >> >>> Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement >>> you draw and... >> >>1) drop the gun, causing it to uncontrolledly discharge > > You're thinking of yourself last Saturday night. Last Saturday night I was riding my bicycle around (unarmed), to destinations where I became engaged in more creative and sociable forms of debauchery. I wasn't in anybody's way -- drivers could easily pass me -- but just because I was there on a bicycle, I wouldn't be surprised if I was cussed-out by some drivers for "being in the way." The thought of shooting anybody didn't enter my mind, as per usual. I don't wanna hurt anybody. That's why I ride a bike instead of driving a car. > Guns dont' > work that way. It's an old, inherited, single-action revolver, with the hammer stupidly sitting on a loaded chamber. Squirt-gun "wars" on bikes can be kinda fun. Especially on hot summer days. Actually, on hot summer days I'm not above requesting people washing their cars on the curbside to give me a squirt from their garden hoses as I ride by, and they often gladly oblige. It's quite refreshing. Especially after a bunch of urban hill climbing, like escaping from New Westminster BC. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:51:05 From: DougC Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? donquijote1954 wrote: > > Still Bush defends the right to bear arms > > EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the > victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect > "every American classroom and community", a White House official said > Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". > Naaaa, guns are fun. Everybody should have one. Regular people should be allowed to carry firearms if they want to--*nothing* ruins a criminal's day faster than an armed victim. ----------- Here's a fun question (totally off-topic for this newsgroup)--narcotics are already illegal in the USA and criminals don't have any problem getting them; what makes you think that declaring guns illegal will get rid of guns? Anti-gun activists are (a few) liars and (the rest) fools. Anyone telling you that they're going to *take* *away* some of your rights to *protect* you is a liar--and if you believe it, you're a fool. Two of the classic high-crime areas in the US are NYC and Washington DC--and both of those places have handgun bans in effect..... Come to think of it, narcotics is illegal in NYC and DC too, and guess what? ;) ~   Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:45:34 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old > secretary. The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas with the most constrictive gun laws.     Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:02:04 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On 19 Apr 2007 16:45:34 -0700, Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: > >> "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence >> have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, >> families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the >> U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >> politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >> happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >> perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >> of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any >> madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old >> secretary. > >The murder rate outside of the inner cities in the US is very close to >the murder rate in Britain, and the inner cities are usually the areas >with the most constrictive gun laws. > Gee, would this relate to the statistics that "black men are more at risk of being shot than any other group" ? To which the media always fail to add the reality ".... shot by other black men, typically over 'turf', drugs, gangs, and money". -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/       Date: 20 Apr 2007 09:07:54 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:02:04 -0400, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >Gee, would this relate to the statistics that "black men are >more at risk of being shot than any other group" ? To which the media >always fail to add the reality ".... shot by other black men, >typically over 'turf', drugs, gangs, and money". You need to read better newspapers. The fact that the violence is black on black is regularly reported - in fact, it is in the interest of cities that want tourist dollars to make that as clear as possible. And it is also brought up regularly by black leaders, from Bill Cosby to Jesse Jackson to black mayors of major cities. No one is hiding this issue. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...         Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:35:59 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:07:54 -0500, Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote: >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:02:04 -0400, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com >wrote: > >>Gee, would this relate to the statistics that "black men are >>more at risk of being shot than any other group" ? To which the media >>always fail to add the reality ".... shot by other black men, >>typically over 'turf', drugs, gangs, and money". > >You need to read better newspapers. The fact that the violence is >black on black is regularly reported - in fact, it is in the interest >of cities that want tourist dollars to make that as clear as possible. Very often, the race of the shooter is never mentioned in the news if he's black. Sometimes it is, but very often not. But if it's a white guy that shot a black - you KNOW what the headline is going to be ! "WHITE GUY SHOOTS BLACK GUY !!!!", even if race had nothing to do with it. But if it's a black-on-black, or black-on-white shooting, they often just say 'street crime'. >And it is also brought up regularly by black leaders, from Bill Cosby >to Jesse Jackson to black mayors of major cities. Like the ex-mayor of DC, Marion Barry, who, after going to prison for being caught on video tape smoking crack in a hotel room with a prostitute, was then elected to the City Council, where he is of course 'anti gun'. Great leaders they pick. People can talk all they want about Republican corruption, and lord knows there's enough of it to talk about and then some ( and DumbocRat corruption, too - one of Darth Nancy's Demo Speaker predecessors went to prsion, too ), but geez, Louise ! When the guy is on video tape, played nightly on every TV and cable station ..... they RE-ELECT him when he gets out of prison ????? Let's face it, there's a very different culture at work there. One that accepts things like whoring, crack-smoking, 15 year old unmarried mothers, vanishing fathers, family and friends in prison or dead, nightly gunfire in the neighborhood, etc, all as 'normal'. One that also leads to them periodically burning down their own neighborhoods in some kind of misguided protest against people who live in OTHER neighborhoods. Real bright ! No one is hiding >this issue. > >Curtis L. Russell >Odenton, MD (USA) >Just someone on two wheels... -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/           Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:06:32 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:35:59 -0400, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >Let's face it, there's a very different culture at work there. >One that accepts things like whoring, crack-smoking, 15 year old >unmarried mothers, vanishing fathers, family and friends in prison or >dead, nightly gunfire in the neighborhood, etc, all as 'normal'. One >that also leads to them periodically burning down their own >neighborhoods in some kind of misguided protest against people who >live in OTHER neighborhoods. Real bright ! I congratulate you on being able to respond so quickly and only occasionally letting your code words slip. The problems are real, but so is being a racist. You are a racist. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...             Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:39:50 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:06:32 -0500, Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote: >On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:35:59 -0400, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com >wrote: > >>Let's face it, there's a very different culture at work there. >>One that accepts things like whoring, crack-smoking, 15 year old >>unmarried mothers, vanishing fathers, family and friends in prison or >>dead, nightly gunfire in the neighborhood, etc, all as 'normal'. One >>that also leads to them periodically burning down their own >>neighborhoods in some kind of misguided protest against people who >>live in OTHER neighborhoods. Real bright ! > >I congratulate you on being able to respond so quickly and only >occasionally letting your code words slip. The problems are real, but >so is being a racist. > >You are a racist. I am a REALIST. That's different. My statement above it true fact, and you know it. Speaking the truth is not being 'xxx-ist'. If you can't admit that ghetto 'culture', which is mainly black and latino 'culture', is decidely different than non-ghetto culture ( which is both black and white, a little bit of latino, a good bit of Asian ), you are blind or a fool. > >Curtis L. Russell >Odenton, MD (USA) >Just someone on two wheels... -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:29:49 From: Bill H. Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 9:03 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental > rights... Just not civil liberties. Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we?     Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:43:22 From: Reuben Hick Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177018189.702131.86620@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 19, 9:03 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > >> Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental >> rights... > > Just not civil liberties. > > Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding > fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we? Before tearing down a fence that has been up for a long time, doesn't it make sense to figure out why it was put up in the first place? Voting used to be a serious thoughtful process, now look at it. We don't have a presidential election, we have a presidential sweepstakes. We are supposed to vote for someone so that they can be honored with being the "first woman president" or the "first black president" rather than based on anything more substantial. We forget that when election time comes around we are voting for who has control of the guns. Who has control to take your earnings, to dictate the terms of your existence, and decide which friend will get which benefit. Warren G Harding, while republican senator of Ohio, made it a top priority for women's suffrage. As a reward for his effort, the female vote was largely responsible for him being elected to be the U.S. 29th president. History shows that his administration was the most corrupt of all previous administrations, particularly the Teapot Dome scandal where the naval oil reserves where secretly leased to Sec. of the Interior. Decades later the female vote put the utterly corrupt Clinton administration, where they were so corrupt no one noticed the Bakerfield naval oil reserves gifted to the sitting vice president's company Occidental Petroleum. (and the Left ignores Al Gore's corruption and oil dealings but hammers relentlessly Cheney who has divested of all shares in any petroleum stocks) So the female vote hasn't been stellar in regards to the integrity of the country. In fact, since then, the right to vote has been so deconstructed and corrupted that the illegals and the dead who vote multiple times each election make the one-man-one-vote legend an utter joke. We have over half the vote coming from folks who get their news and wisdom from The View and Oprah. Voters don't think about their choices, the FEEL their choices. "Oh look, that candidate is such a good looking guy. I'm going to vote for him." If it wasn't true, then why are we reading of $400 haircuts? Is it to impress Bubba? Or is it likely that a $400 haircut may be the difference in a candidate getting a vote or not getting a vote. I'm all for a return to the white male Christian property owners being the only ones with the voting franchise! Maybe then a bald guy who has something on the ball might actually have a chance. [Disclosure: I have a full head of hair, and I rent. ;) ]       Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:57:18 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Reuben Hick" <outerdarkness@warmoose.com > wrote in message news:eDTYh.3836$H84.2602@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > > "Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1177018189.702131.86620@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 19, 9:03 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >>> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 >> >>> Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental >>> rights... >> >> Just not civil liberties. >> >> Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding >> fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we? > > Before tearing down a fence that has been up for a long time, doesn't it > make sense to figure out why it was put up in the first place? > > Voting used to be a serious thoughtful process, now look at it. We don't > have a presidential election, we have a presidential sweepstakes. We are > supposed to vote for someone so that they can be honored with being the > "first woman president" or the "first black president" rather than based > on anything more substantial. We forget that when election time comes > around we are voting for who has control of the guns. Who has control to > take your earnings, to dictate the terms of your existence, and decide > which friend will get which benefit. > > Warren G Harding, while republican senator of Ohio, made it a top priority > for women's suffrage. As a reward for his effort, the female vote was > largely responsible for him being elected to be the U.S. 29th president. > History shows that his administration was the most corrupt of all previous > administrations, particularly the Teapot Dome scandal where the naval oil > reserves where secretly leased to Sec. of the Interior. Decades later the > female vote put the utterly corrupt Clinton administration, where they > were so corrupt no one noticed the Bakerfield naval oil reserves gifted to > the sitting vice president's company Occidental Petroleum. (and the Left > ignores Al Gore's corruption and oil dealings but hammers relentlessly > Cheney who has divested of all shares in any petroleum stocks) > > So the female vote hasn't been stellar in regards to the integrity of the > country. In fact, since then, the right to vote has been so deconstructed > and corrupted that the illegals and the dead who vote multiple times each > election make the one-man-one-vote legend an utter joke. We have over > half the vote coming from folks who get their news and wisdom from The > View and Oprah. Voters don't think about their choices, the FEEL their > choices. "Oh look, that candidate is such a good looking guy. I'm going > to vote for him." If it wasn't true, then why are we reading of $400 > haircuts? Is it to impress Bubba? Or is it likely that a $400 haircut > may be the difference in a candidate getting a vote or not getting a vote. > > I'm all for a return to the white male Christian property owners being the > only ones with the voting franchise! Maybe then a bald guy who has > something on the ball might actually have a chance. > > [Disclosure: I have a full head of hair, and I rent. ;) ] Oh God, here we go! (my last post on the subject, honestly)         Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:05:40 From: Bill Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? DI wrote: > "Reuben Hick" <outerdarkness@warmoose.com> wrote in message >> [Disclosure: I have a full head of hair, and I rent. ;) ] > > Oh God, here we go! (my last post on the subject, honestly) > > I'm outta here too. Bill Baka     Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:16:31 From: Timberwoof Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1177018189.702131.86620@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, "Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 9:03 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > > > Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental > > rights... > > Just not civil liberties. > > Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding > fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we? Interestingly, it didn't cause civilization to fall, as many predicted it would. (News for them: In many frontier states, where women did an awful lot of work just to stay alive, they had the vote in state and local elections long before it became an issue nationwide.) -- Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com > http://www.timberwoof.com Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual! Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!     Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:16:55 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 19 Apr 2007 14:29:49 -0700, "Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 9:03 am, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > >> Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental >> rights... > >Just not civil liberties. > >Question: Do you support the right for women to vote? The founding >fathers didn't. But we changed THAT to our liking, didn't we? I don't recall the Constitution saying we couldn't. And of course that includes the C in the fullest sense, which means the Bill of Rights is considered 'part and parcel' of it, which means the 17th ( or was it the 27th ? I forget ) Amendment is 'part of the Constitution, along with all other Amendments '. IOW - there is a Constitutional way to get rid of the 2nd Amendment - it's called ANOTHER Amendment, and the process for that is clearly laid out including state ratifications, etc etc. Unless and until THAT happens, the RTKABA is Constitutionaly protected. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:26:46 From: Road Glidin' Don Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 2:22 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 1:11 pm, Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 9:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, > > > Hopefully a door opener gets you some day, so we don't have to put up > > with your retarded cross-posts anymore. > > I'd consider it an act of terrorism. Bicycles should have the right to > be free from opening doors as well as from invasive cars. If someone > has the right ot bear arms, we should have the right to ride a bike > SAFELY on the streets, ie. WE NEED BIKE LANES. You've got a newsgroup for bicycles which you don't stay in. No reason to suppose, if you had bike lanes, you'd stay in them either. You've got a lot to learn about responsible use and sharing before you start preaching to others, retard.     Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:02:22 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In rec.bicycles.soc Road Glidin' Don <d.langkd@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 2:22 pm, asshat1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Apr 19, 1:11 pm, Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hopefully a door opener gets you some day, so we don't have to put up >> > with your retarded cross-posts anymore. >> >> I'd consider it an act of terrorism. Bicycles should have the right to >> be free from opening doors as well as from invasive cars. If someone >> has the right ot bear arms, we should have the right to ride a bike >> SAFELY on the streets, ie. WE NEED BIKE LANES. > > You've got a newsgroup for bicycles which you don't stay in. No > reason to suppose, if you had bike lanes, you'd stay in them either. I've never seen him post to the bicycle group except to troll via crosspost. He's a miserable hypocritical mouth breathing cretin, and I'm not sure he's ever seet foot to pedal on a bicycle. > You've got a lot to learn about responsible use and sharing before you > start preaching to others, retard. I've got a call from the Mentally Handicapped Anti-Defamation League on line one for you. :-) -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." -Oscar Wilde   Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:23:37 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > writes: > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? I think you'll find your feelings of worthlessness are rooted within. having a gun won't fix that, any more than will driving a motor vehicle, getting drunk, or any combination of the above. > Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > you draw and... 1) drop the gun, causing it to uncontrolledly discharge 2) accidentally shoot an innocent bystander 3) inflict revenge that greatly exceeds the wrong/slight done to you 4) shoot your eye out 5) lose the gun in some bushes, where some 7 year old kid will later find it > I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > launch a good nonviolent campaign? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ There's already a bunch of them. They just don't have your name on them (thank Goodness.) -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:12:00 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:23:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes: >> Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and >> even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other >> Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those >> careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > >I think you'll find your feelings of worthlessness >are rooted within. having a gun won't fix that, any >more than will driving a motor vehicle, getting drunk, >or any combination of the above. > >> Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement >> you draw and... > >1) drop the gun, causing it to uncontrolledly discharge You're thinking of yourself last Saturday night. Guns dont' work that way. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:18:30 From: sqidbait Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 8:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? [snip] SpikeBike did this *years* ago. Weren't you paying attention? http://members.aol.com/clubnbc/spike_1.htm -- Michael   Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:33:35 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <iuednRpUe9yUCLrbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@giganews.com>, > Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > > >Okay so that is one, but they are a lot less common than here in the U.S. > > >Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings > >per year. > > A lie, of course. We are not the only one, but we are #1in gun violence... It's "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf of bread," says this article that gauges world opinion... "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old secretary. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704181378apr19,1,3882685.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed     Date: 26 Apr 2007 02:56:48 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! In article <462f8b8c$0$9905$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <167q239ae80dvdlak26fn22lcvberhl9q6@4ax.com>, >> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: >> >>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >> >> I think you mean a Mohel. >> >> Or a chainsaw. > > Multi-tool? There's an ancient story, told only by word-of-mouth, of a retiring aged mohel who'd saved up over the years, all the byproducts of his profession. He took them in to his local leatherworker, and asked him to make something out of them -- sort of a retirement gift to himself. When the mohel returned to the shop a couple of weeks later, the tanner proudly plunked the product of his enginuity & artistry down on the counter. "A wallet?!" exclaimed the mohel. "All these years, and all I've got to show for it is a lousy wallet?" The leatherworker then calmly explained: "Yeah, but stroke it a little, and it turns into a suitcase." cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:02:29 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! Tom Keats wrote: > In article <462f8b8c$0$9905$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes: >> Tom Keats wrote: >>> In article <167q239ae80dvdlak26fn22lcvberhl9q6@4ax.com>, >>> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: >>> >>>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >>> >>> I think you mean a Mohel. >>> >>> Or a chainsaw. >> >> Multi-tool? > There's an ancient story, told only by word-of-mouth, > of a retiring aged mohel who'd saved up over the years, > all the byproducts of his profession. > > He took them in to his local leatherworker, and asked him > to make something out of them -- sort of a retirement gift > to himself. > > When the mohel returned to the shop a couple of weeks later, > the tanner proudly plunked the product of his enginuity & > artistry down on the counter. > > "A wallet?!" exclaimed the mohel. "All these years, and > all I've got to show for it is a lousy wallet?" > > The leatherworker then calmly explained: "Yeah, but > stroke it a little, and it turns into a suitcase." Definitely forward-worthy. Thanks, Tom!     Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:31:50 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! In article <167q239ae80dvdlak26fn22lcvberhl9q6@4ax.com >, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: > Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( I think you mean a Mohel. Or a chainsaw. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:10:26 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! Tom Keats wrote: > In article <167q239ae80dvdlak26fn22lcvberhl9q6@4ax.com>, > .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: > >> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( > > I think you mean a Mohel. > > Or a chainsaw. Multi-tool?     Date: 20 Apr 2007 09:01:59 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On 19 Apr 2007 13:33:35 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >> >Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings >> >per year. >> >> A lie, of course. > >We are not the only one, but we are #1in gun violence... It's "as easy >to buy weapons as a loaf of bread," says this article that gauges >world opinion... No, we're not, although we are perhaps #1 in reported gun violence. There are cities in the world with violent death rates from hand guns projected from reliable sources as matching Bagdad - its just they don't do daily reports on the death rates from police, adult gangs and youth gangs. Google the history of Rio de Janeiro and gun violence from all sides. Sanctioned gun violence is out of hand in the U.S. as well - and as reported by the conservative side of the think tanks - but at least most of it is reported. If you think sanctioned gun violence by police and paramilitary units are even reported in much of SA, you are living in a fool's paradise. Then you can work on figuring out the level of criminal violence. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...     Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:42:34 From: Polarhound Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence donquijote1954 wrote: > On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: >> In article <iuednRpUe9yUCLrbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@giganews.com>, >> Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >>> Okay so that is one, but they are a lot less common than here in the U.S. >>> Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings >>> per year. >> A lie, of course. > > We are not the only one, but we are #1in gun violence... It's "as easy > to buy weapons as a loaf of bread," says this article that gauges > world opinion... > > "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence > have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, > families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the > U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and > politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things > happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a > perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf > of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old > secretary. > > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704181378apr19,1,3882685.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed > I find it rather ironic that the newspaper publishing this drivel also happens to be based in a city where handguns are ALREADY banned, yet it has one of the HIGHEST crime rates in the nation.       Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:21:19 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:42:34 -0400, Polarhound <polarhound@comcast.net > wrote: >donquijote1954 wrote: >> On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >> wrote: >>> In article <iuednRpUe9yUCLrbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@giganews.com>, >>> Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Okay so that is one, but they are a lot less common than here in the U.S. >>>> Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings >>>> per year. >>> A lie, of course. >> >> We are not the only one, but we are #1in gun violence... It's "as easy >> to buy weapons as a loaf of bread," says this article that gauges >> world opinion... >> >> "The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence >> have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, >> families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the >> U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >> politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >> happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >> perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >> of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any >> madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old >> secretary. >> >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704181378apr19,1,3882685.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed >> > >I find it rather ironic that the newspaper publishing this drivel also >happens to be based in a city where handguns are ALREADY banned, yet it >has one of the HIGHEST crime rates in the nation. Ah, but consistenly in second place to Washington DC, where they are even MORE banned :-) -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/         Date: 19 Apr 2007 19:20:43 From: Polarhound Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > Ah, but consistenly in second place to Washington DC, where > they are even MORE banned :-) Thankfully, that is now in the process of changing: WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.           Date: 20 Apr 2007 00:03:14 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:20:43 -0400, Polarhound <polarhound@comcast.net > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > >> Ah, but consistenly in second place to Washington DC, where >> they are even MORE banned :-) > >Thankfully, that is now in the process of changing: > >WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court overturned the District of >Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's >argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to >militias. > >In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the >Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an >individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. > >The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976. > >The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also >threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept >unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock. Sadly, there's another story that most people aren't aware of. I've spoken personally with the lead plaintiff's attorney in the case about it. The ALLEGEDLY pro-gun lobby, such as the NRA, etc, are trying to derail it. Senator Hutchinson is part of the plan. She's introducing a bill, to be called S - 1001 ( there is already an equivalent bill in the House ) to repeal the DC gun laws. This is a TERRIBLE thing. Why ? Because if the bill passes and gets signed, the Parker suit become moot. Null and void. Meaningless. Which means it never gets to the SCOTUS. Which means it is only precedent in DC, not the rest of the country. The people pushing these bills KNOW this, and they don't WANT SCOTUS to uphold the 2nd amendment. WHy ? That would take one of their favorite political footballs away from them, and they couldn't play with it any more. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/             Date: 24 Apr 2007 14:21:23 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence In article <vreg23ddrah7sp0crtgihti1h398s3vm8i@4ax.com >, <.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com > wrote: > > Because if the bill passes and gets signed, the Parker suit >become moot. Null and void. Meaningless. Which means it never gets >to the SCOTUS. Which means it is only precedent in DC, not the rest >of the country. > > The people pushing these bills KNOW this, and they don't WANT >SCOTUS to uphold the 2nd amendment. WHy ? That would take one of >their favorite political footballs away from them, and they couldn't >play with it any more. Neither side wants the issue decided in the Supreme Court, but not for the reasons you present. The NRA is afraid SCOTUS will find a way to repudiate the 2nd Amendment (particularly likely given the Va Tech massacres, though I like the way the pro-gun side got the "wouldn't have happened if they could shoot back" spin out as fast as the gun grabbers got theirs out), and the gun grabbers are afraid SCOTUS will uphold it. Both sides think they're better off keeping the game at smaller stakes for the moment. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.               Date: 24 Apr 2007 17:25:21 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:21:23 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >In article <vreg23ddrah7sp0crtgihti1h398s3vm8i@4ax.com>, > <.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote: >> >> Because if the bill passes and gets signed, the Parker suit >>become moot. Null and void. Meaningless. Which means it never gets >>to the SCOTUS. Which means it is only precedent in DC, not the rest >>of the country. >> >> The people pushing these bills KNOW this, and they don't WANT >>SCOTUS to uphold the 2nd amendment. WHy ? That would take one of >>their favorite political footballs away from them, and they couldn't >>play with it any more. > >Neither side wants the issue decided in the Supreme Court, but not for >the reasons you present. The NRA is afraid SCOTUS will find a way to >repudiate the 2nd Amendment (particularly likely given the Va Tech >massacres, though I like the way the pro-gun side got the "wouldn't >have happened if they could shoot back" spin out as fast as the gun >grabbers got theirs out), and the gun grabbers are afraid SCOTUS will >uphold it. Both sides think they're better off keeping the game at >smaller stakes for the moment. I see S-1001 finally got filed, and it does state 'the 21nd amendment protects the individual right'. I don't now how binding, if at all, that would be on anything else other than the DC ban. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/     Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:18:33 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On 19 Apr 2007 13:33:35 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 19, 3:48 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: >> In article <iuednRpUe9yUCLrbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@giganews.com>, >> Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >> >Okay so that is one, but they are a lot less common than here in the U.S. >> >> >Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings >> >per year. >> >> A lie, of course. > >We are not the only one, but we are #1in gun violence... It's "as easy >to buy weapons as a loaf of bread," says this article that gauges >world opinion... Well, the articel is full of shit, as is 'world opinion', including the nonexistent 'world opinion' cited by the anti-gun crowd. Here's a news flash for you - you can find a 'world opinion' for anything, on any side of any subject. >"The U.S. is not the only country in which random acts of gun violence >have erupted in seemingly everyday circumstances to destroy lives, >families and communities," said Britain's Guardian newspaper. "But the Left wing lunatic pseudo-news rag. >U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any Well, THAT settles it ! If some random whore walking the street in Moscow says 'It's like such and such in America', it must be true ! >madman can get hold of a gun," said Natalya Ivanova, a 22-year-old >secretary. As they can, and as easily, in Russia. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/       Date: 19 Apr 2007 23:08:32 From: Outback Jon Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 13:33:35 -0700, donquijote1954 >> U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >> politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >> happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >> perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >> of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any > > > Well, THAT settles it ! If some random whore walking the > street in Moscow says 'It's like such and such in America', it must be > true ! Besides, anyone else remember the stories of how difficult it was to buy a loaf of bread in the old Soviet Union? :) -- "Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net AMD Opteron 146 (@2.8) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power... http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 48435 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 1980 CB750F SuperSport "CoolerKing"         Date: 20 Apr 2007 09:39:16 From: Pat Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence >> >> Well, THAT settles it ! If some random whore walking the >> street in Moscow says 'It's like such and such in America', it must be >> true ! > > Besides, anyone else remember the stories of how difficult it was to buy a > loaf of bread in the old Soviet Union? :) > > -- > "Outback" Jon - KC2BNE Do you have a hatred of women? What is your problem that you have to label someone you don't even know like that? <plonk >         Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:53:32 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:08:32 GMT, Outback Jon <teammft@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On 19 Apr 2007 13:33:35 -0700, donquijote1954 >>> U.S. is one of the few countries that seems collectively unwilling and >>> politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop such things >>> happening again."The slayings Monday at Virginia Tech reinforced a >>> perception that in the U.S., it is "as easy to buy weapons as a loaf >>> of bread," in the words of one Russian woman on a Moscow street. "Any >> >> >> Well, THAT settles it ! If some random whore walking the >> street in Moscow says 'It's like such and such in America', it must be >> true ! > >Besides, anyone else remember the stories of how difficult it was to buy >a loaf of bread in the old Soviet Union? :) I heard it was pretty easy, as long as you didn't mind standing in line for 4 days for 1/4 loaf of week old bread, and your sister was sleeping with the local Commisar :-) -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/           Date: 20 Apr 2007 03:19:17 From: Outback Jon Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:08:32 GMT, Outback Jon > <teammft@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net> wrote: >> Besides, anyone else remember the stories of how difficult it was to buy >> a loaf of bread in the old Soviet Union? :) > > I heard it was pretty easy, as long as you didn't mind > standing in line for 4 days for 1/4 loaf of week old bread, and your > sister was sleeping with the local Commisar :-) > Hehe - 4 day waiting period for bread. Guess it cut down on the crime committed with said bread... :) -- "Outback" Jon - KC2BNE outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net AMD Opteron 146 (@2.8) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power... http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 48435 2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157 1980 CB750F SuperSport "CoolerKing"             Date: 19 Apr 2007 23:29:54 From: Subject: Re: we are #1in gun violence On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:19:17 GMT, Outback Jon <teammft@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:08:32 GMT, Outback Jon >> <teammft@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net> wrote: >>> Besides, anyone else remember the stories of how difficult it was to buy >>> a loaf of bread in the old Soviet Union? :) >> >> I heard it was pretty easy, as long as you didn't mind >> standing in line for 4 days for 1/4 loaf of week old bread, and your >> sister was sleeping with the local Commisar :-) >> > >Hehe - 4 day waiting period for bread. Guess it cut down on the crime >committed with said bread... :) It increased the general loafing considerably, though. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/   Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:22:38 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 1:11 pm, Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 19, 9:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, > > Hopefully a door opener gets you some day, so we don't have to put up > with your retarded cross-posts anymore. I'd consider it an act of terrorism. Bicycles should have the right to be free from opening doors as well as from invasive cars. If someone has the right ot bear arms, we should have the right to ride a bike SAFELY on the streets, ie. WE NEED BIKE LANES.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:15:55 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: California Republicans are OK --I ride my bike in LA (not a bike friendly place) where SUV's rule every road and street, and it doesn't make me feel worthless. If anything, I feel empowered. Republicans don't 'cycle you think? Perhaps if you talked to people instead of typing to them, you might find that Republicans are not the crazed individuals as you would like everyone to believe.-- California Republicans seem to be OK. I guess it has to do with having a common sense governor... For example, this "rigth wing," "conservative" Republican is doing pretty good... Schwarzenegger surprises California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today will fulfill yet another campaign promise when he signs a bill to reform the state's costly workers compensation program. The signing will mark the fourth major victory for the former action- movie star since he became governor barely five months ago. Mr. Schwarzenegger's accomplishments, which have defied the political odds from the beginning, are winning the Republican governor praise from Democrats and once-skeptical fellow Republicans. "He's doing better than I expected," said Gail Kaufman, a leading Democratic strategist in the state. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040418-113752-6563r.htm   Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:13:09 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 3:45 pm, Olebiker <ddur...@tfn.net > wrote: > On Apr 19, 3:40 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I rather appreciate a comment often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: > > > "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves > > > neither liberty nor security" > > > I guess we should disband HOMELAND SECURITY then. > > Sounds good to me. Yet one less bureaucracy...     Date: 01 May 2007 12:11:00 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: If in doubt, shoot! On Apr 26, 7:04 am, David Steuber <d...@david-steuber.com > wrote: > If you don't mind, I'll kibitz a bit. If you do mind, go to the next > post now. > > tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) writes: > > I'll describe the worst ones to you. > > > 1) At a traffic light, I have taken > > the lane and am in lead spot in the right lane. (I got there first) A > > dodge neon is the next lane. Light turns green, I get off to a good > > start and leave the neon sitting there. The taurus driver behind me uses > > the gap I've created to pass the neon and move in the left lane. > > Passenger throws a bottle at me, hitting me. I've had several objects > > thrown at me from passing vehicles, but this is the only one that hit > > me. > > I've had shit thrown at me as well. Nothing injured me though, > fortunately. However, once the vehicle has passed you, shooting at it > would be revenge, not self defense. So you would be the one the cops > are putting in cuffs. Sure. But then in court you may be able to get away with it by citing how Bush went into Iraq as a form of pre-emptive strike. If in doubt, shoot! > > and how could I forget the 'drive car' guy. This asian guy decides that > > it's just wrong that I am ahead of him in a backup and preventing him > > from kissing the bumper of the vehicle in front me. He start making > > threats, nearly hits me in a passing attempt. I good 'I am not going to > > take this sh*t and hold my ground' posture, worked momentarily, but > > then he started it up again so I ended up gutter passing to get away > > from him. > > Keep in mind that a car is a more deadly weapon than a gun. And more difficult to prove that it was used as a weapon. I read somewhere, that the perfect crime may be committed with a vehicle. > > > If it made people behave it might just be worth it to me. > > Heinlein did say, "an armed society is a polite society." I believe > that to be true. In general. But I don't see using a gun to settle > trivial disputes as a practical use. I would rather save that level > of force for someone coming after me with a weapon or other > overwhelming physical force. Surviving a charging car may be trivial to the car, but survival to the bike. Of course, the whole argument is absurd, since it should be bike facilities, and and/or an education campaign that takes the heat off you handing out justice.       Date: 05 May 2007 07:42:16 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: If in doubt, shoot! donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > writes: > Sure. But then in court you may be able to get away with it by citing > how Bush went into Iraq as a form of pre-emptive strike. If in doubt, > shoot! Worth a shot I suppose. I am in favor of nuking Tehran right now; but only as a warning. -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling         Date: 05 May 2007 18:13:26 From: Bill Subject: Re: If in doubt, shoot! David Steuber wrote: > donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> writes: > >> Sure. But then in court you may be able to get away with it by citing >> how Bush went into Iraq as a form of pre-emptive strike. If in doubt, >> shoot! > > Worth a shot I suppose. I am in favor of nuking Tehran right now; but > only as a warning. > Nuking Tehran is something I have been thinking about. Baghdad too. This Viet Nam in the sand shit is getting old. Bill Baka           Date: 06 May 2007 00:15:57 From: proehling Subject: Re: If in doubt, shoot! "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote > Nuking Tehran is something I have been thinking about. Baghdad too. This > Viet Nam in the sand shit is getting old. Good thinking. So far your list looks like this: First: invade the wrong small mid-eastern country for fabricated reasons. Second: declare "Mission Accomplished" several decades early. Third: act puzzled and hurt when the people you've just ground into the dirt refuse to lick your boots and form the stable puppet government you had in mind. Fourth: refuse to admit that you ever made any mistakes, but keep changing the reasons you claim we're there. Fifth: attack anyone on your own side who dares to disagree with you in any way, claiming that they want to surrender to the terrorists. Sixth: after everything else has failed; contemplate making the whole thing 100% worse by nuking Baghdad and Teheran without provocation. Bill, you're wonderful! I can't imagine how President Bush missed getting you onto that crack White-House team of strategists that have made the world into such a wonderful place in a mere six years!             Date: 06 May 2007 10:25:47 From: Bill Subject: Re: If in doubt, shoot! proehling wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote > >> Nuking Tehran is something I have been thinking about. Baghdad too. This >> Viet Nam in the sand shit is getting old. > > Good thinking. So far your list looks like this: > > First: invade the wrong small mid-eastern country for fabricated reasons. That was Herr Bush, not me. > > Second: declare "Mission Accomplished" several decades early. Herr Bush again, our idiot president. > > Third: act puzzled and hurt when the people you've just ground into the dirt > refuse to lick your boots and form the stable puppet government you had in > mind. > > Fourth: refuse to admit that you ever made any mistakes, but keep changing > the reasons you claim we're there. > > Fifth: attack anyone on your own side who dares to disagree with you in any > way, claiming that they want to surrender to the terrorists. Bush, Bush, and Bush. > > Sixth: after everything else has failed; contemplate making the whole thing > 100% worse by nuking Baghdad and Teheran without provocation. WITHOUT???? provocation??? > > Bill, you're wonderful! I can't imagine how President Bush missed getting > you onto that crack White-House team of strategists that have made the world > into such a wonderful place in a mere six years! > > I voted for Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. If the rest of the voters want Bush, then we have a messy war on our hands. I remember the whole Viet Nam thing too and heard rumors that Johnson was getting so frustrated he was contemplating that kind of force. Viet Nam was such a mess that he chose to get out of the white house in 1968 and we got Nixon. Nixon, Bush, same kind of animal. Bill Baka     Date: 27 Apr 2007 08:06:47 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 27, 10:34 am, "Steve" <nobodyh...@example.com > wrote: > > > A while back I was being seriously tailgated by a armored car. Daughter > took a couple of pictures with her cellphone camera. When he made and > illegal and dangerous passing move (forced the car ahead of me into the left > turn lane). I got his numbers, including "call this number if I am driving > badly". When I called the company back a week later to follow up, they were > most emphatic that he no longer worked there. Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort. He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have written a letter to the school board. Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and it's possible to take advantage of that. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:54:38 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > > Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we > were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop > sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not > have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he > forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort. > > He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him > there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if > his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have > written a letter to the school board. > > Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do > not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and > it's possible to take advantage of that. > > - Frank Krygowski > > Frank, You have just been involved in what I have seen with school bus drivers around here. Since they are in charge of ferrying the kiddies they tend to ignore an adult on a bike or even a mere car. I have had many close calls with school buses in neighborhood street conditions. They make illegal (for us) U-turns or turn right in front of me and they expect me to damn well get out of their way. Again, professional drivers, but with some very bad manners. Bill Baka         Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:22:19 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:54:38 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we >> were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop >> sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not >> have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he >> forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort. >> >> He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him >> there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if >> his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have >> written a letter to the school board. >> >> Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do >> not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and >> it's possible to take advantage of that. >> >> - Frank Krygowski >> >> >Frank, >You have just been involved in what I have seen with school bus drivers >around here. Since they are in charge of ferrying the kiddies they tend >to ignore an adult on a bike or even a mere car. I have had many close >calls with school buses in neighborhood street conditions. They make >illegal (for us) U-turns or turn right in front of me and they expect me >to damn well get out of their way. Again, professional drivers, but with 'Professional drivers' my ass. Try 'The local job-bank Section-8-livin' used-someone-else's-urine-for-the-drug-test only-took-the-job-because-their-parole-officer-said-they-had-to' lusers. Minimum wage, split-shift, no-future-except-more-of-the-same dealing-with-other-peoples-kids-all-day-but-you're-not-allowed-to-hit-them bullshit job. >some very bad manners. >Bill Baka -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/           Date: 28 Apr 2007 14:09:38 From: nash Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes 'Professional drivers' my ass. Try 'The local job-bank > Section-8-livin' used-someone-else's-urine-for-the-drug-test > only-took-the-job-because-their-parole-officer-said-they-had-to' > lusers. Minimum wage, split-shift, no-future-except-more-of-the-same > dealing-with-other-peoples-kids-all-day-but-you're-not-allowed-to-hit-them > bullshit job. hehehe Yeah, just like the Simpsons school bus driver. Ever heard the horror stories here about 17 people in a minivan going to the field to work and the thing does not have any brakes so they all die one day. Happens every year. Sad they have to trust someone who knows nothing about driving.           Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:26:24 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:54:38 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>> Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we >>> were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop >>> sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not >>> have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he >>> forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort. >>> >>> He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him >>> there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if >>> his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have >>> written a letter to the school board. >>> >>> Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do >>> not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and >>> it's possible to take advantage of that. >>> >>> - Frank Krygowski >>> >>> >> Frank, >> You have just been involved in what I have seen with school bus drivers >> around here. Since they are in charge of ferrying the kiddies they tend >> to ignore an adult on a bike or even a mere car. I have had many close >> calls with school buses in neighborhood street conditions. They make >> illegal (for us) U-turns or turn right in front of me and they expect me >> to damn well get out of their way. Again, professional drivers, but with > > 'Professional drivers' my ass. Try 'The local job-bank > Section-8-livin' used-someone-else's-urine-for-the-drug-test > only-took-the-job-because-their-parole-officer-said-they-had-to' > lusers. Minimum wage, split-shift, no-future-except-more-of-the-same > dealing-with-other-peoples-kids-all-day-but-you're-not-allowed-to-hit-them > bullshit job. > Maybe the truckers, some of whom are even illegal Mexicans, but not for the school bus drivers who have to have a chauffeurs' license. The truckers are plain dumb. The bus drivers are arrogant. Small difference but don't get your bike (or small car) in their way. Bill Baka > > > >> some very bad manners. >> Bill Baka >             Date: 28 Apr 2007 20:24:12 From: Reuben Hick Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:4pxYh.12858$YL5.8861@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:54:38 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we >>>> were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop >>>> sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not >>>> have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he >>>> forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort. >>>> >>>> He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him >>>> there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if >>>> his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have >>>> written a letter to the school board. >>>> >>>> Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do >>>> not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and >>>> it's possible to take advantage of that. >>>> >>>> - Frank Krygowski >>>> >>>> >>> Frank, >>> You have just been involved in what I have seen with school bus drivers >>> around here. Since they are in charge of ferrying the kiddies they tend >>> to ignore an adult on a bike or even a mere car. I have had many close >>> calls with school buses in neighborhood street conditions. They make >>> illegal (for us) U-turns or turn right in front of me and they expect me >>> to damn well get out of their way. Again, professional drivers, but with >> >> 'Professional drivers' my ass. Try 'The local job-bank >> Section-8-livin' used-someone-else's-urine-for-the-drug-test >> only-took-the-job-because-their-parole-officer-said-they-had-to' >> lusers. Minimum wage, split-shift, no-future-except-more-of-the-same >> dealing-with-other-peoples-kids-all-day-but-you're-not-allowed-to-hit-them >> bullshit job. >> > Maybe the truckers, some of whom are even illegal Mexicans, but not for > the school bus drivers who have to have a chauffeurs' license. Oh really? Remember the illegal alien that was driving for Global Limo? During Hurricane Rita, a nursing home contracted with the limo company to haul residents to safety out of Houston. The bus had all kinds of problems, particularly the last problem where it burst into flames and killed 24 passengers. When the illegal alien driving the bus discovered it was on fire, he stopped, and quickly abandoned the bus and never looked back as other motorists stopped and risked their lives in trying to saved those inside. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/rita/3367696.html The illegal alien is still at large (the Bush Administration wanted the illegal alien to stay in this country as a "material witness") and believed to be working for yet another bus company. http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=826 So being an illegal alien gives you special rights to kill and maim without consequence. > The truckers are plain dumb. > The bus drivers are arrogant. > Small difference but don't get your bike (or small car) in their way. > Bill Baka >> >> >> >>> some very bad manners. >>> Bill Baka >>               Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:26:51 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Reuben Hick wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:4pxYh.12858$YL5.8861@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:54:38 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Last year, my wife and I were on our way out into the country when we >>>>> were passed by a school bus on a two-lane road, just before a stop >>>>> sign. We were close enough to the intersection that he should not >>>>> have passed. As it was, after passing using the opposing lane, he >>>>> forced his way back into our lane too close for my comfort. >>>>> >>>>> He was heading for the bus lot just 1/4 mile away. I followed him >>>>> there, waited until he exited the bus, and gave him a lecture. And if >>>>> his attitude hadn't been acceptable to me at that point, I would have >>>>> written a letter to the school board. >>>>> >>>>> Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do >>>>> not. But their driving mistakes do put their salaries at risk, and >>>>> it's possible to take advantage of that. >>>>> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Frank, >>>> You have just been involved in what I have seen with school bus >>>> drivers around here. Since they are in charge of ferrying the >>>> kiddies they tend to ignore an adult on a bike or even a mere car. I >>>> have had many close calls with school buses in neighborhood street >>>> conditions. They make illegal (for us) U-turns or turn right in >>>> front of me and they expect me to damn well get out of their way. >>>> Again, professional drivers, but with >>> >>> 'Professional drivers' my ass. Try 'The local job-bank >>> Section-8-livin' used-someone-else's-urine-for-the-drug-test >>> only-took-the-job-because-their-parole-officer-said-they-had-to' >>> lusers. Minimum wage, split-shift, no-future-except-more-of-the-same >>> dealing-with-other-peoples-kids-all-day-but-you're-not-allowed-to-hit-them >>> >>> bullshit job. >>> >> Maybe the truckers, some of whom are even illegal Mexicans, but not >> for the school bus drivers who have to have a chauffeurs' license. > > Oh really? Remember the illegal alien that was driving for Global > Limo? During Hurricane Rita, a nursing home contracted with the limo > company to haul residents to safety out of Houston. The bus had all > kinds of problems, particularly the last problem where it burst into > flames and killed 24 passengers. When the illegal alien driving the > bus discovered it was on fire, he stopped, and quickly abandoned the bus > and never looked back as other motorists stopped and risked their lives > in trying to saved those inside. > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/rita/3367696.html That is just so blatantly illegal on so many counts I can't say which is the worst. Letting so many illegals stay here and not be rounded up. Global Limo (which should be out of business with it's management in jail). Maybe the state for not enforcing the 'Chauffeurs' requirement. At the very least in this case, an all points alert should have been put out to apprehend this mass murderer and give him a nice warm, electrified chair. > > The illegal alien is still at large (the Bush Administration wanted the > illegal alien to stay in this country as a "material witness") and > believed to be working for yet another bus company. That just proves how completely dimwitted Bush is. Witness? Against himself? > > http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=826 > > So being an illegal alien gives you special rights to kill and maim > without consequence. They are getting way too much special treatment. How about issuing the hunters "Mexican" tags? There was a lot wrong with this country in 2000. Since baby Bush there is a lot MORE wrong. Sigh. Bill Baka > > >> The truckers are plain dumb. >> The bus drivers are arrogant. >> Small difference but don't get your bike (or small car) in their way. >> Bill Baka >>> >>> >>> >>>> some very bad manners. >>>> Bill Baka >>> >       Date: 27 Apr 2007 10:59:22 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <1177686407.780476.255040@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Professional drivers _should_ have a higher level of skill. Some do > not. Like the arse driving a cab-trailer type gravel truck that brush passed me while blowing the airhorn calling it a curtesy honk?     Date: 26 Apr 2007 20:35:04 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 26, 6:22 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1177622058.487521.125...@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something > > about your behavior that you could change? > > I could ride on sidewalks. Perhaps that is what you do? Nope. I ride roads. > I could stop riding, or ride a whole lot less so I encounter fewer one > percenters. Is that what you do Frank? just ride a hand full of miles a > year? Nope. My typical year is 2000 to 2500 miles, admittedly decreasing somewhat as I age. I hit 5000 in 2003. Not as many as some, of course, but fairly respectable, I think, for my age. > Or maybe I can take a submissive role and just let the motorist do what > ever he wants and turn my safety over to them? Just move over to the > side when one comes near? Is that what you do Frank? Nope. I take the lane anytime I judge it's too narrow to share. > I could just back down to whomever is aggressive towards me. Be > submissive, probably won't get far like that and if past experience > shows anything they'll just take more and more. Is that what you do, > Frank? Nope. In fact, I've given quick lectures to quite a few motorists over the years - and they weren't friendly lectures. Admittedly, I doubt most had much lasting educational effect, but trust me, I've got no reputation for submissiveness. > So long as I use a bicycle as vehicle and not a toy, there will people > who are angered just because I am there. Oh, I don't doubt that. But I am curious what it is that triggers the near-attacks you claim to have. I know that the reaction I use for verbally abusive motorists is usually something like just slowly shaking my head. The body language conveys "I can't believe you're that dumb." The reaction I use when I'm taking a lane and someone blows a horn is either the same, or to sit up, look back, and give a one-hand, palm up expression of "What?? What do you want me to do?? I'm riding where I'm supposed to!" With both of those, I'm trying to maintain an image of superiority. It seems to work. I can see that someone who instead waved single fingers, yelled curses, etc. would get a different reaction. I'm not saying that's what you do, but I wonder what the difference is. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:16:21 From: nash Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes I know that the reaction I use for verbally abusive motorists is usually something like just slowly shaking my head. The body language conveys "I can't believe you're that dumb." The reaction I use when I'm taking a lane and someone blows a horn is either the same, or to sit up, look back, and give a one-hand, palm up expression of "What?? What do you want me to do?? I'm riding where I'm supposed to!" With both of those, I'm trying to maintain an image of superiority. It seems to work. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried this yesterday when being buzzed by a semi pulling two trailers. Did not work at all he tried to kill me again and then when I caught up told me to stay out of the way. I was already a block ahead and over to the right and he did it again. Then he was stuck behind a 100 cars turning left at the next light. I could have been killed because he does not know how to time lights. Geez! A professional driver. I am staying off that road now at that time of day. He was out to scare a cyclist to death just because I could get through traffic alot better even with his dangerous tactics. I rode around one car because they got stuck prematurely turning into my lane. That really ticked him off I guess because I was never in his way. He had to sit at the next light for probably three cycles or more. Blessed are the meek for the shall inherit the world. But you have to live long enough to collect.         Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:46:04 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes nash wrote: > I tried this yesterday when being buzzed by a semi pulling two trailers. > Did not work at all he tried to kill me again and then when I caught up told > me to stay out of the way. I was already a block ahead and over to the > right and he did it again. Then he was stuck behind a 100 cars turning left > at the next light. > I could have been killed because he does not know how to time lights. Geez! > A professional driver. I am staying off that road now at that time of day. > He was out to scare a cyclist to death just because I could get through > traffic alot better even with his dangerous tactics. I rode around one car > because they got stuck prematurely turning into my lane. That really ticked > him off I guess because I was never in his way. He had to sit at the next > light for probably three cycles or more. > Blessed are the meek for the shall inherit the world. But you have to live > long enough to collect. > > This kind of driver is exactly the reason I ride the wrong way on a semi clogged road. There are plenty of assholes driving 80,000 pounds and all you can do is take their number and try to get DOT to do something about them. Of course if you were really, really pissed you could jump onto the truck and drag him out of the cab and beat the crap out of him. Just hope he isn't a 300 pound 'Bubba'. SUVs are kind of tolerable, but the semi drivers act like they are above the law around the roads I drive. With a 65 MPH speed limit and no bike lanes or cops I am NOT going to try to take the lane. Your last line about the meek may be more true than you want to know. I ride to survive, not to make a passing (rare, very rare) cop happy. Bill Baka           Date: 28 Apr 2007 02:02:01 From: nash Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Your last line about the meek may be more true than you want to know. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you mean like why would we want it in the first place. Unless yu can picture your sister beating up an angry 250lb driver I do not think so on your first solution there bubba. I wanted him to make the mistakes. I was thinking riding home today how excellent it would be to video your trips each time just in case you needed proof for the cops. Any video cams suit that problem for a helmut maybe? I would need 30 minutes movie time. Even if it was there for show I bet it would smarten them up a bit the next time they saw a cyclist after I explain what it is.           Date: 27 Apr 2007 18:53:32 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <0XvYh.3684$H_.231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >, Bill wrote: > This kind of driver is exactly the reason I ride the wrong way on a semi > clogged road. Why mess up traffic flow because you are affraid? Just ride on the sidewalk or in the grass off the roadway, the semi driver won't get you there. Besides, even seeing him coming at you, what are you going to do with even less reaction time if he intends to kill you? Smash into the high curb and get run over?             Date: 28 Apr 2007 00:20:14 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Brent P wrote: > In article <0XvYh.3684$H_.231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: > >> This kind of driver is exactly the reason I ride the wrong way on a semi >> clogged road. > > Why mess up traffic flow because you are affraid? Just ride on the > sidewalk or in the grass off the roadway, the semi driver won't get you > there. Besides, even seeing him coming at you, what are you going to do > with even less reaction time if he intends to kill you? Smash into the > high curb and get run over? > > > As I have mentioned many times before this is a country road with no bike lanes and no (WTF?) sidewalks. There are only 2 lanes with stripes and about 2 INCHES of pavement, then either thistles or a ditch. No curbs either, so apparently you don't get the point of riding on an undeveloped country road where the main traffic is to the gravel quarry. You must live way too far in the city to understand what an old country road full of semis means to someone on a bicycle. FWIW, I am not afraid of anything other than a lingering death in an old folks 'rest' home. Better to get flattened fast by a semi than years in a wheelchair and diapers. Your argument about reaction time doesn't hold up since I can see a line of semis coming for over a mile so I can size up the situation well in advance. Curbs, grass??? ROTFLMAO. Bill               Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:48:10 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <2rwYh.12834$YL5.10600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >, Bill wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <0XvYh.3684$H_.231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: >> >>> This kind of driver is exactly the reason I ride the wrong way on a semi >>> clogged road. >> >> Why mess up traffic flow because you are affraid? Just ride on the >> sidewalk or in the grass off the roadway, the semi driver won't get you >> there. Besides, even seeing him coming at you, what are you going to do >> with even less reaction time if he intends to kill you? Smash into the >> high curb and get run over? > As I have mentioned many times before this is a country road with no > bike lanes and no (WTF?) sidewalks. Bike lanes encourage wrong way riding and other bad habbits of bicyclist, ped, and motorist. > There are only 2 lanes with stripes > and about 2 INCHES of pavement, then either thistles or a ditch. I ride such roads frequently. But I take my proper place on the road. > No > curbs either, so apparently you don't get the point of riding on an > undeveloped country road where the main traffic is to the gravel quarry. I ride such two lanes often, roads that were never improved despite traffic volumes having grown well beyond what was ever intended. > You must live way too far in the city to understand what an old country > road full of semis means to someone on a bicycle. prehaps you saw my post about the 'curtesy honk' gravel truck driver? That occured on one of the crowded two lane roads I mention above. > FWIW, I am not afraid of anything other than a lingering death in an old > folks 'rest' home. Better to get flattened fast by a semi than years in > a wheelchair and diapers. Keep riding wrong way and you'll get flattened sooner than riding properly. Hit-from-behind is one of the lowest types of motor-vehicle and bicycle collision. The highest type is ride outs from off the roadway. Somewhere inbetween is idiotcy like wrong way riding. google crash type manual for bicyclists. Anyway, your intersections may be spread out, but as a wrong way you are just asking to get to hit at one. > Your argument about reaction time doesn't hold up since I can see a line > of semis coming for over a mile so I can size up the situation well in > advance. So invest in a rear view mirror. > Curbs, grass??? ROTFLMAO. So what are going to do wrong way? ride full speed into the ditch?                 Date: 27 Apr 2007 19:31:52 From: Fred G. Mackey Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Brent P wrote: > In article <2rwYh.12834$YL5.10600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: > > >>As I have mentioned many times before this is a country road with no >>bike lanes and no (WTF?) sidewalks. > > > Bike lanes encourage wrong way riding Around here, there are bike lanes on both sides of the roads, so I don't see how they encourage wrong way riding. > and other bad habbits of > bicyclist, ped, and motorist. How so? peds are still supposed to use the sidewalks.                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:25:23 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <C_ednckXG8ojLK_bnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com >, Fred G. Mackey wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <2rwYh.12834$YL5.10600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: >> > >> >>>As I have mentioned many times before this is a country road with no >>>bike lanes and no (WTF?) sidewalks. >> >> >> Bike lanes encourage wrong way riding > > Around here, there are bike lanes on both sides of the roads, so I don't > see how they encourage wrong way riding. Because they are marked as a bike space. I've encountered a goodly number of wrong ways in bike lanes. My favorite are the people with the rascal scooters who use the bike lane in whatever direction they please. > > and other bad habbits of >> bicyclist, ped, and motorist. > How so? peds are still supposed to use the sidewalks. You've never seen peds walking in the roadway?                 Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:59:12 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Brent P wrote: > In article <2rwYh.12834$YL5.10600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <0XvYh.3684$H_.231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: >>> >>>> This kind of driver is exactly the reason I ride the wrong way on a semi >>>> clogged road. >>> Why mess up traffic flow because you are affraid? Just ride on the >>> sidewalk or in the grass off the roadway, the semi driver won't get you >>> there. Besides, even seeing him coming at you, what are you going to do >>> with even less reaction time if he intends to kill you? Smash into the >>> high curb and get run over? > >> As I have mentioned many times before this is a country road with no >> bike lanes and no (WTF?) sidewalks. > > Bike lanes encourage wrong way riding and other bad habbits of > bicyclist, ped, and motorist. Tell that to the county board members who decided the stripe and bike lane only needed to be on one side of the road. > >> There are only 2 lanes with stripes >> and about 2 INCHES of pavement, then either thistles or a ditch. > > I ride such roads frequently. But I take my proper place on the road. Your proper place would be flat, then 6 feet under, on the road I am talking about. > >> No >> curbs either, so apparently you don't get the point of riding on an >> undeveloped country road where the main traffic is to the gravel quarry. > > I ride such two lanes often, roads that were never improved despite > traffic volumes having grown well beyond what was ever intended. With 6 semis in a row tailgating at 65 MPH? Sure you do. > >> You must live way too far in the city to understand what an old country >> road full of semis means to someone on a bicycle. > > prehaps you saw my post about the 'curtesy honk' gravel truck driver? > That occured on one of the crowded two lane roads I mention above. > >> FWIW, I am not afraid of anything other than a lingering death in an old >> folks 'rest' home. Better to get flattened fast by a semi than years in >> a wheelchair and diapers. > > Keep riding wrong way and you'll get flattened sooner than riding properly. 58 and counting. > > Hit-from-behind is one of the lowest types of motor-vehicle and > bicycle collision. The highest type is ride outs from off the roadway. > Somewhere inbetween is idiotcy like wrong way riding. google crash type > manual for bicyclists. Anyway, your intersections may be spread out, > but as a wrong way you are just asking to get to hit at one. > >> Your argument about reaction time doesn't hold up since I can see a line >> of semis coming for over a mile so I can size up the situation well in >> advance. > > So invest in a rear view mirror. > >> Curbs, grass??? ROTFLMAO. > > So what are going to do wrong way? ride full speed into the ditch? > If I see a convoy headed my way I can make a planned stop and then dismount and wait. Bill (not racing, just riding) Baka                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:23:41 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <QTxYh.12873$YL5.9204@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >, Bill wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <2rwYh.12834$YL5.10600@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: >>> Brent P wrote: >>>> In article <0XvYh.3684$H_.231@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, Bill wrote: >>>> >>>>> This kind of driver is exactly the reason I ride the wrong way on a semi >>>>> clogged road. >>>> Why mess up traffic flow because you are affraid? Just ride on the >>>> sidewalk or in the grass off the roadway, the semi driver won't get you >>>> there. Besides, even seeing him coming at you, what are you going to do >>>> with even less reaction time if he intends to kill you? Smash into the >>>> high curb and get run over? >> >>> As I have mentioned many times before this is a country road with no >>> bike lanes and no (WTF?) sidewalks. >> Bike lanes encourage wrong way riding and other bad habbits of >> bicyclist, ped, and motorist. > Tell that to the county board members who decided the stripe and bike > lane only needed to be on one side of the road. Nice story morph. However piss poor bike lane designs being common are yet another problem. Even ideal bike lanes have severe problems. >>> There are only 2 lanes with stripes >>> and about 2 INCHES of pavement, then either thistles or a ditch. >> I ride such roads frequently. But I take my proper place on the road. > Your proper place would be flat, then 6 feet under, on the road I am > talking about. Yet your wrong way riding, which is actually far more dangerous, keeps you alive... bullshit. >>> No >>> curbs either, so apparently you don't get the point of riding on an >>> undeveloped country road where the main traffic is to the gravel quarry. >> I ride such two lanes often, roads that were never improved despite >> traffic volumes having grown well beyond what was ever intended. > With 6 semis in a row tailgating at 65 MPH? Sure you do. If the road is as poor as you say, semi's aren't doing 65mph. I know the ones I get stuck behind when driving can barely manage 5mph under the posted limit. It's either one or the other... Anyway, if they are really 6 in a row tailgating on a narrow two lane road at 65mph... your wrong way riding isn't going to save you. If you're going to stop and leave the roadway when you see one, you could ride the right way with a rear view mirror and do the same. >>> You must live way too far in the city to understand what an old country >>> road full of semis means to someone on a bicycle. >> prehaps you saw my post about the 'curtesy honk' gravel truck driver? >> That occured on one of the crowded two lane roads I mention above. I note the lack of reply. >>> FWIW, I am not afraid of anything other than a lingering death in an old >>> folks 'rest' home. Better to get flattened fast by a semi than years in >>> a wheelchair and diapers. >> Keep riding wrong way and you'll get flattened sooner than riding properly. > 58 and counting. _sooner_ >> Hit-from-behind is one of the lowest types of motor-vehicle and >> bicycle collision. The highest type is ride outs from off the roadway. >> Somewhere inbetween is idiotcy like wrong way riding. google crash type >> manual for bicyclists. Anyway, your intersections may be spread out, >> but as a wrong way you are just asking to get to hit at one. Lack of reply noted. >>> Your argument about reaction time doesn't hold up since I can see a line >>> of semis coming for over a mile so I can size up the situation well in >>> advance. >> So invest in a rear view mirror. Lack of reply noted. >>> Curbs, grass??? ROTFLMAO. >> So what are going to do wrong way? ride full speed into the ditch? > If I see a convoy headed my way I can make a planned stop and then > dismount and wait. And you can't do with a rear view mirror because why?                     Date: 28 Apr 2007 14:16:34 From: nash Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Yet your wrong way riding, which is actually far more dangerous, keeps you alive... bullshit. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think Bill would do anything intentionally to kill himself so why the bluster. When I was a kid the road had no sidewalks and was not well repaired but pedestrians knew enough to face traffic. That is all he is doing. I'll bet if a pedestrian was crazy enough to go there he would do the same thing, right? It is all relative anyway.                       Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:14:36 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes nash wrote: > Yet your wrong way riding, which is actually far more dangerous, keeps you > alive... bullshit. > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > I do not think Bill would do anything intentionally to kill himself so > why the bluster. True. > When I was a kid the road had no sidewalks and was not well repaired but > pedestrians knew enough to face traffic. My sister taught me that way back in 1952 while walking on a country road. There were times when we would have to step off into the bushes for safety. 55 years later both she and I are still practicing 'survival' tactics and there are still plenty of drivers I want nothing to do with, especially behind me. That is all he is doing. > I'll bet if a pedestrian was crazy enough to go there he would do the > same thing, right? I have walked on that road and if I right way walk I can hear something coming, stop, look, and if need be, step off the road. It is a bit more difficult to do that on a bike, hence the wrong way ride on the wrong planned road. > It is all relative anyway. > > I'm relatively alive, and some self righteous "Take the lane" types might not be if they try to take the lane from a convoy of semis. That's all. Bill Baka         Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:34:25 From: Steve Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message news:VAnYh.133822$DE1.26120@pd7urf2no... >I know that the reaction I use for verbally abusive motorists is > usually something like just slowly shaking my head. The body language > conveys "I can't believe you're that dumb." The reaction I use when > I'm taking a lane and someone blows a horn is either the same, or to > sit up, look back, and give a one-hand, palm up expression of "What?? > What do you want me to do?? I'm riding where I'm supposed to!" With > both of those, I'm trying to maintain an image of superiority. It > seems to work. > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > I tried this yesterday when being buzzed by a semi pulling two trailers. > Did not work at all he tried to kill me again and then when I caught up > told me to stay out of the way. I was already a block ahead and over to > the right and he did it again. Then he was stuck behind a 100 cars > turning left at the next light. > I could have been killed because he does not know how to time lights. > Geez! A professional driver. I am staying off that road now at that time > of day. He was out to scare a cyclist to death just because I could get > through traffic alot better even with his dangerous tactics. I rode > around one car because they got stuck prematurely turning into my lane. > That really ticked him off I guess because I was never in his way. He had > to sit at the next light for probably three cycles or more. > Blessed are the meek for the shall inherit the world. But you have to > live long enough to collect. At least in the US you can write down the numbers and give him some grief that way. Its more effective than many realize. A while back I was being seriously tailgated by a armored car. Daughter took a couple of pictures with her cellphone camera. When he made and illegal and dangerous passing move (forced the car ahead of me into the left turn lane). I got his numbers, including "call this number if I am driving badly". When I called the company back a week later to follow up, they were most emphatic that he no longer worked there.           Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:47:14 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Steve wrote: > > At least in the US you can write down the numbers and give him some grief > that way. Its more effective than many realize. > > A while back I was being seriously tailgated by a armored car. Daughter > took a couple of pictures with her cellphone camera. When he made and > illegal and dangerous passing move (forced the car ahead of me into the left > turn lane). I got his numbers, including "call this number if I am driving > badly". When I called the company back a week later to follow up, they were > most emphatic that he no longer worked there. > > That's a double '2 points'. Right on. Bill Baka           Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:03:38 From: nash Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes "Steve" <nobodyhere@example.com > wrote in message news:RRnYh.81036$_c5.52798@attbi_s22... > > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message > news:VAnYh.133822$DE1.26120@pd7urf2no... >>I know that the reaction I use for verbally abusive motorists is >> usually something like just slowly shaking my head. The body language >> conveys "I can't believe you're that dumb." The reaction I use when >> I'm taking a lane and someone blows a horn is either the same, or to >> sit up, look back, and give a one-hand, palm up expression of "What?? >> What do you want me to do?? I'm riding where I'm supposed to!" With >> both of those, I'm trying to maintain an image of superiority. It >> seems to work. >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I tried this yesterday when being buzzed by a semi pulling two trailers. >> Did not work at all he tried to kill me again and then when I caught up >> told me to stay out of the way. I was already a block ahead and over to >> the right and he did it again. Then he was stuck behind a 100 cars >> turning left at the next light. >> I could have been killed because he does not know how to time lights. >> Geez! A professional driver. I am staying off that road now at that time >> of day. He was out to scare a cyclist to death just because I could get >> through traffic alot better even with his dangerous tactics. I rode >> around one car because they got stuck prematurely turning into my lane. >> That really ticked him off I guess because I was never in his way. He >> had to sit at the next light for probably three cycles or more. >> Blessed are the meek for the shall inherit the world. But you have to >> live long enough to collect. > > At least in the US you can write down the numbers and give him some grief > that way. Its more effective than many realize. > > A while back I was being seriously tailgated by a armored car. Daughter > took a couple of pictures with her cellphone camera. When he made and > illegal and dangerous passing move (forced the car ahead of me into the > left turn lane). I got his numbers, including "call this number if I am > driving badly". When I called the company back a week later to follow up, > they were most emphatic that he no longer worked there. Hi Steve, I did get his number as he was sitting in the long line up. And he knew it. When I told the police they said just be thankful you are alive. She could not understand why that pissed me off. They put out a bulletin on the guy but it was 30 minutes too late as I was on a long ride. To tell you the truth since he was in such a big hurry I wanted to sit in front of him and not let him move which I could easily do. There were 100's of witnesses so what could he do. I would have done that last year for sure. But today I had a couple dogs that were depending on me coming home.             Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:50:08 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes nash wrote: > Hi Steve, > I did get his number as he was sitting in the long line up. And he knew > it. > When I told the police they said just be thankful you are alive. > She could not understand why that pissed me off. > They put out a bulletin on the guy but it was 30 minutes too late as I was > on a long ride. It doesn't sound as if the police were that enthusiastic about catching him. Get yourself killed and they will go nuts for justice just to get off the television news and prove they can get their man. > To tell you the truth since he was in such a big hurry I wanted to sit in > front of him and not let him move which I could easily do. There were 100's > of witnesses so what could he do. I would have done that last year for > sure. But today I had a couple dogs that were depending on me coming home. > > Some (most?) of them do get paid by the load and usually are in a bit of a hurry, but I can find no excuse for assholes driving 40 ton monsters that way. Bill Baka       Date: 26 Apr 2007 23:02:02 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <1177644904.479124.319400@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 26, 6:22 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> I could just back down to whomever is aggressive towards me. Be >> submissive, probably won't get far like that and if past experience >> shows anything they'll just take more and more. Is that what you do, >> Frank? > Nope. In fact, I've given quick lectures to quite a few motorists > over the years - and they weren't friendly lectures. Admittedly, I > doubt most had much lasting educational effect, but trust me, I've got > no reputation for submissiveness. So have I. Just as recently as a couple weeks ago when some woman sucking on slurpy nearly hit me... so I gave her a talking to when I caught up with her a mile and half later. >> So long as I use a bicycle as vehicle and not a toy, there will people >> who are angered just because I am there. > Oh, I don't doubt that. But I am curious what it is that triggers the > near-attacks you claim to have. Some me being on the road, others me not being submissive. those are the two causes. > I know that the reaction I use for verbally abusive motorists is > usually something like just slowly shaking my head. The body language > conveys "I can't believe you're that dumb." And that is exactly the sort of thing that set off the driver of the black audi from brush passing and going on to stopping and then trying to hurt me with car. > The reaction I use when > I'm taking a lane and someone blows a horn is either the same, or to > sit up, look back, and give a one-hand, palm up expression of "What?? > What do you want me to do?? I'm riding where I'm supposed to!" With > both of those, I'm trying to maintain an image of superiority. It > seems to work. That sort of thing would cause some drivers around here to flip out. When they've honked, they are usually already angry. How do I know this? Because I've done similiar things. I used to point down at the road to the lane location I was in to state I was where I belonged. > I can see that someone who instead waved single fingers, yelled > curses, etc. would get a different reaction. I'm not saying that's > what you do, but I wonder what the difference is. Besides what you do I will yell things like 'green light' or 'accelerate' when I am behind some sloth that isn't clearing an intersection in a timely manner. (I don't like spending multiple red light cycles waiting any more riding a bicycle than I do driving a car.) That's gotten a finger or something yelled back. But they usually don't do anything unless I move into the left lane to pass them, and with that it doesn't matter if I said anything or not. I found silently just moving to pass them is about the same. If you do all the things you just said you do, you should have a run in like those I described at a rate of 1 per year. Other confrontations of a much lesser nature, usually just verbal or a middle finger every 2nd to 3rd day. Increased rates in march,april,may, late october,and novemember. Decreased rates in august, september, and early october. I've never had a problem in dec,jan,feb. But I don't ride so much in those months. My guess is that drivers aren't used to bicyclists in the spring, as more and more are on the roads the drivers get more hostile until they 'break in' around june. Then they get used to it and that lasts until mid october. Then it's more like 'why the hell are you still out here'... in the winter they probably take pity... I dunno. Then early march is usually ok, but it quickly gets worse.       Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:56:36 From: BrianNZ Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > I can see that someone who instead waved single fingers, yelled > curses, etc. would get a different reaction. I'm not saying that's > what you do, but I wonder what the difference is. > > - Frank Krygowski > Now that you mention that.....I am one of those motorists who stopped for a conversation after passing a couple of bicycles riding two abreast. I saw them, I saw no-one was coming in the oncoming lane, so I passed them wide with the tyres hitting the cats-eye's on the road. We are 'keep left' and it was the left tyres on the centreline so there was shitloads of room. I look in the mirror and there's one of the Tour de France wannabes giving me the finger.....so I stopped and got out of the car. They stopped, had a quick chat, then carried on towards me. I asked what the problem was and Mr. Finger started yelling (I always find it amusing when someone loses the plot) that I should have been in the other lane when I passed and he was sick of being passed closely by cars. I pointed out that I was in the other lane with my left tyres on the centreline, was nowhere near him and maybe they could drop to single file when they heard a car coming, for safety sake if he's that worried about it.....Well, that didn't go down too well with 'I have the right blah, blah, blah......' and puffed up chest. So I went with the 'whatever' and got back in the car commenting that maybe he should just tone down the fingers, as some may take offence. Two days later I saw the same guy but this time I was on my motorbike, so I bombed him as close as possible at speed and put him in the ditch! Iv'e seen him a couple of times since, both in the ute and on the bike and he hasn't raised a finger...... Moral of the story....you might get away with it on the day, but people remember and revenge is sweet. But note, this is not usual policy for me as I ride a bicycle as well! Judge people by their actions.     Date: 26 Apr 2007 14:14:18 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 26, 12:18 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1177601326.278879.117...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >> It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and > >> not need it than to need a gun and not have it. > > > Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are > > something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family > > member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so > > simple. > > If you believe the department of made up statistics and odds. Kellermann, A. et. al. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder. I don't know if it's precisely accurate, but It's not made up. What have you got that says otherwise? > > In real life, the guy with the gun isn't a tough athlete who can whip > > out his piece and blow away the bad guys driving toward him at high > > speed. > > The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing > someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars > and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't > have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in > good physical shape one-on-one. I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them. It seems a bit crude to me. Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something about your behavior that you could change? - Frank Krygowski       Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:35:41 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <1177622058.487521.125780@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com >, <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 26, 12:18 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: >> In article <1177601326.278879.117...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and >> >> not need it than to need a gun and not have it. >> >> > Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are >> > something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family >> > member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so >> > simple. >> >> If you believe the department of made up statistics and odds. > >Kellermann, A. et. al. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm >Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. >314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) A gun kept in the home is 43 >times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than >an intruder. > >I don't know if it's precisely accurate, but It's not made up. What >have you got that says otherwise? There's been whole studies on the problems with the Kellerman study. Some of the highlights: 1) Suicide accounts for most of the killings of members of the household. Don't kill yourself, you've eliminated most of the "peril". 2) Cases where intruders decided to be elsewhere when a gun was pointed at them weren't counted as "protection". 3) It was a case-control study, with all the issues that entails. >> The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing >> someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars >> and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't >> have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in >> good physical shape one-on-one. > >I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways >of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them. >It seems a bit crude to me. Crude people sometimes require crude responses. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.         Date: 27 Apr 2007 17:06:15 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <1177622058.487521.125780@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote: <forgot who I snipped >;<). >>> The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing >>> someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars >>> and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't >>> have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in >>> good physical shape one-on-one. >> I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways >> of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them. >> It seems a bit crude to me. > > Crude people sometimes require crude responses. It's at this point where I would encourage riders to take at least a basic self defense or Karate class in case a bully gets out and doesn't back down. Don't go for a belt, but do get the moves to put down an aggressive idiot if need be. I took a fair number of classes in the 1960's after my father gave me the Judo training at home, and even though I have only had to use it a few times, it stops ***MOST*** aggressors in their tracks. My sister took a womens' self defense class and they pointed out that rather than risk a fist getting broken to just use her elbow (strongest point on the upper body) or a flat hand punch. Just don't get too cocky and think you are going to take on a pick me up truck full of drunk red necks. Be safe. Bill Baka           Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:52:59 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <KfwYh.1149$HX7.1080@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >> In article <1177622058.487521.125780@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote: ><forgot who I snipped>;<). >>>> The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing >>>> someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars >>>> and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't >>>> have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in >>>> good physical shape one-on-one. >>> I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways >>> of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them. >>> It seems a bit crude to me. >> >> Crude people sometimes require crude responses. > >It's at this point where I would encourage riders to take at least a >basic self defense or Karate class in case a bully gets out and doesn't >back down. The problem is that you have to get _really good_ at unarmed self defense in order to be able to beat someone who is well out of your weight class and attacking you. Even assuming he is unarmed. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.             Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:32:03 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <KfwYh.1149$HX7.1080@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> Matthew T. Russotto wrote: >>> In article <1177622058.487521.125780@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote: >> <forgot who I snipped>;<). >>>>> The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing >>>>> someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars >>>>> and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't >>>>> have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in >>>>> good physical shape one-on-one. >>>> I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways >>>> of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them. >>>> It seems a bit crude to me. >>> Crude people sometimes require crude responses. >> It's at this point where I would encourage riders to take at least a >> basic self defense or Karate class in case a bully gets out and doesn't >> back down. > > The problem is that you have to get _really good_ at unarmed self > defense in order to be able to beat someone who is well out of your > weight class and attacking you. Even assuming he is unarmed. Correct, but a well placed side kick to the knee causing it to blow out will stop just about any bully. You just have to not miss. Considering this, avoidance is indeed the best policy. Bill Baka       Date: 26 Apr 2007 18:27:29 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On 26 Apr 2007 14:14:18 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Apr 26, 12:18 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: >> In article <1177601326.278879.117...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and >> >> not need it than to need a gun and not have it. >> >> > Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are >> > something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family >> > member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so >> > simple. >> >> If you believe the department of made up statistics and odds. > >Kellermann, A. et. al. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm >Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. >314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) A gun kept in the home is 43 >times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than >an intruder. Utter bullshit. Often cited by anti-gunners, totally meaningless fake statistics, thoroughly debunked and discredited. "all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983" - a tiny little micro-cosm, unrepresentative of anything. The classic case of three bling men feeling the parts of an elephant and having no clue what it is. It takes NO ACCOUNT of the differences in society, culture, economics, etc etc in that small area vs the rest of the country. "A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period," - that's 123 / year, out of 30,000 / year in the country as a whole. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml "The Fallacy of '43 to 1' The all-time favorite statistic of the gun-prohibition lobby. By Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute January 31, 2001 11:10 a.m. Perhaps the most enduring factoid of the gun prohibition movement is that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal. This "43 times" figure is the all-time favorite factoid of the gun-prohibition lobby. It's not really true, but it does tell us a lot about the gun-prohibition mindset" "Notably, Japan, which prohibits handguns and rifles entirely, and regulates long guns very severely, has a suicide rate of more than twice the U.S. level." Further, it counts only DEAD criminals as 'self defenseive use of a gun'. Those merely wounded ? Not counted. Those scared away ? Not counted. Non-firing dfenseive display ? Not counted. Only if you no only SHOT the bad guy, but KILLED him, do they count it as a 'defensive use of a gun'. IOW - utter bullshit. http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html?nh=25&rf=0&ws=0&ty0=w&tx0=kellerman&fl0=&col=website&col=abstract&col=series&op0=%2B&tx1=ICPSR&op1=%2B&fl1=archive%3A&ty1=w&tx2=restricted&op2=-&fl2=availability%3A&ty2=w aka http://tinyurl.com/y2mcd2 "Additional analysis of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset shows that just over 4½ percent of all homicides, in the three counties Kellermann chose to study, involved victims being killed with a gun kept in their own home (see derivation). This supports the conclusion that people murdered with a gun kept in their own home are a small minority of all homicides, precisely the opposite of what an uncritical reader of Kellermann's study would likely conclude." >I don't know if it's precisely accurate, but It's not made up. What >have you got that says otherwise? Read the above. >I'd hope that, after all these millions of years, we could invent ways >of dealing with cowardly bullies other than threatening to kill them. >It seems a bit crude to me. When they are threatening to kill you or seriously injure you or others ( which is the only time shooting them is justified ), you deal with them as needed. If they happen to be younger, stronger, more numerous, armed, etc, that does not obligate you to give in to them, nor to die. > >Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something >about your behavior that you could change? > >- Frank Krygowski -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/       Date: 26 Apr 2007 17:22:02 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <1177622058.487521.125780@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > Again, I don't have the problems you have, Maybe there's something > about your behavior that you could change? I could ride on sidewalks. Perhaps that is what you do? Just avoid interaction. Of course that's very slow and has it's own dangers. I could stop riding, or ride a whole lot less so I encounter fewer one percenters. Is that what you do Frank? just ride a hand full of miles a year? Or maybe I can take a submissive role and just let the motorist do what ever he wants and turn my safety over to them? Just move over to the side when one comes near? Is that what you do Frank? Just get off the road each time one comes near? I could just back down to whomever is aggressive towards me. Be submissive, probably won't get far like that and if past experience shows anything they'll just take more and more. Is that what you do, Frank? Appease the aggressive motorists? So long as I use a bicycle as vehicle and not a toy, there will people who are angered just because I am there. There is nothing I can do about them. Equally I am not going to become submissive, because that only encourages and rewards the poor behavior. And I sure the hell am not going to give up riding. Nor am I going to ride so slow that I won't be passing motor vehicles fair and square either.         Date: 27 Apr 2007 03:31:48 From: Arif Khokar Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes [leaving group distribution intact] Brent P wrote: > So long as I use a bicycle as vehicle and not a toy, there will people > who are angered just because I am there. There is nothing I can do > about them. Equally I am not going to become submissive, because that > only encourages and rewards the poor behavior. And I sure the hell am > not going to give up riding. Nor am I going to ride so slow that I > won't be passing motor vehicles fair and square either. I believe a lot of the problems you encounter has to do with where you ride. Since you're in (or near) a major metropolitan area, you're bound to encounter more problems than I would given that I ride in a rather small town where lots of people ride probably due to population and traffic volume alone. I have had drivers shout at me and brush-pass me, but I haven't had anything thrown at me as of yet. And I certainly am not submissive (e. g., if I hear a car horn behind me while I'm riding in the right tire track, I immediately take the lane.).           Date: 26 Apr 2007 22:42:02 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <E8eYh.7329$B25.4173@news01.roc.ny >, Arif Khokar wrote: > I believe a lot of the problems you encounter has to do with where you > ride. Since you're in (or near) a major metropolitan area, you're bound > to encounter more problems than I would given that I ride in a rather > small town where lots of people ride probably due to population and > traffic volume alone. Of course. I should really count how many drivers I encounter in a single ride. I am sure it can be over a 100 for a 20 mile round trip. That's just a meger 5 per mile and I have to deal with more than that at most stop lights and the stop lights are often only a half mile apart... It's pretty easy for me to encounter a lot of one percenters. > I have had drivers shout at me and brush-pass me, but I haven't had > anything thrown at me as of yet. And I certainly am not submissive (e. > g., if I hear a car horn behind me while I'm riding in the right tire > track, I immediately take the lane.). Same here. If they honk, they just told me they are incompetent and that I need to have more space, not less.     Date: 26 Apr 2007 08:28:46 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 26, 6:37 am, David Steuber <d...@david-steuber.com > wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > > > Why are you so afraid? Why the paranoia?? > > It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and > not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so simple. > > It would not bother me at all to haul around a three pound lump of > iron for forty years and never need to so much as show that I have > it. It would bother me to find myself in a situation where having > that three pound lump of iron could help me stay alive or hold onto my > property. I would be incensed if I did not have that three pound lump > of iron in that situation. That justification might apply equally well to cycling in a kevlar vest. Sorry, but in my experience, and going by the data, the desire to carry a gun is usually based on confusing life with movies. Real life isn't much like an action flick. In real life, the guy with the gun isn't a tough athlete who can whip out his piece and blow away the bad guys driving toward him at high speed. The guy with the gun is much more often a clumsy drunk who gets aggressive toward his friends and family. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:35:48 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > Sorry, but in my experience, and going by the data, the desire to > carry a gun is usually based on confusing life with movies. Real life > isn't much like an action flick. Then don't carry a gun. Simple, no? And where did you get this idea from anyway? Richard Donner? > In real life, the guy with the gun isn't a tough athlete who can whip > out his piece and blow away the bad guys driving toward him at high > speed. The guy with the gun is much more often a clumsy drunk who > gets aggressive toward his friends and family. I would love to see a citation for this. I think you have a somewhat warped view of people with guns. I certainly don't know anyone who would seriously entertain the idea of shooting from a moving vehicle of any kind. -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling       Date: 26 Apr 2007 17:30:05 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 26, 6:37 am, David Steuber <d...@david-steuber.com> wrote: >> frkry...@gmail.com writes: >>> Why are you so afraid? Why the paranoia?? >> It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and >> not need it than to need a gun and not have it. True. Even more true if you walk off road and see a rattlesnake, (sometimes of the human variety). > > Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are > something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family > member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so > simple. That's a different case than carrying it in your pants. Some people leave their guns on display (loaded?) in the living room. Sure doesn't help when the bad guy is in the living room and you are in bed. > >> It would not bother me at all to haul around a three pound lump of >> iron for forty years and never need to so much as show that I have >> it. It would bother me to find myself in a situation where having >> that three pound lump of iron could help me stay alive or hold onto my >> property. I would be incensed if I did not have that three pound lump >> of iron in that situation. > > That justification might apply equally well to cycling in a kevlar > vest. > > Sorry, but in my experience, and going by the data, the desire to > carry a gun is usually based on confusing life with movies. Real life > isn't much like an action flick. > > In real life, the guy with the gun isn't a tough athlete who can whip > out his piece and blow away the bad guys driving toward him at high > speed. The guy with the gun is much more often a clumsy drunk who > gets aggressive toward his friends and family. That's a big 10-4. Around here it's a clumsy red neck drunk with a gun in his pickup, which, naturally, he drives drunk. > > - Frank Krygowski > Life just happens, and I just watch (Usually). Bill Baka       Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:18:49 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <1177601326.278879.117010@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and >> not need it than to need a gun and not have it. > > Well, maybe not. IIRC, guns kept in the home for "protection" are > something like 40 times more likely to be used for killing a family > member than for defending against an intruder. That makes it not so > simple. If you believe the department of made up statistics and odds. > Sorry, but in my experience, and going by the data, the desire to > carry a gun is usually based on confusing life with movies. Real life > isn't much like an action flick. I would simply prefer it to be legal to have the firearm such that law abiding people weren't automatically safe targets. The criminals, the nut cases, the drunks, etc, the people we have to worry about having guns aren't obeying the restrictions of when and where and how they can have one. But they know if they bring a gun somewhere illegally, they will probably be the only one who has one. > In real life, the guy with the gun isn't a tough athlete who can whip > out his piece and blow away the bad guys driving toward him at high > speed. The bad guy is usually a cowardly bulley getting his kicks by harrassing someone that appears weaker. This is why they don't get out of their cars and the few that do end up backing down when they realize that they don't have their armored protection and are now dealing with someone who is in good physical shape one-on-one. Because they are cowards, there just needs to be a credible threat. It's not even pulling out a gun. A credible threat can be just giving them a message that thousands of dollars of body damage can be done to their vehicle by a bicyclist. I think that legally being able to carry a fire arm is such a credible threat. It doesn't even require any particular person having one, just the would be bullies thinking he might have one. > The guy with the gun is much more often a clumsy drunk who > gets aggressive toward his friends and family. If we are to believe those that would have the population disarmed. Then again, the clumsy abusive drunk knows how to get a gun illegally from the guy he met at the bar.     Date: 26 Apr 2007 08:23:57 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 26, 7:04 am, David Steuber <d...@david-steuber.com > wrote: > And then what happened? Did they kick your ass, or did you ride on > away? If the former, then brandishing would certainly have dissuaded > anyone not running for a darwin award. If riding away worked, that was likely the best option. Brandishing a firearm when outnumbered will dissuade the Abercrombie punks, but will get you shot if dealing with three legitimate thugs, or even three armed rednecks with quick triggers and strong desires to stay alive. I know a bit about the latter category. In this situation I'd have tried for the ride away, and drawn if cornered. Remember, once you pull it out the game changes, and you need to be ready to pull that trigger.     Date: 24 Apr 2007 09:23:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes This an interesting way to pass a law that doesn't require them to invest any money --bike lanes would require some money-- but a law that's hardly enforceable and hardly reassuring to the public... "I wish that the road construction was more bicycle-friendly, but that's not the world we live in" Welcome to Florida Posted by: bmwbob Sunshine state, home of some obscure institution of higher (?) learning that is attempting to become a dynasty in two sports. And, the leading state in the number of car vs bicycle deaths each year. Florida just passed a law requiring cars to give bicyclists a minimum 3 feet clearance when passing. Apply this situation to just ONE bicyclist riding just to the left of the white line because (as it is on far too many roads) there is no safe ridable surface to the right of the white line. If the car must move over 3 feet to clear the left elbow of the bicyclist which is now located about 3 feet from the right side of the lane, and the car is HOW wide, will someone with a calculator, assuming a lane width of 9-10 feet maximum please tell me where that puts the left fender of the car, relative to the center line? In reality, that means that the car must remain behind the bicycle until traffic from the opposite direction clears and he can pass. Pity the fool who gets stuck behind a bike in a no passing zone, like the VERY popular River Road in Brevard county which is used by nearly every local bike club for training rides. Perspective: I am a bicyclist, riding mainly recumbent bikes for quite a few years. I rarely ride on public roads any more, preferring to load up the bike and drive to Orlando to one of the several bike trails there. Working at the Rocket Ranch, they have a ban on bikes on the main roads during the commuting hours when the right lane in the 55 mph zone is typically running 65-70 in the dark, and nearer to 80 at times during the daylight. Like several others, I wish that the road construction was more bicycle-friendly, but that's not the world we live in. Most bicycle groups down here do ride single file when on the public roads. To do otherwise is not only illegal, but VERY unwise as well. bob     Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:53:39 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: what keeps people away from riding bikes More scary stories... "At one time I lived in a fairly rural area and ran quite a bit, at times 50 - 60+ miles per week. The roads were all two lane with an unimproved shoulder - basically hard gravel with lots of rocks and bits of asphalt. I was harassed quite bit with bottles thrown from vehicles, the close brush, cars coming from behind - crossing the road and onto my shoulder to scare me, and the usual shouted inanities. I would wonder why one person, not on the road - just running, would bring out such hostility in people. I think some of it had to do with it being a rural area - the mentality of the people, and some of it was that times were different in 1980 vs 2007. I live in suburbia now but they recently built a nice park near my home and I run there on the asphalt rec path. I run the exact same thing every time which is not as interesting as picking routes on the road, but a heck of a lot safer. More importantly, all that grief is gone. All the hostility, the anger, the bitching about some schmuck. Really, you can spend your life fighting these mindless injustices or you can choose not to get into it in the first place. If bike commuting involved the experiences of your writer I think anyone doing it has screw loose. Why would you put yourself through that - how many times has this guy had an altercation? It isn't worth it." You have said in a few words WHAT KEEPS PEOPLE AWAY FROM RIDING BIKES, or any other fun activity. I'm sure though that if the authorities made an issue about it, and encouraged you to turn in the terrorists -- sorry, but that's a fitting word-- then people would come out and enjoy life. Meanwhile the terrorists are having fun. :(       Date: 25 Apr 2007 20:40:17 From: Bill Subject: Re: what keeps people away from riding bikes donquijote1954 wrote: > More scary stories... > > "At one time I lived in a fairly rural area and ran quite a bit, at > times 50 - 60+ miles per week. The roads were all two lane with an > unimproved shoulder - basically hard gravel with lots of rocks and > bits of asphalt. > > I was harassed quite bit with bottles thrown from vehicles, the close > brush, cars coming from behind - crossing the road and onto my > shoulder to scare me, and the usual shouted inanities. I would wonder > why one person, not on the road - just running, would bring out such > hostility in people. I think some of it had to do with it being a > rural area - the mentality of the people, and some of it was that > times were different in 1980 vs 2007. Why didn't you jog on the other side so you could see people coming up? It is not a hard and fast rule for pedestrians. > > I live in suburbia now but they recently built a nice park near my > home and I run there on the asphalt rec path. I run the exact same > thing every time which is not as interesting as picking routes on the > road, but a heck of a lot safer. I'm with you there. I bike to my local college's track, park the bike and run. No competition. > > More importantly, all that grief is gone. All the hostility, the > anger, the bitching about some schmuck. Really, you can spend your > life fighting these mindless injustices or you can choose not to get > into it in the first place. Ditto, The schmucks aren't worth it. > > If bike commuting involved the experiences of your writer I think > anyone doing it has screw loose. Why would you put yourself through > that - how many times has this guy had an altercation? It isn't worth > it." > > > You have said in a few words WHAT KEEPS PEOPLE AWAY FROM RIDING BIKES, > or any other fun activity. I'm sure though that if the authorities > made an issue about it, and encouraged you to turn in the terrorists -- > sorry, but that's a fitting word-- then people would come out and > enjoy life. > > Meanwhile the terrorists are having fun. :( > Well, It is the 21st century and we are all supposed to be civilized now. Yeah, right. Bill Baka     Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:03:50 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 23, 11:17 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > > As usual, I wonder what I'm doing different that makes my life so much > > more pleasant. I regularly ride to and from the inner city, and have > > done that in many, many cities. Problems are almost nonexistent. > > Some cities are more civilized than others, just like there are good > states and bad. You seem to be in one of those good cities. This city may be considered THE JUNGLE, and I haven't had major problems. Perhaps it got to do with standing your ground, or perhaps with pure luck. > Bill (not packing my rifle) Baka Digital bullets are better than loaded guns. ;)     Date: 24 Apr 2007 07:56:13 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 23, 11:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > 1) At a traffic light, I have taken > the lane and am in lead spot in the right lane. (I got there first) A > dodge neon is the next lane. Light turns green, I get off to a good > start and leave the neon sitting there. The taurus driver behind me uses > the gap I've created to pass the neon and move in the left lane. > Passenger throws a bottle at me, hitting me. I've had several objects > thrown at me from passing vehicles, but this is the only one that hit > me. Ever since I've regularly riding the bike --about a year-- I haven't had major incidents out there. Perhaps because I'm respectful (only running a few lights here and there), or perhaps because they see my bike T-shirt on, and looking --perhaps-- like a serious commuter with panniers and all. Or perhaps they sense that I'm on a mission and that I will report any aggression. Nevertheless, I KNOW it's dangerous and people don't go out and enjoy because they know it too, and I know that it only takes a car in a thousand to kill you even if 999 are OK. And I know the authorities DO NOTHING to lessen the risk and the fear, and they are the ONLY ones to blame. You are on your own. To judge the safety of the road I'd give an example or some other dangerous activity: active duty in Iraq. You are fine for so long, and then you'll get blown up. Life is fragile, you know. While warring in Iraq though may be an exercise in stupidity, SOMEONE must conquer these roads. Anyway, new recruits are needed.     Date: 24 Apr 2007 06:57:36 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes --The correct order of right of way. Pedestrians, horses and horse drawn wagons/carriage, bicycles, then motor vehicles. That's also the order in which the arrived on the scene.-- I know how much you hate to lose the SUV monopoly (with all the money it produces) but sometimes is necessary. Remember: "The more things change, etc" New Jersey's Gov. Thomas Kean says: "Using a car to get around simply isn't going to be possible." So what does a government do when faced with the need to provide transportation to new communities that lack adequate roads? Why, it does the same thing governments did when faced with the same challenge 75 and more years ago. Government's answer, then and now: trolley cars. Modern descendants of those reliable workhorses of a bygone era will meet a substantial part of the transportation needs of the new development. (The cost will be modern, too. The price tag for the transit system, which will also include buses, will be $825 million.) Afraid that technological, social and other trends are pushing the world along at excessive speed? You may gain a bit of reassurance from the realization tht trolley cars will play an important role in a gigantic development project scheduled for completion in the 21st century. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1154/is_v74/ai_4563502     Date: 23 Apr 2007 19:31:51 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 23, 1:54 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1177341409.419506.236...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > > I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all > > sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist > > friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist > > needed to have a gun. > > I've been attacked on about a half dozen occasions while riding. In > two-three of them, a firearm would have been handy in causing the > attacker to flee, rather than I being forced to flee in such a > direction that the motorist could not follow or should they have chosen > to follow. Wow. As usual, I wonder what I'm doing different that makes my life so much more pleasant. I regularly ride to and from the inner city, and have done that in many, many cities. Problems are almost nonexistent. I've had a few - not many, admittedly - incidents where I caught and reprimanded a motorist who pulled a particularly asinine trick. There was only one time when the motorist stepped out of the car in a menacing manner. When I stood my ground, he apparently decided he wasn't as strong as I am. He got back into the car and left. If I had carried a gun during my cycling, I would have carried a useless couple pounds of steel and lead many, many tens-of-thousands of miles. I don't need that. - Frank Krygowski       Date: 23 Apr 2007 20:17:26 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: <snip > > > Wow. > > As usual, I wonder what I'm doing different that makes my life so much > more pleasant. I regularly ride to and from the inner city, and have > done that in many, many cities. Problems are almost nonexistent. Some cities are more civilized than others, just like there are good states and bad. You seem to be in one of those good cities. > > I've had a few - not many, admittedly - incidents where I caught and > reprimanded a motorist who pulled a particularly asinine trick. There > was only one time when the motorist stepped out of the car in a > menacing manner. When I stood my ground, he apparently decided he > wasn't as strong as I am. He got back into the car and left. Sort of the same here, where once they get out of their steel sanctuary they have a change of heart. Way back about 20 years ago 2 drunk sailor boys ran my wife into a crash on a motorcycle track. Long story short is I stood in front of them on the pavement and kicked in the drivers door when I stood off to the side. They got out of the car and saw me standing my ground and changed their minds. 10 minutes later they came back with a big Mexican friend for a 3 on one. Again they changed their mind when my 6'8" friend stepped out from behind a bush. I didn't know little cars could burn that much rubber. I'm glad I didn't have a gun that time. It just turned into the brawl that never happened, so I guess that was a good enough outcome. > > If I had carried a gun during my cycling, I would have carried a > useless couple pounds of steel and lead many, many tens-of-thousands > of miles. I don't need that. It's all about exercise so what's a few pounds extra? > > - Frank Krygowski > Bill (not packing my rifle) Baka       Date: 23 Apr 2007 22:06:45 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <1177381911.777332.227980@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 23, 1:54 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> In article <1177341409.419506.236...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: >> > I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all >> > sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist >> > friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist >> > needed to have a gun. >> >> I've been attacked on about a half dozen occasions while riding. In >> two-three of them, a firearm would have been handy in causing the >> attacker to flee, rather than I being forced to flee in such a >> direction that the motorist could not follow or should they have chosen >> to follow. > > Wow. > > As usual, I wonder what I'm doing different that makes my life so much > more pleasant. I regularly ride to and from the inner city, and have > done that in many, many cities. Problems are almost nonexistent. I'll describe the worst ones to you. 1) At a traffic light, I have taken the lane and am in lead spot in the right lane. (I got there first) A dodge neon is the next lane. Light turns green, I get off to a good start and leave the neon sitting there. The taurus driver behind me uses the gap I've created to pass the neon and move in the left lane. Passenger throws a bottle at me, hitting me. I've had several objects thrown at me from passing vehicles, but this is the only one that hit me. 2) I am taking the lane over a blind rise on a narrow two lane road. A man in a black audi comes up behind me, he is forced to slow from his previous speed for aproximately 3 seconds while I crest the hill and move right. He brush passes me. I put my arms up in a 'what was that for', he flips me off, and comes to a stop. He accelerates, I accelerate, he slams on the brakes forcing a collision that a quick dive just leaves me bracing myself on his trunklid. He then proceeds to back into me. I followed this one through the courts. 3) I am riding along over to the right edge line on a four lane road. I am crossing railroad tracks when a car brush passes me and then I am yelled at to 'get on the sidewalk'. I tell them where they can stick it. They wait up ahead for me, and when I spot them, it ends up with the three of them getting out of their car in attempt to cause me physical harm. 4) I am waiting at traffic light, biased to the right. (this is before I took the lane at traffic lights) Light turns green. asshole in a F-body GM car behind me launches hard and brush passes me. In dodging to the right my balance is upset and I fall. That hurt. Did not get a plate number. This is why I take the lane at all stops now, of course that makes for some angry people on rare occasion. 5) almost the same location as the black audi driver... cept it was before him. I move to the right edge to let a box truck by. Asshole passes with about 2-3 inches space. In fighting not to be sucked under I end up on the gravel and fall. This was in front of a cop who did nothing, saying he didn't see it. This is why I never ride that far right anymore, which of course makes for some more angry people.... > I've had a few - not many, admittedly - incidents where I caught and > reprimanded a motorist who pulled a particularly asinine trick. I don't do that much anymore since I've found just being on the road sets some people off. > There > was only one time when the motorist stepped out of the car in a > menacing manner. When I stood my ground, he apparently decided he > wasn't as strong as I am. He got back into the car and left. I've had at least two in memory get out. Both got back in. The last one I remember was the guy in the dodge van that tried to crush me against the tall square curb because he was so slow leaving a traffic light I got tired of waiting for him and passed him using the left lane. This caused him to find where the big pedal on the right is and then use his vehicle as a weapon. Then there was the old fart in a car last year, same thing, not accelerating at a light. The green signal is getting close to expiring, traffic in the left lane has entirely cleared as well as everyone behind me having moved left and passed. I move left to pass the old fart and then he finds he has a go pedal. So we're even on the other side of the intersection. I slow and get behind him. then he nails the brakes. He does it about three more times including left and right dives to prevent me from passing him again if they weren't attempts to hit me as I moved to miss him. and how could I forget the 'drive car' guy. This asian guy decides that it's just wrong that I am ahead of him in a backup and preventing him from kissing the bumper of the vehicle in front me. He start making threats, nearly hits me in a passing attempt. I good 'I am not going to take this sh*t and hold my ground' posture, worked momentarily, but then he started it up again so I ended up gutter passing to get away from him. > If I had carried a gun during my cycling, I would have carried a > useless couple pounds of steel and lead many, many tens-of-thousands > of miles. I don't need that. If it made people behave it might just be worth it to me.         Date: 26 Apr 2007 07:04:49 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes If you don't mind, I'll kibitz a bit. If you do mind, go to the next post now. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) writes: > I'll describe the worst ones to you. > > 1) At a traffic light, I have taken > the lane and am in lead spot in the right lane. (I got there first) A > dodge neon is the next lane. Light turns green, I get off to a good > start and leave the neon sitting there. The taurus driver behind me uses > the gap I've created to pass the neon and move in the left lane. > Passenger throws a bottle at me, hitting me. I've had several objects > thrown at me from passing vehicles, but this is the only one that hit > me. I've had shit thrown at me as well. Nothing injured me though, fortunately. However, once the vehicle has passed you, shooting at it would be revenge, not self defense. So you would be the one the cops are putting in cuffs. > 2) I am taking the lane over a blind rise on a narrow two lane road. A > man in a black audi comes up behind me, he is forced to slow from his > previous speed for aproximately 3 seconds while I crest the hill and > move right. He brush passes me. I put my arms up in a 'what was that > for', he flips me off, and comes to a stop. He accelerates, I > accelerate, he slams on the brakes forcing a collision that a quick > dive just leaves me bracing myself on his trunklid. He then proceeds to > back into me. I followed this one through the courts. OK, this guy was using his car as a weapon. But once you were on his decklid, if you drew he could slam down on the gas, brake, and gas again and then claim self defense. You would need to use the right tactics to be justified here. > 3) I am riding along over to the right edge line on a four lane road. I > am crossing railroad tracks when a car brush passes me and then I am > yelled at to 'get on the sidewalk'. I tell them where they can stick > it. They wait up ahead for me, and when I spot them, it ends up with > the three of them getting out of their car in attempt to cause me > physical harm. And then what happened? Did they kick your ass, or did you ride on away? If the former, then brandishing would certainly have dissuaded anyone not running for a darwin award. > 4) I am waiting at traffic light, biased to the right. (this is before > I took the lane at traffic lights) Light turns green. asshole in a > F-body GM car behind me launches hard and brush passes me. In dodging to > the right my balance is upset and I fall. That hurt. Did not get a > plate number. This is why I take the lane at all stops now, of course > that makes for some angry people on rare occasion. Sounds like a gun wouldn't have helped here either. As for the angry people, they don't seem to get that bicycles have all the same rights and responsibilities of cars except on limited access highways. > 5) almost the same location as the black audi driver... cept it was > before him. I move to the right edge to let a box truck by. Asshole > passes with about 2-3 inches space. In fighting not to be sucked under > I end up on the gravel and fall. This was in front of a cop who did > nothing, saying he didn't see it. This is why I never ride that far > right anymore, which of course makes for some more angry people.... Well you should have held your lane here. >> I've had a few - not many, admittedly - incidents where I caught and >> reprimanded a motorist who pulled a particularly asinine trick. > > I don't do that much anymore since I've found just being on the road > sets some people off. > >> There >> was only one time when the motorist stepped out of the car in a >> menacing manner. When I stood my ground, he apparently decided he >> wasn't as strong as I am. He got back into the car and left. No gun here either? > I've had at least two in memory get out. Both got back in. The last one > I remember was the guy in the dodge van that tried to crush me against > the tall square curb because he was so slow leaving a traffic light I > got tired of waiting for him and passed him using the left lane. This > caused him to find where the big pedal on the right is and then use his > vehicle as a weapon. Did he even know you were there? I find it a little odd that you were able to directly cause an action at a distance. <snip > > and how could I forget the 'drive car' guy. This asian guy decides that > it's just wrong that I am ahead of him in a backup and preventing him > from kissing the bumper of the vehicle in front me. He start making > threats, nearly hits me in a passing attempt. I good 'I am not going to > take this sh*t and hold my ground' posture, worked momentarily, but > then he started it up again so I ended up gutter passing to get away > from him. Keep in mind that a car is a more deadly weapon than a gun. > If it made people behave it might just be worth it to me. Heinlein did say, "an armed society is a polite society." I believe that to be true. In general. But I don't see using a gun to settle trivial disputes as a practical use. I would rather save that level of force for someone coming after me with a weapon or other overwhelming physical force. -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling           Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:08:41 From: nash Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles <<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>> At .26 miles per minute, You do not have time to get bored on a human powered steed.---- ====zen           Date: 26 Apr 2007 07:56:23 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <m2tzv31jn2.fsf@david-steuber.com >, David Steuber wrote: > I've had shit thrown at me as well. Nothing injured me though, > fortunately. However, once the vehicle has passed you, shooting at it > would be revenge, not self defense. So you would be the one the cops > are putting in cuffs. Did I say I would have shot at him? NO. He asked about me being attacked. I am describing the situations. > OK, this guy was using his car as a weapon. But once you were on his > decklid, if you drew he could slam down on the gas, brake, and gas > again and then claim self defense. You would need to use the right > tactics to be justified here. Again, I am describing the situation, not saying I would have used a gun. Frank once again acted as if because it doesn't happen to him, it happens to no one else thusly I am describing the events. > And then what happened? Did they kick your ass, or did you ride on > away? If the former, then brandishing would certainly have dissuaded > anyone not running for a darwin award. I had to run away, which satisified the jollies they were looking for. I think you've entirely missed the point. That point being some of us ride in environments that contain hostile people behind the wheel of motor vehicles. > Sounds like a gun wouldn't have helped here either. As for the angry > people, they don't seem to get that bicycles have all the same rights > and responsibilities of cars except on limited access highways. You're missing the point. I've made no comment wether a gun could have helped or not helped. I am describing what the 1 percenters are like where I ride. That it's not the ideal world that Frank rides in. However drivers can reasonably expect that a bicyclist is unarmed and thusly someone they can attack. Change that assumption and these acts would drop in occurance significantly. >> 5) almost the same location as the black audi driver... cept it was >> before him. I move to the right edge to let a box truck by. Asshole >> passes with about 2-3 inches space. In fighting not to be sucked under >> I end up on the gravel and fall. This was in front of a cop who did >> nothing, saying he didn't see it. This is why I never ride that far >> right anymore, which of course makes for some more angry people.... > Well you should have held your lane here. Thank you captain obvious. I believe I made that clear above. >>> There >>> was only one time when the motorist stepped out of the car in a >>> menacing manner. When I stood my ground, he apparently decided he >>> wasn't as strong as I am. He got back into the car and left. > No gun here either? I can't speak for Frank. >> I've had at least two in memory get out. Both got back in. The last one >> I remember was the guy in the dodge van that tried to crush me against >> the tall square curb because he was so slow leaving a traffic light I >> got tired of waiting for him and passed him using the left lane. This >> caused him to find where the big pedal on the right is and then use his >> vehicle as a weapon. > Did he even know you were there? I find it a little odd that you were > able to directly cause an action at a distance. Yes he knew I was there. He was enraged that I passed him. He started yelling at me when I passed by the driver's side window. He stopped, got out and acted as if he was going to attack me physically. >> and how could I forget the 'drive car' guy. This asian guy decides that >> it's just wrong that I am ahead of him in a backup and preventing him >> from kissing the bumper of the vehicle in front me. He start making >> threats, nearly hits me in a passing attempt. I good 'I am not going to >> take this sh*t and hold my ground' posture, worked momentarily, but >> then he started it up again so I ended up gutter passing to get away >> from him. > Keep in mind that a car is a more deadly weapon than a gun. Of course it is. And the driver just says the magic words 'I didn't see him' and they don't even get ticketed. >> If it made people behave it might just be worth it to me. > Heinlein did say, "an armed society is a polite society." I believe > that to be true. In general. But I don't see using a gun to settle > trivial disputes as a practical use. I would rather save that level > of force for someone coming after me with a weapon or other > overwhelming physical force. Did I say anything about a gun being used to settle trivial disputes? No. If drivers had a reasonable expectation that a bicyclist was armed, they would not behave in the manner that they do. The trivial disputes would not occur in the first place. The drivers who do this seem to have a common thread that because the bicyclist is 'weaker' they have command of the road and are willing to use the size and power of their motor vehicle to enforce it or merely to entertain themselves at someone else's expense. Personally I wouldn't even have to carry a gun, drivers would just need to know the possibility deadly force as self defense was significant enough. Right now in the state I live it is aproximately zero. And I wager 99+% of the exceptions, what makes it non-zero, being uniformed cops riding bicycles. Make this a mere 5-10% and I think there would be an improvement in behavior from the bullies behind the wheel. It's not about using the gun or even having it, but the thought it might be there.             Date: 27 Apr 2007 07:10:23 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) writes: > Did I say anything about a gun being used to settle trivial disputes? No. > If drivers had a reasonable expectation that a bicyclist was armed, they > would not behave in the manner that they do. The trivial disputes would > not occur in the first place. The drivers who do this seem to have a > common thread that because the bicyclist is 'weaker' they have command of > the road and are willing to use the size and power of their motor vehicle > to enforce it or merely to entertain themselves at someone else's > expense. Personally I wouldn't even have to carry a gun, drivers would > just need to know the possibility deadly force as self defense was > significant enough. Right now in the state I live it is aproximately > zero. And I wager 99+% of the exceptions, what makes it non-zero, being > uniformed cops riding bicycles. Make this a mere 5-10% and I think there > would be an improvement in behavior from the bullies behind the wheel. > > It's not about using the gun or even having it, but the thought it might > be there. I live in a "shall issue" state. Drivers, especially those in really expensive cars, give cyclists a wide berth. The traffic regulations require them to do so as well. Of course there is still the occasional asshole. I know that there are states like MA and NJ that seem to think that self defense is a crime. And that really sucks (I believe all gun control laws to be unconstitutional anyway, but it takes the SCOTUS to make that stick). I can't say you should break the law. But some snail mail to your reps about this issue would certainly be in order. Hell, get them on the phone! I also have the opinion that two wheeled vehicles should be allowed to filter to the front at intersections with traffic lights and stop signs. It is so stupid to require such a small, narrow vehicle to take up all the space of a seven passenger SUV. Taiwain has a rather nice system in place. It's biggest weakness though is that the scooter lanes are on the right side so a right turning vehicle has to cut across the scooter lane. But on the plus side, and this is a big plus, they have boxes at the intersections that reserve space for two wheelers AHEAD of the four or more wheeled traffic. -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling             Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:11:47 From: nash Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:McSdnVc0gsPqPK3bnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@comcast.com... > In article <m2tzv31jn2.fsf@david-steuber.com>, David Steuber wrote: > >> I've had shit thrown at me as well. Nothing injured me though, >> fortunately. However, once the vehicle has passed you, shooting at it >> would be revenge, not self defense. So you would be the one the cops >> are putting in cuffs. > > Did I say I would have shot at him? NO. He asked about me being attacked. > I am describing the situations. > >> OK, this guy was using his car as a weapon. But once you were on his >> decklid, if you drew he could slam down on the gas, brake, and gas >> again and then claim self defense. You would need to use the right >> tactics to be justified here. > > Again, I am describing the situation, not saying I would have used a gun. > Frank once again acted as if because it doesn't happen to him, it happens > to no one else thusly I am describing the events. > >> And then what happened? Did they kick your ass, or did you ride on >> away? If the former, then brandishing would certainly have dissuaded >> anyone not running for a darwin award. > > I had to run away, which satisified the jollies they were looking for. I > think you've entirely missed the point. That point being some of us ride > in environments that contain hostile people behind the wheel of motor > vehicles. > >> Sounds like a gun wouldn't have helped here either. As for the angry >> people, they don't seem to get that bicycles have all the same rights >> and responsibilities of cars except on limited access highways. > > You're missing the point. I've made no comment wether a gun could have > helped or not helped. I am describing what the 1 percenters are like > where I ride. That it's not the ideal world that Frank rides in. > > However drivers can reasonably expect that a bicyclist is unarmed and > thusly someone they can attack. Change that assumption and these acts > would drop in occurance significantly. > >>> 5) almost the same location as the black audi driver... cept it was >>> before him. I move to the right edge to let a box truck by. Asshole >>> passes with about 2-3 inches space. In fighting not to be sucked under >>> I end up on the gravel and fall. This was in front of a cop who did >>> nothing, saying he didn't see it. This is why I never ride that far >>> right anymore, which of course makes for some more angry people.... > >> Well you should have held your lane here. > > Thank you captain obvious. I believe I made that clear above. > >>>> There >>>> was only one time when the motorist stepped out of the car in a >>>> menacing manner. When I stood my ground, he apparently decided he >>>> wasn't as strong as I am. He got back into the car and left. > >> No gun here either? > > I can't speak for Frank. > >>> I've had at least two in memory get out. Both got back in. The last one >>> I remember was the guy in the dodge van that tried to crush me against >>> the tall square curb because he was so slow leaving a traffic light I >>> got tired of waiting for him and passed him using the left lane. This >>> caused him to find where the big pedal on the right is and then use his >>> vehicle as a weapon. > >> Did he even know you were there? I find it a little odd that you were >> able to directly cause an action at a distance. > > Yes he knew I was there. He was enraged that I passed him. He started > yelling at me when I passed by the driver's side window. He stopped, got > out and acted as if he was going to attack me physically. > > >>> and how could I forget the 'drive car' guy. This asian guy decides that >>> it's just wrong that I am ahead of him in a backup and preventing him >>> from kissing the bumper of the vehicle in front me. He start making >>> threats, nearly hits me in a passing attempt. I good 'I am not going to >>> take this sh*t and hold my ground' posture, worked momentarily, but >>> then he started it up again so I ended up gutter passing to get away >>> from him. > >> Keep in mind that a car is a more deadly weapon than a gun. > > Of course it is. And the driver just says the magic words 'I didn't see > him' and they don't even get ticketed. > >>> If it made people behave it might just be worth it to me. > >> Heinlein did say, "an armed society is a polite society." I believe >> that to be true. In general. But I don't see using a gun to settle >> trivial disputes as a practical use. I would rather save that level >> of force for someone coming after me with a weapon or other >> overwhelming physical force. > > Did I say anything about a gun being used to settle trivial disputes? No. > If drivers had a reasonable expectation that a bicyclist was armed, they > would not behave in the manner that they do. The trivial disputes would > not occur in the first place. The drivers who do this seem to have a > common thread that because the bicyclist is 'weaker' they have command of > the road and are willing to use the size and power of their motor vehicle > to enforce it or merely to entertain themselves at someone else's > expense. Personally I wouldn't even have to carry a gun, drivers would > just need to know the possibility deadly force as self defense was > significant enough. Right now in the state I live it is aproximately > zero. And I wager 99+% of the exceptions, what makes it non-zero, being > uniformed cops riding bicycles. Make this a mere 5-10% and I think there > would be an improvement in behavior from the bullies behind the wheel. > > It's not about using the gun or even having it, but the thought it might > be there. > I would just add that some countries the police do not even where guns and their populations are all the less violent. Proceed as per usual.               Date: 27 Apr 2007 07:13:34 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes: > I would just add that some countries the police do not even where guns and > their populations are all the less violent. > Proceed as per usual. There is virtually no crime in Vermont or Alaska. Neither state requires a permit for citizens to carry concealed firearms. -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling     Date: 23 Apr 2007 08:16:49 From: Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes On Apr 22, 10:31 pm, "oldhickory" <inbo...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Personally, middle jersey pocket is my favorite place. I can get to it > while I'm riding and if I'm off the bike I can STILL get to it. The only > downside is that the site wears a little hole in my pocket after a while. > Mine is a short nose so it is fairly well concealed. Have you EVER needed it? I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist needed to have a gun. Why are you so afraid? Why the paranoia?? - Frank Krygowski       Date: 26 Apr 2007 06:37:04 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Apr 22, 10:31 pm, "oldhickory" <inbo...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Personally, middle jersey pocket is my favorite place. I can get to it >> while I'm riding and if I'm off the bike I can STILL get to it. The only >> downside is that the site wears a little hole in my pocket after a while. >> Mine is a short nose so it is fairly well concealed. > > Have you EVER needed it? > > I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all > sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist > friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist > needed to have a gun. The odds are very much in favor of you not needing a gun or any other weapon when riding a bicycle, motorcycle, or car. Or walking down the street for that matter. > Why are you so afraid? Why the paranoia?? It's not a question of paranoia. It's simply better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. If someone is genuinely feeling fear, I would counsel against getting a gun because of judgment issues. Also, if you are afraid to enter an area without a gun, why the hell would you enter the same area with a gun? A gun is not magic. It is not a talisman. It would not bother me at all to haul around a three pound lump of iron for forty years and never need to so much as show that I have it. It would bother me to find myself in a situation where having that three pound lump of iron could help me stay alive or hold onto my property. I would be incensed if I did not have that three pound lump of iron in that situation. -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling       Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:54:40 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes In article <1177341409.419506.236550@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all > sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist > friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist > needed to have a gun. I've been attacked on about a half dozen occasions while riding. In two-three of them, a firearm would have been handy in causing the attacker to flee, rather than I being forced to flee in such a direction that the motorist could not follow or should they have chosen to follow.         Date: 28 Apr 2007 17:53:55 From: Reuben Hick Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:sd-dnRlpn7t9b7HbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@comcast.com... > In article <1177341409.419506.236550@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all >> sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist >> friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist >> needed to have a gun. > > I've been attacked on about a half dozen occasions while riding. In > two-three of them, a firearm would have been handy in causing the > attacker to flee, rather than I being forced to flee in such a > direction that the motorist could not follow or should they have chosen > to follow. Guns are our friends. I used to carry a nice ultra compact Para-Ordinance .45 which came in handy when two Plano, TX teenage boys who apparently traded in their bicycles in for a nifty Ford 150 truck courtesy of mom and dad, decided that Midway Road was for motor vehicles and decided to scream some "advice" regarding not riding on the road. My mistake was shouting back "Have a Nice Day" as they must have interpreted that as fighting words. So they prompty stopped the truck, jumped out and headed towards me. Now I am a long time weight lifter along with being a cyclist, and given the level of traffic this seemed like a particularly stupid thing to do, yet one brandished stainless steal .45 dramatically lowered their testosterone levels. Since then I have found that a Taurus Titanium .45 Long Colt is much ligher, reliable, resistant to the elements, and makes for a highly influential presentation. "Holster" is a simple triangle frame bag. Nose down, grip forward, leaves no print on the bag. I just need to remember to take it off when locking the bike outside the gym. I agree with you that if more cagers held in the back of their mind that the cyclist they are messing with might be armed, they might just stay in their cars - then again, they may take pre-emptive action and claim "I didn't see him, officer". Personally, avoidance trumps confrontation. When the gun comes out, plan on shelling out at least $10,000 to avoid a criminal record. Pulling the trigger, might as well sell the home and your assets to feed the lawyers. Thus I commute at dark-thirty in the morning. Less traffic, and strangely enough the people on the roads at that time are FAR more sympathetic to cyclists. There is a road in Austin, Spicewood Springs, that is an excellent cycling road if it was only for cyclists, but it is narrow and filled with twists and hills making passing difficult. Also, the bicyclists take up the whole lane which by law they can and are recommended to do - yet, it is terrible PR for the cycling sport. Too many cyclists go out of their way to "assert their rights" which then translates into all drivers thinking that all cyclists are Alpha Hotels, which means that we are the metaphorical dogs that deserve to get kicked when a cager's day goes bad. I can travel Jolleyville Road an hour before sunrise and people will give me wide berth to pass. An hour before sunset and the majority of the "drivers" on this very same road are maniacal, blind, and a danger to all cyclists. The thoughtless clods driving box trucks that think its some sort of competitive sport to see if they can suck your bike under their tires will do so regardless if they think all cyclists are armed like Rambo. The Phalkers who are so engrossed in their coversations will still perform unannounced and immediate right turns on top of cyclists even if one has a Barrett 50 BMG strapped over the shoulder. I guess the benefit of packing heat is that the cyclist can amp up the resistance to cagers who think their two ton vehicle isn't a deadly weapon but with their skill they can surgically and harmlessly bump the wayward cyclist off the road "to teach him a lesson". Now we can knock those mirrors off the car or use the metal bicycle tool to etch some ad hoc "pinstriping" and when the owner gets even more pissed, at least there won't be any fists thrown. Personally the ONLY reason I pack heat on a bicycle is that I am a regular CHL holder that is concerned that some perp or a collection of drunken idiots will view a stranded cyclist (flat tire, broken chain etc.) after hours as entertainment. Otherwise fleeing is generally a better idea from an economic and legal standpoint.           Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:36:09 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Reuben Hick wrote: > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:sd-dnRlpn7t9b7HbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@comcast.com... >> In article <1177341409.419506.236550@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all >>> sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist >>> friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist >>> needed to have a gun. >> >> I've been attacked on about a half dozen occasions while riding. In >> two-three of them, a firearm would have been handy in causing the >> attacker to flee, rather than I being forced to flee in such a >> direction that the motorist could not follow or should they have chosen >> to follow. > > Guns are our friends. > > I used to carry a nice ultra compact Para-Ordinance .45 which came in > handy when two Plano, TX teenage boys who apparently traded in their > bicycles in for a nifty Ford 150 truck courtesy of mom and dad, decided > that Midway Road was for motor vehicles and decided to scream some > "advice" regarding not riding on the road. My mistake was shouting > back "Have a Nice Day" as they must have interpreted that as fighting > words. So they prompty stopped the truck, jumped out and headed > towards me. Now I am a long time weight lifter along with being a > cyclist, and given the level of traffic this seemed like a particularly > stupid thing to do, yet one brandished stainless steal .45 dramatically > lowered their testosterone levels. > > Since then I have found that a Taurus Titanium .45 Long Colt is much > ligher, reliable, resistant to the elements, and makes for a highly > influential presentation. > > "Holster" is a simple triangle frame bag. Nose down, grip forward, > leaves no print on the bag. I just need to remember to take it off > when locking the bike outside the gym. > > I agree with you that if more cagers held in the back of their mind that > the cyclist they are messing with might be armed, they might just stay > in their cars - then again, they may take pre-emptive action and claim > "I didn't see him, officer". > > Personally, avoidance trumps confrontation. When the gun comes out, > plan on shelling out at least $10,000 to avoid a criminal record. > Pulling the trigger, might as well sell the home and your assets to feed > the lawyers. Thus I commute at dark-thirty in the morning. Less > traffic, and strangely enough the people on the roads at that time are > FAR more sympathetic to cyclists. > > There is a road in Austin, Spicewood Springs, that is an excellent > cycling road if it was only for cyclists, but it is narrow and filled > with twists and hills making passing difficult. Also, the bicyclists > take up the whole lane which by law they can and are recommended to do - > yet, it is terrible PR for the cycling sport. Too many cyclists go out > of their way to "assert their rights" which then translates into all > drivers thinking that all cyclists are Alpha Hotels, which means that we > are the metaphorical dogs that deserve to get kicked when a cager's day > goes bad. > > I can travel Jolleyville Road an hour before sunrise and people will > give me wide berth to pass. An hour before sunset and the majority of > the "drivers" on this very same road are maniacal, blind, and a danger > to all cyclists. The thoughtless clods driving box trucks that think its > some sort of competitive sport to see if they can suck your bike under > their tires will do so regardless if they think all cyclists are armed > like Rambo. The Phalkers who are so engrossed in their coversations > will still perform unannounced and immediate right turns on top of > cyclists even if one has a Barrett 50 BMG strapped over the shoulder. > > I guess the benefit of packing heat is that the cyclist can amp up the > resistance to cagers who think their two ton vehicle isn't a deadly > weapon but with their skill they can surgically and harmlessly bump the > wayward cyclist off the road "to teach him a lesson". Now we can knock > those mirrors off the car or use the metal bicycle tool to etch some ad > hoc "pinstriping" and when the owner gets even more pissed, at least > there won't be any fists thrown. > > Personally the ONLY reason I pack heat on a bicycle is that I am a > regular CHL holder that is concerned that some perp or a collection of > drunken idiots will view a stranded cyclist (flat tire, broken chain > etc.) after hours as entertainment. Otherwise fleeing is generally a > better idea from an economic and legal standpoint. > > Maybe a rifle holder like the cowboys used. I have 2 .22 rifles that can't be counted as concealed weapons and would be very obvious to any dip-shit red necks. Of course, given an extra helping of bad luck they might have a rifle rack in the cab, so....? Bill Baka         Date: 24 Apr 2007 10:52:55 From: Bill Subject: Re: Gun holster for bikes Brent P wrote: > In article <1177341409.419506.236550@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> I've ridden for 35 years as an enthusiastic adult cyclist, in all >> sorts of surroundings. I have had literally hundreds of cyclist >> friends over the years. I've never known an incident where a cyclist >> needed to have a gun. > > I've been attacked on about a half dozen occasions while riding. In > two-three of them, a firearm would have been handy in causing the > attacker to flee, rather than I being forced to flee in such a > direction that the motorist could not follow or should they have chosen > to follow. > Attacked by the driver out of the car or just trying to run you down? One on one brawls I will do if pressed but a nut in a car I will just get off the road, since I know I am not going to win that one. Bill (no firearms in California) Baka   Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:04:13 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 2:59 pm, "Thumper" <roadap...@unclewebster.com > wrote: > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > > Definitely, all motorcycle riders should carry sidearms (not bicyclists > though, they're all fruitcakes). Unfortunately, if we use them we'll go to > jail. You should consider a motorcycle that explodes upon impact, or at least a bumper sticker that declares so... "You don't want your bicycle/motorcycle* ride to be spoiled by careless drivers who intimidate you. Well, it's time you make them feel you are about to explode..." *it may also be used by small imported cars. http://www.zazzle.com/product/128182721431690818   Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:45:38 From: Olebiker Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 3:40 pm, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > > I rather appreciate a comment often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: > > "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves > > neither liberty nor security" > > I guess we should disband HOMELAND SECURITY then. Sounds good to me.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:45:02 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 12:31 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > In rec.bicycles.misc asshat1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > <snipped for excessive wangst> > > I'm touch surprised that it took you this long to crawl out from under > your bridge. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a > political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering > for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who > have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves > for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any > case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting > into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my > political agenda which ought to be advanced. It sounds like the political agenda advanced after 9/11. Did we need 9/11 to invade Iraq? I think we did.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:40:33 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 1:55 pm, Olebiker <ddur...@tfn.net > wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:52 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: > > > 1) They do. > > 2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if > > they don't have guns just use other weapons. > > 3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative > > activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into > > people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking > > tickets) owed to the government. > > I rather appreciate a comment often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: > "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves > neither liberty nor security" I guess we should disband HOMELAND SECURITY then.     Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:02:45 From: BiffB Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Apr 19, 1:55 pm, Olebiker <ddur...@tfn.net> wrote: > >>On Apr 19, 12:52 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>wrote: >> >> >>>1) They do. >>>2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if >>>they don't have guns just use other weapons. >>>3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative >>>activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into >>>people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking >>>tickets) owed to the government. >> >>I rather appreciate a comment often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: >>"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves >>neither liberty nor security" > > > I guess we should disband HOMELAND SECURITY then. > Yep   Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:33:18 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 12:29 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote: > Just A User wrote: > > Curtis L. Russell wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User > >> <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > > >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a > >>> wack job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents > >>> like those at the campus on Monday. > > >> Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, > >> and they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was > >> there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several > >> in Canada. > > >> Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell > >> everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much > >> stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. > > >> Curtis L. Russell > >> Odenton, MD (USA) > >> Just someone on two wheels... > > I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are > > banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until > > that time comes, control is the key. > > Heaven knows the criminals will abide by laws and regulations. (Or, just > use gasoline and fertilizer.)- You got a point there, but you can make it so much harder. When they are intent on it, not even the American Constitution can stop them. ;)   Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:31:11 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 12:44 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > >Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > >we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > >launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a > little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia > Tech campus? > > And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being > able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure > there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think > you made some point or another. You don't think they would agree with gun control? Perhaps THIS is the best homage we can pay them.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:59:31 From: Thumper Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > Definitely, all motorcycle riders should carry sidearms (not bicyclists though, they're all fruitcakes). Unfortunately, if we use them we'll go to jail. Thumper     Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:35:39 From: M. MacDonald Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? >"Thumper" wrote: > Definitely, all motorcycle riders should carry sidearm's (not bicyclists > though, they're all fruitcakes). LOL! I wish they'd (bicyclists) would pay something to ride the things on the streets. Around here, they take one entire lane away from vehicle traffic and give it to bicyclists who I rarely see riding in one. They sure get a lot of free asphalt and impede the traffic flow for their selfishness. We have a few bicycle rallys in the countryside each year that causes the entire road to be closed for the day. People, mostly ranchers, cannot leave or enter their property until the bicycle event is over. One said he was going to release 200 head of cattle on the road just to make the event "more eventful(less)." > Unfortunately, if we use them <guns> we'll go to jail. Yep. If they other party's family pushed the issue in court, their lawyers will find it "illegally carried, stored, loaded, safety off, state-line illegality, etc." You won't win (mostly 'cause you're a stinkin' biker). Kind'a makes packing one on a bike pointless. Besides, they'll just run you over or off the road anyway. By the time you get to it - if you still can - they'll be long gone. You have NO defense on a motorcycle -- unless you are in a pack of a dozen or so other bikers who still may be alive to do the subsequent dirty work for you that you cannot. Mack       Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:14:52 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:35:39 -0700, "M. MacDonald" <mmacdonald@bc.cc.ca.us > wrote: >>"Thumper" wrote: >> Definitely, all motorcycle riders should carry sidearm's (not bicyclists >> though, they're all fruitcakes). > >LOL! > >I wish they'd (bicyclists) would pay something to ride the things on the >streets. Around here, they take one entire lane away from vehicle traffic >and give it to bicyclists who I rarely see riding in one. They sure get a >lot of free asphalt and impede the traffic flow for their selfishness. > >We have a few bicycle rallys in the countryside each year that causes the >entire road to be closed for the day. People, mostly ranchers, cannot leave >or enter their property until the bicycle event is over. One said he was >going to release 200 head of cattle on the road just to make the event "more >eventful(less)." Of he could let the cows hang out on the road overnight the night before .... -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/         Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:17:17 From: M. MacDonald Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? >>We have a few bicycle rallys in the countryside each year that causes the >>entire road to be closed for the day. People, mostly ranchers, cannot >>leave >>or enter their property until the bicycle event is over. One said he was >>going to release 200 head of cattle on the road just to make the event >>"more >>eventful(less)." > > Of he could let the cows hang out on the road overnight the > night before .... I think that's what he meant by "more eventful(less)." He did say the motorcyclists bother them (i.e ranchers and farmers) less since they all go by in 15 minutes and it doesn't require them to stay off the road all day so the bicyclists can ride 3-4 abreast all over the roadway like they normally do around here. They don't like riding in their "exclusive lanes" because of stickers, so they ride in the car track areas of the main roadway. No wonder some get run over. Mack           Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:35:00 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? M. MacDonald wrote: think that's what he meant by "more eventful(less)." > > He did say the motorcyclists bother them (i.e ranchers and farmers) less > since they all go by in 15 minutes and it doesn't require them to stay off > the road all day so the bicyclists can ride 3-4 abreast all over the roadway > like they normally do around here. > > They don't like riding in their "exclusive lanes" because of stickers, so > they ride in the car track areas of the main roadway. > > No wonder some get run over. > > Mack > > In response to a previous post of yours, bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because they do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment. And quit complaining. If you don't like paying, just ride a bicycle. It's free for anyone. Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists. Yes, the vehicle operator in front, including bicycle drivers, can claim it's their lane. Bicycle lanes reduce bicyclists' space, get filled with debris, and are first a benefit to motorists for easier passing, and secondly a benefit to some bicyclists who are fearful of overtaking traffic. I don't have difficulty dealing with bicyclists when I drive my car or motorcycle. But apparently inept drivers do. Are you inept? Wayne             Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:58:38 From: Thumper Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46280ab3$0$17121$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > M. MacDonald wrote: > > think that's what he meant by "more eventful(less)." >> >> He did say the motorcyclists bother them (i.e ranchers and farmers) less >> since they all go by in 15 minutes and it doesn't require them to stay >> off the road all day so the bicyclists can ride 3-4 abreast all over the >> roadway like they normally do around here. >> >> They don't like riding in their "exclusive lanes" because of stickers, so >> they ride in the car track areas of the main roadway. >> >> No wonder some get run over. >> >> Mack >> >> > > > In response to a previous post of yours, bicyclists don't pay registration > fees or need licenses because they do little damage to other people, the > roads, or the environment. And quit complaining. If you don't like paying, > just ride a bicycle. It's free for anyone. > > Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with > generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists. Yes, > the vehicle operator in front, including bicycle drivers, can claim it's > their lane. > > Bicycle lanes reduce bicyclists' space, get filled with debris, and are > first a benefit to motorists for easier passing, and secondly a benefit to > some bicyclists who are fearful of overtaking traffic. > > I don't have difficulty dealing with bicyclists when I drive my car or > motorcycle. But apparently inept drivers do. Are you inept? > > Wayne Yup. I don't know how to pedal. -- By it's very nature, my sig. makes this posting 100% on topic. "Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I posted this." Thumper "I don't want a pickle..." http://www.thumpers-roadhouse.ws 2007 H-D FXSTD Deuce 2006 Buell Ulysees 2006 BMW K1200GT 2004 H-D Road King Classic 1978 Triumph T140V Bonneville 1975 Triumph T160 Trident 1974 Norton Commando Interstate 1969 BSA R75 Red Rocket III 1962 Triumph T20 Tiger Cub 1958 BSA Super Bantam COCK 1954 Velocette MAC >             Date: 20 Apr 2007 02:15:12 From: B. Peg Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? > "Wayne Pein" wrote: > .... bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because they > do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment. Oh really? So how come you don't pay for your special little piece of tarmac? Should it be free at the exclusion of vehicular traffic? Why should vehicular taxes pay for your free asphalt that impedes their travel? > Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with > generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists. So you have no problem riding in the middle of the road with traffic? So we don't need bicycle lanes then. Give them back to those who did pay for them and could use them. I hope by "generously sharing" you weren't referring to bicyclists who ride side-by-side and take up the entire rural byways. > Bicycle lanes reduce bicyclists' space, get filled with debris, and are > first a benefit to motorists for easier passing, and secondly a benefit to > some bicyclists who are fearful of overtaking traffic. > > I don't have difficulty dealing with bicyclists when I drive my car or > motorcycle. But apparently inept drivers do. Are you inept? Sorry, but you seem more inept at understanding your selfish demands on road usage and encroach into the lanes of those who do pay for their use. As it is, you pay nothing for something that costs a lot to maintain and build. I agree that the debris problem comes from their lack of usage - which could be put to better use for traffic flow and parking. If you want it clean, why not pay for it? It shouldn't be paid out of the pockets of those who don't or cannot use a bicycle. I wouldn't have a problem with bicycles paying a license fee in states where they wish to have exclusive lanes or paved trails. Might even serve to help locate lost or stolen bikes as well. Would you be opposed to paying a $100 year for a license/sticker like dirt bikers who don't use the tarmac? Dirt bikers pay a Green Sticker fee to ride off highways. No reason a bicyclist should be immune from paying for something that cost more money to maintain and build than a dirt biker's Green Sticker tax funds pay to maintain. Mountain bikers do trail damage in forests as do dirt bikers and want they want the same or more privileges of doing or using it for *free.* B~               Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:07:34 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? B. Peg wrote: >>"Wayne Pein" wrote: >>.... bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because they >>do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment. > > > Oh really? > > So how come you don't pay for your special little piece of tarmac? Should > it be free at the exclusion of vehicular traffic? Why should vehicular > taxes pay for your free asphalt that impedes their travel? You're a hoot. Bicyclists DO pay for their tarmac. It's called taxes. And most bicyclists are also motorists. Quit your whining. > > >>Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with >>generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists. > > > So you have no problem riding in the middle of the road with traffic? So > we don't need bicycle lanes then. Give them back to those who did pay for > them and could use them. I hope by "generously sharing" you weren't > referring to bicyclists who ride side-by-side and take up the entire rural > byways. Sometimes we generously share, sometimes we don't. Get used to it. I don't have to give you a piece of my birthday cake if I don't want to. If you can't deal with slow traffic on rural byways, learn how to drive better. I don't have a problem, why do you? Do you also have a problem with slow moving farm tractors? > > >>Bicycle lanes reduce bicyclists' space, get filled with debris, and are >>first a benefit to motorists for easier passing, and secondly a benefit to >>some bicyclists who are fearful of overtaking traffic. >> >>I don't have difficulty dealing with bicyclists when I drive my car or >>motorcycle. But apparently inept drivers do. Are you inept? > > > Sorry, but you seem more inept at understanding your selfish demands on road > usage and encroach into the lanes of those who do pay for their use. As it > is, you pay nothing for something that costs a lot to maintain and build. The fact that gas taxes in part pay for roads doesn't mean that non gas users can't use them. If you don't like paying gas tax, ride a bike. Decision makers have decided that is free. Quit whining. Or whine to decision makers, but don't whine at bicyclists for using what we are entitled to. > > I agree that the debris problem comes from their lack of usage - which could > be put to better use for traffic flow and parking. If you want it clean, why > not pay for it? It shouldn't be paid out of the pockets of those who don't > or cannot use a bicycle. I don't want it clean. I don't want it at all. > > I wouldn't have a problem with bicycles paying a license fee in states where > they wish to have exclusive lanes or paved trails. Might even serve to help > locate lost or stolen bikes as well. Would you be opposed to paying a $100 > year for a license/sticker like dirt bikers who don't use the tarmac? I don't want exclusive space, so no, I won't pay. If decision makers make me pay, I'll agree to pay 1/100 of what motorists pay since that is about what a bike weighs. Factor in the fact that bikes don't use gas (that's a good thing) and one could justify even less fee. Wayne                 Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:28:15 From: B. Peg Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? >>>"Wayne Pein" wrote: > You're a hoot. Bicyclists DO pay for their tarmac. It's called taxes. And > most bicyclists are also motorists. Quit your whining. In your little rose-colored misanthropic world they do. Around here, we have a majority of bike riders who probably do not own a car, nor pay any form of taxes either. No doubt many are illegal entrants, but to make such a claim as your is pure rubbish. They obey no laws, pay no taxes - but some is paying for their usage. You want to ride your bike on a public roadway, then pay up buddy. I'm tired of paying for everyone else. As I said, the dirt bikers pay their portion (mostly not accountable by BLM) to ride elsewhere. You should not be exempt either. > If you can't deal with slow traffic on rural byways, learn how to drive > better. I don't have a problem, why do you? Do you also have a problem > with slow moving farm tractors? So you favor ranchers being told to stay home all day so you can occupy their roads? And I suppose you think that is okay too? How about we car drivers tell you to stay home so we can drive on our streets and use the lanes that were taken away from us that you admit to not using, preferring to ride in the car lane's instead? OH, and we would like to leave out house sometime during the day too and not have it quarantined off all day for the likes of you. > The fact that gas taxes in part pay for roads doesn't mean that non gas > users can't use them. If you don't like paying gas tax, ride a bike. > Decision makers have decided that is free. Quit whining. Or whine to > decision makers, but don't whine at bicyclists for using what we are > entitled to. Sorry, but it seems the Spandex crowd has gotten more vocal at crying for more bicycle pathways to be built and not being subsequently used by them. > I don't want it clean. I don't want it at all. Too bad. You and your ilk have already claimed a good portion of roadway and parking areas. > I don't want exclusive space, so no, I won't pay. If decision makers make > me pay, I'll agree to pay 1/100 of what motorists pay since that is about > what a bike weighs. Factor in the fact that bikes don't use gas (that's a > good thing) and one could justify even less fee. Bingo! We have a winner (maybe, not quite). Yes. You and other bicyclists need to fess up to being selfish with the respects of road usage. To say it is 1/100 is crap. In town, they took parking along side the roads, as well as a good lane of what was four. I'd say it is more like 5/6 of the roadway we've lost to the Spandex pixies. Divide that up among the pixies users - more like non-users - and it would amount to more than 1/100. Pay your fair portion - or get off the vehicular roadway and stay in your own "supposedly taxed-paid-by-all" lanes. Oh, and quit depriving people access to their property as well (you Spandex pixies are the only ones who do that!). B~                   Date: 21 Apr 2007 14:03:01 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? B. Peg wrote: >>>>"Wayne Pein" wrote: >> >>You're a hoot. Bicyclists DO pay for their tarmac. It's called taxes. And >>most bicyclists are also motorists. Quit your whining. > > > In your little rose-colored misanthropic world they do. Around here, we > have a majority of bike riders who probably do not own a car, nor pay any > form of taxes either. No doubt many are illegal entrants, but to make such > a claim as your is pure rubbish. They obey no laws, pay no taxes - but some > is paying for their usage. > > You want to ride your bike on a public roadway, then pay up buddy. I'm > tired of paying for everyone else. Hey retard, when the government makes me pay then I'll pay. Or do you suggest I write a check to the DOT out of the goodness of my heart? > > As I said, the dirt bikers pay their portion (mostly not accountable by BLM) > to ride elsewhere. You should not be exempt either. > Well since you're so smart and influential you should change the law to force bicyclists to pay. > >>If you can't deal with slow traffic on rural byways, learn how to drive >>better. I don't have a problem, why do you? Do you also have a problem >>with slow moving farm tractors? > > > So you favor ranchers being told to stay home all day so you can occupy > their roads? And I suppose you think that is okay too? Irrelevant. Why should they stay home? > > How about we car drivers tell you to stay home so we can drive on our > streets and use the lanes that were taken away from us that you admit to not > using, preferring to ride in the car lane's instead? Retard, there is no such thing as a car lane. OH, and we would like > to leave out house sometime during the day too and not have it quarantined > off all day for the likes of you. Afraid of bicyclists? > > >>The fact that gas taxes in part pay for roads doesn't mean that non gas >>users can't use them. If you don't like paying gas tax, ride a bike. >>Decision makers have decided that is free. Quit whining. Or whine to >>decision makers, but don't whine at bicyclists for using what we are >>entitled to. > > > > Sorry, but it seems the Spandex crowd has gotten more vocal at crying for > more bicycle pathways to be built and not being subsequently used by them. > > >>I don't want it clean. I don't want it at all. > > > Too bad. You and your ilk have already claimed a good portion of roadway and > parking areas. > I don't have an ilk retard. > >>I don't want exclusive space, so no, I won't pay. If decision makers make >>me pay, I'll agree to pay 1/100 of what motorists pay since that is about >>what a bike weighs. Factor in the fact that bikes don't use gas (that's a >>good thing) and one could justify even less fee. > > > Bingo! We have a winner (maybe, not quite). > > Yes. You and other bicyclists need to fess up to being selfish with the > respects of road usage. To say it is 1/100 is crap. In town, they took > parking along side the roads, as well as a good lane of what was four. I'd > say it is more like 5/6 of the roadway we've lost to the Spandex pixies. > Divide that up among the pixies users - more like non-users - and it would > amount to more than 1/100. > > Pay your fair portion - or get off the vehicular roadway and stay in your > own "supposedly taxed-paid-by-all" lanes. Oh, and quit depriving people > access to their property as well (you Spandex pixies are the only ones who > do that!). > Hey retard, how many times do I have to tell you that by law bicycling is free, and that you too can ride free but you decide to be a retard and pay fees? If you don't like the rules, change them. Wayne                     Date: 22 Apr 2007 02:04:26 From: B. Peg Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? > "Wayne Pein" >> So you favor ranchers being told to stay home all day so you can occupy >> their roads? And I suppose you think that is okay too? > > Irrelevant. Why should they stay home? So selfish bicyclists who want to have a weekend rally can "take" the roadway away from people who live along it dumbass. Reading the friggin' post - if you can. Seems you cannot comprehend.. Isn't it wonderful that so few Spandex pansies can bitch and moan so much that they can enable themselves to keep people and landowners off highways so they can have it all to themselves. Nice the CHP tickets anyone who drives on "their" license-free territory during one of their events. Next time I want to drive on the roadway, keep your damn bicycle in the garage - or ride it in the lanes that were set aside for it that your fellow pansies took away from us. > Retard, there is no such thing as a car lane. Yeah, That's 'cause you took all of them over. Even after we gave you 5/6 of ours, you selfish bastards still want it all and don't expect to pay for it. Oh, carry your own medical insurance too. You may need it. B~ > OH, and we would like >> to leave out house sometime during the day too and not have it >> quarantined off all day for the likes of you. > > Afraid of bicyclists? No. Getting chased by the Leo's and a $300 ticket "Because the bicyclists have the road for their rally" keeps us off it. If they (pansies) would learn to ride their bicycles without taking up riding side-by-side, often 3 or 4 at a time, and not using (more like refusing) their *designated* bike lanes, there wouldn't be a need to shut the road down. > I don't have an ilk retard. You don't have much of an education either. Opps, someone already mentioned that. >>>I don't want exclusive space, so no, I won't pay. If decision makers make >>>me pay, I'll agree to pay 1/100 of what motorists pay since that is about >>>what a bike weighs. Factor in the fact that bikes don't use gas (that's a >>>good thing) and one could justify even less fee. >> >> >> Bingo! We have a winner (maybe, not quite). >> >> Yes. You and other bicyclists need to fess up to being selfish with the >> respects of road usage. To say it is 1/100 is crap. In town, they took >> parking along side the roads, as well as a good lane of what was four. >> I'd say it is more like 5/6 of the roadway we've lost to the Spandex >> pixies. Divide that up among the pixies users - more like non-users - and >> it would amount to more than 1/100. >> >> Pay your fair portion - or get off the vehicular roadway and stay in your >> own "supposedly taxed-paid-by-all" lanes. Oh, and quit depriving people >> access to their property as well (you Spandex pixies are the only ones >> who do that!). >> > > Hey retard, how many times do I have to tell you that by law bicycling is > free, and that you too can ride free but you decide to be a retard and pay > fees? If you don't like the rules, change them. Nah. I think I'll just learn to adjust my diesel's running style so it won't accommodate the Spandex pansies as well. They can't ride where they're supposed too....maybe they'll learn to ride where they should. ...^bump^..^bump^... "Opps!" Love to stay, but I need to go plant some Tribulus terrestris. <-- bicyclist's should know what that is if they've fixed enough flats). Also, need to convince the guy's to release their cattle on the road for the upcoming bicyclist's rally. After all, cattle don't pay taxes for road usage either - and they do take precedence over any vehicle - including bicycles - on the road. Then, when the CHP shows up and asks to remove them from the road, they can say "Sorry, but you told us to stay off the road so the bicyclists could hold their all day rally." Cows win! B~                       Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:17:00 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? B. Peg wrote: >>"Wayne Pein" >> >>>So you favor ranchers being told to stay home all day so you can occupy >>>their roads? And I suppose you think that is okay too? >> >>Irrelevant. Why should they stay home? > > > So selfish bicyclists who want to have a weekend rally can "take" the > roadway away from people who live along it dumbass. > > Reading the friggin' post - if you can. Seems you cannot comprehend.. Ignoramus, nobody is making the people who live along it stay home all day. They are simply restricting driveway access for a spell. > > Isn't it wonderful that so few Spandex pansies can bitch and moan so much > that they can enable themselves to keep people and landowners off highways > so they can have it all to themselves. Nice the CHP tickets anyone who > drives on "their" license-free territory during one of their events. Ignoramus, it is a sanctioned event, like a parade. You could take part in it too, if you had the stamina. It's a bit more difficult BEING the engine than it is relying on one. > > Next time I want to drive on the roadway, keep your damn bicycle in the > garage - or ride it in the lanes that were set aside for it that your fellow > pansies took away from us. Ignoramus, bicycle drivers can use the roads. Get used to it. It's not hard to deal with bicycle users unless you are an inept driver. > > >>Retard, there is no such thing as a car lane. > > > Yeah, That's 'cause you took all of them over. Even after we gave you 5/6 > of ours, you selfish bastards still want it all and don't expect to pay for > it. Ignoramus, I've never seen a sign saying "Car Lane," and there never was such a thing as "your" lane. And you too can use the roads "free" if you want. But you'd rather whine about it. > > Oh, carry your own medical insurance too. You may need it. > Ignoramus, mind your own business, drive your motorized vehicle like a nice person and competently, and you won't cause a collision. Wayne                         Date: 23 Apr 2007 01:32:07 From: B. Peg Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? > "Wayne Pein" wrote: > Ignoramus, mind your own business, drive your motorized vehicle like a > nice person and competently, and you won't cause a collision. Boy, you sure proved the point about you being uneducated. Takes two posts to get it right, eh? You should look in the mirror and see who the real ignoramus is. Stay on your bicycle. You have no business driving. B~                           Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:34:39 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? B. Peg wrote: >>"Wayne Pein" wrote: >>Ignoramus, mind your own business, drive your motorized vehicle like a >>nice person and competently, and you won't cause a collision. > > > Boy, you sure proved the point about you being uneducated. > > Takes two posts to get it right, eh? > > You should look in the mirror and see who the real ignoramus is. > > Stay on your bicycle. You have no business driving. > > B~ > > Ignormaus, you have not made an intelligent, salient point this entire thread. Wayne                             Date: 23 Apr 2007 14:15:45 From: M. MacDonald Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Wayne, you need to be able to read to understand. Now go back to your tricycle and behave. Mack                               Date: 23 Apr 2007 17:56:26 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? M. MacDonald wrote: > Wayne, you need to be able to read to understand. > > Now go back to your tricycle and behave. > > Mack > > > Why don't you say something worth reading? Better yet, stay in wreck.motorcycles where you can feel powerful. Vrooom! Wayne                                 Date: 24 Apr 2007 11:40:29 From: M. MacDonald Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? > Wayne "the illiterate" Pein wrote: >> Now go back to your tricycle and behave. >> > Why don't you say something worth reading? Better yet, stay in > wreck.motorcycles where you can feel powerful. Vrooom! Trouble reading Wayne? Maybe you can relate to this better: http://tinyurl.com/28yhgw Even makes your poser sound. Mack                                   Date: 24 Apr 2007 16:18:14 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? M. MacDonald wrote: > Trouble reading Wayne? Maybe you can relate to this better: > http://tinyurl.com/28yhgw Even makes your poser sound. > It's your style: powered by artificial means. Why don't you quit whining like a baby and BE the engine instead of relying on one? Wayne                       Date: 22 Apr 2007 13:03:21 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? B. Peg wrote: >>"Wayne Pein" >> >>>So you favor ranchers being told to stay home all day so you can occupy >>>their roads? And I suppose you think that is okay too? >> >>Irrelevant. Why should they stay home? > > > So selfish bicyclists who want to have a weekend rally can "take" the > roadway away from people who live along it dumbass. > > Reading the friggin' post - if you can. Seems you cannot comprehend.. > > Isn't it wonderful that so few Spandex pansies can bitch and moan so much > that they can enable themselves to keep people and landowners off highways > so they can have it all to themselves. Nice the CHP tickets anyone who > drives on "their" license-free territory during one of their events. > > Next time I want to drive on the roadway, keep your damn bicycle in the > garage - or ride it in the lanes that were set aside for it that your fellow > pansies took away from us. > > >>Retard, there is no such thing as a car lane. > > > Yeah, That's 'cause you took all of them over. Even after we gave you 5/6 > of ours, you selfish bastards still want it all and don't expect to pay for > it. > > Oh, carry your own medical insurance too. You may need it. > > B~ > > >>OH, and we would like >> >>>to leave out house sometime during the day too and not have it >>>quarantined off all day for the likes of you. >> >>Afraid of bicyclists? > > > No. Getting chased by the Leo's and a $300 ticket "Because the bicyclists > have the road for their rally" keeps us off it. If they (pansies) would > learn to ride their bicycles without taking up riding side-by-side, often 3 > or 4 at a time, and not using (more like refusing) their *designated* bike > lanes, there wouldn't be a need to shut the road down. > > >>I don't have an ilk retard. > > > You don't have much of an education either. > > Opps, someone already mentioned that. > > >>>>I don't want exclusive space, so no, I won't pay. If decision makers make >>>>me pay, I'll agree to pay 1/100 of what motorists pay since that is about >>>>what a bike weighs. Factor in the fact that bikes don't use gas (that's a >>>>good thing) and one could justify even less fee. >>> >>> >>>Bingo! We have a winner (maybe, not quite). >>> >>>Yes. You and other bicyclists need to fess up to being selfish with the >>>respects of road usage. To say it is 1/100 is crap. In town, they took >>>parking along side the roads, as well as a good lane of what was four. >>>I'd say it is more like 5/6 of the roadway we've lost to the Spandex >>>pixies. Divide that up among the pixies users - more like non-users - and >>>it would amount to more than 1/100. >>> >>>Pay your fair portion - or get off the vehicular roadway and stay in your >>>own "supposedly taxed-paid-by-all" lanes. Oh, and quit depriving people >>>access to their property as well (you Spandex pixies are the only ones >>>who do that!). >>> >> >>Hey retard, how many times do I have to tell you that by law bicycling is >>free, and that you too can ride free but you decide to be a retard and pay >>fees? If you don't like the rules, change them. > > > Nah. I think I'll just learn to adjust my diesel's running style so it > won't accommodate the Spandex pansies as well. They can't ride where > they're supposed too....maybe they'll learn to ride where they should. > > ...^bump^..^bump^... "Opps!" > > Love to stay, but I need to go plant some Tribulus terrestris. <-- > bicyclist's should know what that is if they've fixed enough flats). > > Also, need to convince the guy's to release their cattle on the road for the > upcoming bicyclist's rally. After all, cattle don't pay taxes for road > usage either - and they do take precedence over any vehicle - including > bicycles - on the road. Then, when the CHP shows up and asks to remove them > from the road, they can say "Sorry, but you told us to stay off the road so > the bicyclists could hold their all day rally." > > Cows win! > > B~ > > >                 Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:48:51 From: Turby Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:07:34 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote: >And most bicyclists are also motorists. I'd bet most bicyclists are schoolchildren too young to drive. -- Turby the Turbosurfer                   Date: 21 Apr 2007 18:17:15 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber > wrote in news:676i239a6ukaevb0ghudkmm2p9kqc254uk@4ax.com: >>And most bicyclists are also motorists. > > I'd bet most bicyclists are schoolchildren too young to drive. ...or mentally incapable of passing a motor vehicle exam. -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                   Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:46:57 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In rec.bicycles.misc Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber > wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote: > >>And most bicyclists are also motorists. > > I'd bet most bicyclists are schoolchildren too young to drive. Sadly, unfortunately, probably not true [1]. You see a lot of white-collar people commuting on bikes, lots of recent immigrants, college age adults, and of course I'm sure a reasonable number of people cycling because they've lost their license for DUI or other offenses. Too many children are playing video games, watching TV indoors, or being driven to and fro for scheduled activities to be out riding bikes these days. [1] This is one of the reasons behind Americans ever widening buttocks. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"   Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:49:31 From: Beav Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1176996860.768649.12680@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > Americans? What, like learning to fucking write? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? I don't know, when IS a cyclist going into a rage? > > Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > you draw and... > > I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that You're swimming in deep waters there buddy. (or just that we aren't > Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > launch a good nonviolent campaign? Yeah, just shoot every cunt you see, to be on the safe side. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19   Date: 19 Apr 2007 10:55:51 From: Olebiker Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 12:52 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > 1) They do. > 2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if > they don't have guns just use other weapons. > 3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative > activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into > people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking > tickets) owed to the government. I rather appreciate a comment often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"     Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:03:29 From: jcr Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Olebiker wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:52 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> 1) They do. >> 2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if >> they don't have guns just use other weapons. >> 3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative >> activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into >> people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking >> tickets) owed to the government. > > I rather appreciate a comment often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: > "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves > neither liberty nor security" > > Are you sure it was Ben Franklin? It was definitely one of the framers, but I thought it was someone else that made this statement.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 10:11:49 From: Road Glidin' Don Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 9:34 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > > Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, Hopefully a door opener gets you some day, so we don't have to put up with your retarded cross-posts anymore.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:54:29 From: N8N Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Apr 19, 12:03 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > > > > > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and > >even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other > >Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those > >careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > > >Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > >you draw and... > > >I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't > >Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't > >we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to > >launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > >Here's a good identifying T-shirt... > >http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories > > >Still Bush defends the right to bear arms > > Still, it's the Constitution that affirms ( not 'gives' ) that > RIGHT, and he abides by the Constitution. In this particular instance, yes. "unreasonable search and seizure" not so much. nate     Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:41:01 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1177001669.013864.39360@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, N8N wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:03 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> >Still Bush defends the right to bear arms >> >> Still, it's the Constitution that affirms ( not 'gives' ) that >> RIGHT, and he abides by the Constitution. > > In this particular instance, yes. "unreasonable search and seizure" > not so much. Bush Jr. is another gun grabber, fully willing to sign another assault weapons ban should it reach his desk. The BATF under shrub has been greatly expanded and has been rather busy using existing law to stomp on people. One case in particular was a manufacturer of raw castings that people could then make into finished firearms... provided they had access to a milling machine... this was entirely legal, but the company's owner was still stomped on.   Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:31:58 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In rec.bicycles.misc asshat1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: <snipped for excessive wangst > I'm touch surprised that it took you this long to crawl out from under your bridge. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced. Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html Tb pubxr ba n ohpxrg bs pbpxf. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". -- Philip K. Dick   Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:03:42 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and >even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other >Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those >careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? > >Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement >you draw and... > >I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >launch a good nonviolent campaign? > >Here's a good identifying T-shirt... >http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories > >Still Bush defends the right to bear arms Still, it's the Constitution that affirms ( not 'gives' ) that RIGHT, and he abides by the Constitution. > >EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the >victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect >"every American classroom and community", a White House official said >Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental rights now matter HOW much the left-wing nutters would like to ignore those things in their never ending drive to engineer a society more to their own liking ! -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/     Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:15:30 From: Bob in CT Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:03:42 -0400, <.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com > wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey, we get screamed at, doored at, spitted upon, pushed around and >> even killed, isn't it time we enjoy the same benefits as other >> Americans? When is a cyclist going into a rage and mow down all those >> careless SUV drivers who make us feel worthless? >> >> Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement >> you draw and... >> >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >> >> Here's a good identifying T-shirt... >> http://www.cafepress.com/burncalories >> >> Still Bush defends the right to bear arms > > Still, it's the Constitution that affirms ( not 'gives' ) that > RIGHT, and he abides by the Constitution. > >> >> EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the >> victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect >> "every American classroom and community", a White House official said >> Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms". > > Excellent ! He supports the Constitution and fundamental > rights now matter HOW much the left-wing nutters would like to ignore > those things in their never ending drive to engineer a society more to > their own liking ! > > Bush supports the Constitution? That's news! I mean signing statements are, after all, the ultimate support of the Constitution. And, who needs the Judicial system? Why get a warrant -- just listen in. And all those people who disagree with you? Well, they're un-American commie bastards. Support a stronger executive branch! Bush doesn't need the other branches, because He knows better! -- Bob in CT   Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:44:13 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >launch a good nonviolent campaign? I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia Tech campus? And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think you made some point or another. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...     Date: 04 May 2007 13:11:41 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the dinosaur was still there --An excess of sardines can give you gout Which is very painful.-- "The shark overhunts sardines till they disappear. Then he dies too." Sorry to have made a short story with a sad ending. Do you know one of the classics of the short story??? It's Augusto Monterroso's famous story, 'The Dinosaur'... "When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there." What analysis or application can you make out of it? Say a nightmare where a dinosaur gets elected for 4 years and then re-elected, so he never goes away? How about the SUVs? I see them in my nightmares where they chase me in my bike. Are they trying to crush me, or just overtake me? Or simply they live in the own big world and couldn't care less about such an insect in a bike. Those are deep thoughts...     Date: 04 May 2007 13:10:34 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: the dinosaur was still there --An excess of sardines can give you gout Which is very painful.-- "The shark overhunts sardines till they disappear. Then he dies too." Sorry to have made a short story with a sad ending. Do you know one of the classics of the short story??? It's Augusto Monterroso's famous story, 'The Dinosaur'... "When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there." What analysis or application can you make out of it? Say a nightmare where a dinosaur gets elected for 4 years and then re-elected, so he never goes away? How about the SUVs? I see them in my nightmares where they chase me in my bike. Are they trying to crush me, or just overtake me? Or simply they live in the own big world and couldn't care less about such an insect in a bike. Those are deep thoughts...     Date: 04 May 2007 13:06:21 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Pre-emptive strike is best On May 3, 2:52 pm, dgk <d...@somewhere.com > wrote: > On 3 May 2007 05:49:45 -0700, evelyn <ezienn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >I don't thing that when I'm riding my bike, someone will be able to > >"surprise" me and tackle me to the ground. > > I think that you're very wrong here. All someone has to do is push you > while you bike past and you're lying on the ground wondering what > happened. A stick in the spokes will do the same thing. A rock to the > head and off you go. Pre-emptive strike is best when riding a bike. A suspicious-looking black SUV, particularly if it got tinted windows (is someone looking at you or simply chatting on the phone?) with an "innocent soccer mom" on board, may be sufficient reason to draw and... Well, then you wake up from your dreams, and realize you own a stationary bike that gives you great peace of mind.     Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Curtis L. Russell wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >> launch a good nonviolent campaign? > > I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a > little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia > Tech campus? > > And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being > able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure > there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think > you made some point or another. > > Curtis L. Russell > Odenton, MD (USA) > Just someone on two wheels... Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like those at the campus on Monday. Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to carry around on my rides. Ken       Date: 07 May 2007 07:25:46 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Re: What kind of handgun for my jetski? On May 6, 6:30 pm, Alan Moore <alan.s.mo...@comcast.net > wrote: > On 5 May 2007 09:25:18 -0700, donquijote1954 > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"What kind of handgun for my jetski?" > > Uh, speargun? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speargun > > Al Moore > DoD 734 I've got one of those things! Came with the last boat my dad bought. Tough to get the band back & plenty touchy once you do, but a grand toy all the same. I spent an hour in the yard with it when he first got it, not too inaccurate once you get the hang. I've yet to have the need to repel any boarders, but I'm ready! I do think it'd be tough to handle on a jet ski, however. Glock makes a couple guns that are supposed to fire underwater, so I'm sure they'd take well to firing above water after being wet. I read the HK Mk 23 SOCOM is designed for special ops where it's liable to be swam through salt water before being used, and is resistant to said salt water. This would be a good choice for saltwater use. Remember, one in the chamber with safety off at all times, and only shoot when the gun is sideways and you can't see down the sights.       Date: 05 May 2007 23:14:16 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <Xns9927DDEEBAA93smvsmv@216.196.97.142 >, "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com > writes: > tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote in > news:hgfj1f.j99.ln@bud.garden.local: > >>> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of >>> garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. >> >> That myth has been busted. > > By a couple jerks in Frisco with questionable techniques and personal > bias or by someone with real scientific training and reasoning? No. I could say: "Google on it." and then you'd say: "No, /you/'ve gotta come up with the cites." And then I would. We can save a bunch of effort. I'll tell ya what /does/ keep mosquitoes away -- smoking. Fire up a Panter[tm] Rood, and kick back in the chaise longe in the back yard, in unbitten and un-blood-sucken paradise. Maybe while also sipping a gin & ginger beer on the rocks, with the Cardinals game humming along on the radio. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca         Date: 06 May 2007 15:47:22 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:onrj1f.bo9.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <Xns9927DDEEBAA93smvsmv@216.196.97.142>, > "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com> writes: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote in >> news:hgfj1f.j99.ln@bud.garden.local: >> >>>> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of >>>> garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. >>> >>> That myth has been busted. >> >> By a couple jerks in Frisco with questionable techniques and personal >> bias or by someone with real scientific training and reasoning? > > No. > > I could say: "Google on it." > > and then you'd say: "No, /you/'ve gotta come up with the cites." > > And then I would. > > We can save a bunch of effort. > > I'll tell ya what /does/ keep mosquitoes away -- smoking. > Fire up a Panter[tm] Rood, and kick back in the chaise longe > in the back yard, in unbitten and un-blood-sucken paradise. > Maybe while also sipping a gin & ginger beer on the rocks, > with the Cardinals game humming along on the radio. > > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca Tomato juice. They don't like acidic blood. Attracted to sweet blood.         Date: 06 May 2007 06:38:48 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:onrj1f.bo9.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <Xns9927DDEEBAA93smvsmv@216.196.97.142>, > "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com> writes: >> tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote in >> news:hgfj1f.j99.ln@bud.garden.local: >> >>>> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of >>>> garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. >>> >>> That myth has been busted. >> >> By a couple jerks in Frisco with questionable techniques and personal >> bias or by someone with real scientific training and reasoning? > > No. > > I could say: "Google on it." > > and then you'd say: "No, /you/'ve gotta come up with the cites." > > And then I would. > > We can save a bunch of effort. > > I'll tell ya what /does/ keep mosquitoes away -- smoking. > Fire up a Panter[tm] Rood, and kick back in the chaise longe > in the back yard, in unbitten and un-blood-sucken paradise. > Maybe while also sipping a gin & ginger beer on the rocks, > with the Cardinals game humming along on the radio. Nope it's AF / Hemmingway's 1 every 4 hours and one of that nasty looking backwoods every hour. Throw a brisket on the smoker/grill relax with some Celis wheat or Foster Bitters and MotoGp on the satellite. -- Keith Schiffner History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. Robert Heinlein       Date: 05 May 2007 20:54:16 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <463d4b78$0$16690$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <rtgq339sji8p8qsf1utrcb3ou74t84on13@4ax.com>, >> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: >>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:45:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <Xns9927D0020D8B5smvsmv@216.196.97.142>, >>>> "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com> writes: >>>>> "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>> news:x%P_h.2577$RX.1560 @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: >>>>> >>>>>> Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem >>>>>> in *years*. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot >>>>> of garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. >>>> >>>> That myth has been busted. >>> >>> Ever had a bust that you mythed ? >> >> I mith many buthtth. Ethpethially Doloreth'th. >> Herth wath thatuethque, like Athena'th. >> Protruding thee-cup. > > Prolly cuz you eated garlic. Poththibly. > (It's movie time...) Flying Thcotthman? cheerth, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 05 May 2007 20:06:41 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <rtgq339sji8p8qsf1utrcb3ou74t84on13@4ax.com >, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: > On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:45:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >>In article <Xns9927D0020D8B5smvsmv@216.196.97.142>, >> "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com> writes: >>> "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:x%P_h.2577$RX.1560 >>> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: >>> >>>> Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem in >>>> *years*. >>> >>> >>> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of >>> garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. >> >>That myth has been busted. > > Ever had a bust that you mythed ? I mith many buthtth. Ethpethially Doloreth'th. Herth wath thatuethque, like Athena'th. Protruding thee-cup. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca         Date: 05 May 2007 20:28:52 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <rtgq339sji8p8qsf1utrcb3ou74t84on13@4ax.com>, > .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: >> On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:45:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) >> wrote: >> >>> In article <Xns9927D0020D8B5smvsmv@216.196.97.142>, >>> "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com> writes: >>>> "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> news:x%P_h.2577$RX.1560 @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: >>>> >>>>> Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem >>>>> in *years*. >>>> >>>> >>>> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot >>>> of garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. >>> >>> That myth has been busted. >> >> Ever had a bust that you mythed ? > > I mith many buthtth. Ethpethially Doloreth'th. > Herth wath thatuethque, like Athena'th. > Protruding thee-cup. Prolly cuz you eated garlic. (It's movie time...)         Date: 05 May 2007 23:21:29 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Sat, 5 May 2007 20:06:41 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <rtgq339sji8p8qsf1utrcb3ou74t84on13@4ax.com>, > .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com writes: >> On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:45:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) >> wrote: >> >>>In article <Xns9927D0020D8B5smvsmv@216.196.97.142>, >>> "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com> writes: >>>> "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:x%P_h.2577$RX.1560 >>>> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: >>>> >>>>> Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem in >>>>> *years*. >>>> >>>> >>>> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of >>>> garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. >>> >>>That myth has been busted. >> >> Ever had a bust that you mythed ? > >I mith many buthtth. Ethpethially Doloreth'th. >Herth wath thatuethque, like Athena'th. >Protruding thee-cup. Thanks. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/       Date: 05 May 2007 19:45:37 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <Xns9927D0020D8B5smvsmv@216.196.97.142 >, "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com > writes: > "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:x%P_h.2577$RX.1560 > @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > >> Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem in >> *years*. > > > You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of > garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. That myth has been busted. -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca         Date: 05 May 2007 22:48:10 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote in news:hgfj1f.j99.ln@bud.garden.local: >> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of >> garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. > > That myth has been busted. By a couple jerks in Frisco with questionable techniques and personal bias or by someone with real scientific training and reasoning? -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com         Date: 05 May 2007 22:56:10 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:45:37 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <Xns9927D0020D8B5smvsmv@216.196.97.142>, > "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com> writes: >> "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote in news:x%P_h.2577$RX.1560 >> @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: >> >>> Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem in >>> *years*. >> >> >> You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of >> garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. > >That myth has been busted. Ever had a bust that you mythed ? -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/       Date: From: Subject:       Date: 03 May 2007 10:08:43 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber > wrote: > The first cite says, > "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her > lifetime." Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to tell if it has any validity. Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous (in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". Unfortunately, there was only one tiny study that concluded that, and it's been shown to be completely bogus. It's also been refuted by many other studies. Yet the claim persists by those in the business of making such claims. So, tracking down the original source of that claim may give us some idea as to its validity. At the moment, it sounds very fishy - unless, once again, the definition of "sexual assault" extends to things even the most timid and shy 16-year-old guy tries on a first date. - Frank Krygowski         Date: 04 May 2007 14:08:42 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1178212123.611700.132180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote: > >Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with >impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous >(in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of >hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". Is it a baseball cap? One of those Panama jobbies? Perhaps a fedora? :-) -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.           Date: 04 May 2007 19:49:32 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:08:42 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: >In article <1178212123.611700.132180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with >>impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous >>(in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of >>hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". > >Is it a baseball cap? One of those Panama jobbies? Perhaps a fedora? :-) Tin foil. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/           Date: 04 May 2007 15:25:27 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message news:mNadnY3HQrAnGabbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net... > In article <1178212123.611700.132180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with >>impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous >>(in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of >>hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". > > Is it a baseball cap? One of those Panama jobbies? Perhaps a fedora? :-) > -- > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices > can > result in a fully-depreciated one. I have a Panama Hat, I've never had a head injury while wearing it, so they must work.             Date: 04 May 2007 17:40:24 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in news:XEM_h.292714$7g3.215261@newsfe14.phx: > I have a Panama Hat, I've never had a head injury while wearing it, so > they must work. I keep lemon juice soaked rags on the back porch to keep the elephants out of my yard... Haven't seen any elephants so it must be working... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com               Date: 05 May 2007 00:14:21 From: Mike Young Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Stephen!" <NO@spam.com > wrote in message news:Xns9926A9C92C1Csmvsmv@216.196.97.142... > "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in > news:XEM_h.292714$7g3.215261@newsfe14.phx: > >> I have a Panama Hat, I've never had a head injury while wearing it, so >> they must work. > > > I keep lemon juice soaked rags on the back porch to keep the elephants > out of my yard... Haven't seen any elephants so it must be working... Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem in *years*.                 Date: 05 May 2007 21:26:02 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com > wrote in news:x%P_h.2577$RX.1560 @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > Garlic seems to do the trick with vampires. Haven't had a problem in > *years*. You laugh, but garlic does keep away blood suckers... Eat a lot of garlic and the mosquitos will leave you alone. -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com           Date: 04 May 2007 14:50:12 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <mNadnY3HQrAnGabbnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote: > In article <1178212123.611700.132180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with >>impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous >>(in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of >>hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". > > Is it a baseball cap? One of those Panama jobbies? Perhaps a fedora? :-) Stylish plastic and styrofoam.         Date: 03 May 2007 11:41:52 From: Turby Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On 3 May 2007 10:08:43 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > >> The first cite says, >> "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her >> lifetime." > >Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the >number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to >tell if it has any validity. Once again, somebody wants to quibble about numbers, rather than address the issue. Do you deny that the number of reported rapes is ridiculously excessive? Without citing numbers, virtually all authorities agree that the actual incidence of rape is far higher than what is reported. -- Turby the Turbosurfer           Date: 03 May 2007 21:30:18 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Turby" <turbosurfer@beach.comber > wrote in message news:p7ak33dulc10vagni3kadf9ch0gvp5gmi7@4ax.com... > On 3 May 2007 10:08:43 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >>On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >> >>> The first cite says, >>> "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her >>> lifetime." >> >>Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the >>number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to >>tell if it has any validity. > > Once again, somebody wants to quibble about numbers, rather than > address the issue. Do you deny that the number of reported rapes is > ridiculously excessive? Without citing numbers, virtually all > authorities agree that the actual incidence of rape is far higher than > what is reported. > > -- > Turby the Turbosurfer Even one is too much. Some countries you die for that violation. No second chances. No does not mean yes period.           Date: 03 May 2007 15:01:59 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:41:52 -0700, Turby <turbosurfer@beach.comber > wrote: >On 3 May 2007 10:08:43 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >>On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >> >>> The first cite says, >>> "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her >>> lifetime." >> >>Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the >>number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to >>tell if it has any validity. > >Once again, somebody wants to quibble about numbers, rather than >address the issue. Do you deny that the number of reported rapes is >ridiculously excessive? Yep. Take Crystal Gail Mangum, for instance ... ( Duke rape case ). The liberals have made the word meaningless over the last 40 years. They've so redefined it and manipulated it so that now, if two kids in college get ( willingly ) drunk and have consensual sex, that's 'rape' ( against only one of them, apparently ), if the girl decides the next day or the next week that she wished she'd have had less to drink, and kept her panties on.. > Without citing numbers, virtually all >authorities agree that the actual incidence of rape is far higher than >what is reported. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/         Date: 03 May 2007 12:14:02 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <1178212123.611700.132180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: > >> The first cite says, >> "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her >> lifetime." > > Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the > number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to > tell if it has any validity. > > Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with > impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous > (in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of > hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". Unfortunately, there was > only one tiny study that concluded that, and it's been shown to be > completely bogus. It's also been refuted by many other studies. Yet > the claim persists by those in the business of making such claims. > > So, tracking down the original source of that claim may give us some > idea as to its validity. At the moment, it sounds very fishy - > unless, once again, the definition of "sexual assault" extends to > things even the most timid and shy 16-year-old guy tries on a first > date. There was one 'date-rape' study that got impressive, shocking results by defining buying a man buying a woman a drink as 'date-rape'. The thought process being it was to get her drunk and have his way with her.           Date: 03 May 2007 22:07:18 From: Keith Schiffner Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:MMydnZVF2-7HhafbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@comcast.com... SNIP > The thought process being it was to get her drunk and have his way with her. A female chauvinistic veiwpoint imo. I've had women buy me drinks with the purpose of getting me drunk enough yet not to drunk to use me for their whims...not that I'm complaining mind you. It's just that they didn't have to spend their money to achieve their goals, just ask. Bluntly if necessary...that to has happened and slut that I am, well naturally I said "yes, your place or mine?" -- Keith Schiffner History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. Robert Heinlein           Date: 03 May 2007 17:56:36 From: nash Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:MMydnZVF2-7HhafbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@comcast.com... > In article <1178212123.611700.132180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> On May 3, 12:49 pm, Turby <turbosur...@beach.comber> wrote: >> >>> The first cite says, >>> "1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her >>> lifetime." >> >> Really, that's not much of a citation. I see no source for the >> number, and no clue as to how it was determined. It's impossible to >> tell if it has any validity. >> >> Those of us on the rec.bicycles.* groups are very familiar with >> impressive-sounding numbers that have no validity. The most famous >> (in our sphere) is an almost universal claim that a certain style of >> hat will reduce certain injuries by "85%". Unfortunately, there was >> only one tiny study that concluded that, and it's been shown to be >> completely bogus. It's also been refuted by many other studies. Yet >> the claim persists by those in the business of making such claims. >> >> So, tracking down the original source of that claim may give us some >> idea as to its validity. At the moment, it sounds very fishy - >> unless, once again, the definition of "sexual assault" extends to >> things even the most timid and shy 16-year-old guy tries on a first >> date. > > There was one 'date-rape' study that got impressive, shocking results by > defining buying a man buying a woman a drink as 'date-rape'. The thought > process being it was to get her drunk and have his way with her. One drink. I don't think so. But if the agressor gets drunk he is less likely to be held responsible for his behaviour. Just like drunk drivers getting off clean.       Date: 24 Apr 2007 07:10:35 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: SUV syndrome --I like bikes, but if I am ever on a Jury where someone is charged with manslaughter for running over some revolutionary bikers who decided to "take the lane", then that fellow is going to walk..... (Or maybe drive away,,,,,whatever.) I guess that makes me a sleeper agent for the automobilized-counter- insurgency.-- Some people like you out there. Call it the "SUV syndrome," where you expect people to destroy --and get away with it... 'In a society in which a $50,000, three-ton, gas-guzzling monstrosity is required to transport safely a soccer mom and her twelve-year-old a few blocks to the practice field, it should come as no surprise that the military, too, has an "SUV syndrome": the embrace of expensive gadgetry and machines to ensure at all costs the safety of the individual combatant. The more that technology and science can ameliorate the human condition of the average American citizen, and prolong life by conquering the age-old banes of accident, disease, and famine, the more our cultures expect that our soldiers, too, will avoid wounds and death. The anticipation that we shall all die at 90 in our sleep -- peacefully and without pain -- results in an array of social and cultural limitations placed upon the conditions of battle. Societies that are affluent and free expect their soldiers to be able to kill thousands of enemies who are neither -- and without incurring any deaths in the process.' http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050602.html       Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:45:19 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular incident? On Apr 22, 5:50 pm, "proehling" <peter_roehl...@eee.org > wrote: > "Bill" <b...@comcast.net> wrote > > > Just up the penalty for the other drugs to 5 years for the first offense, > > 20 for the second, and life for a third offense. > > And exactly who's going to pay for all those new prisons we're going to have > to construct to house all of those new three-strike lifers? You? > > Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure! Don't worry, the industry, the prison industry, will welcome them... (nowadays is mostly fed by small offenses, like marihuana) The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form of slavery? BY VICKY PELAEZ (Taken from El Diario-La Prensa, New York) HUMAN rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million - mostly Black and Hispanic - are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells. http://www.granma.cu/INGLES/2005/octubre/juev13/42carceles.html         Date: 24 Apr 2007 17:03:17 From: Bill Subject: Re: how your armed citizens would have prevented this particular donquijote1954 wrote: > On Apr 22, 5:50 pm, "proehling" <peter_roehl...@eee.org> wrote: >> "Bill" <b...@comcast.net> wrote >> >>> Just up the penalty for the other drugs to 5 years for the first offense, >>> 20 for the second, and life for a third offense. >> And exactly who's going to pay for all those new prisons we're going to have >> to construct to house all of those new three-strike lifers? You? >> >> Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure! > > Don't worry, the industry, the prison industry, will welcome them... > > (nowadays is mostly fed by small offenses, like marihuana) You got my point, exactly. Take a kid and send him to jail/prison for doing what President Clinton did and ruin his chances at college or a job afterwards, and they call that rehabilitation? > > The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form > of slavery? Per my statement above, the laws now are creating career criminals out of otherwise promising kids. > > BY VICKY PELAEZ (Taken from El Diario-La Prensa, New York) > > HUMAN rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are > condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation > in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 > million - mostly Black and Hispanic - are working for various > industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the > prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don't > have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, > vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never > arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if > they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they > are locked up in isolation cells. > > http://www.granma.cu/INGLES/2005/octubre/juev13/42carceles.html > Yeah, Where do you think license plates come from? That's learning a trade? Bill Baka       Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:15:29 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! On Apr 21, 10:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 21 Apr 2007 11:36:46 -0700, donquijote1954 > > > > > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > > >> There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only > >> fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns > >> (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be > >> demonstrated). > > >>http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html > > >>http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html > > >> "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other > >> place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." > > >I think the main problem here is the jungle where poverty reigns > >compounded by violence everywhere, from TV to foreign policy. Ah, also > > You're blaming crime on TV now ? Figures. Maybe we should > ban TV ??? > > >made worst by the stupid drug prohibition. > > Bzzzt. Try again. Cocaine, Heroin, and pot are all illegal > in Switzerland. Do you figure they don't have TV there either ? Or > maybe it's just that the only channel they get is the 24 hour Barney > channel. That, and Tele-tubbies. Didn't you know the Europeans enjoyed better TV? Less commercials and less 6 o'clock news... "YOU have meddled with the primal forces of NATURE, Mr. Beale ... There is no America. There is no Democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today ... the world is a BUSINESS, Mr. Beale." "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" Those are memorable lines from the movie 'Network.' In this satirical view of COMMERCIAL TELEVISION, you get a prime time view behind the curtains of the American media network. In it, the main character, Mr Beale, tells the truth and nothing but the whole truth. Talk about the opium of the people... Memorable Quotes: I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty- three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting] You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: [screaming at the top of his lungs] "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/quotes         Date: 23 Apr 2007 14:31:02 From: Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! On 23 Apr 2007 11:15:29 -0700, donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 21, 10:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On 21 Apr 2007 11:36:46 -0700, donquijote1954 >> >> >> >> >> >> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> >> >> There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only >> >> fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns >> >> (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be >> >> demonstrated). >> >> >>http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html >> >> >>http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html >> >> >> "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other >> >> place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." >> >> >I think the main problem here is the jungle where poverty reigns >> >compounded by violence everywhere, from TV to foreign policy. Ah, also >> >> You're blaming crime on TV now ? Figures. Maybe we should >> ban TV ??? >> >> >made worst by the stupid drug prohibition. >> >> Bzzzt. Try again. Cocaine, Heroin, and pot are all illegal >> in Switzerland. Do you figure they don't have TV there either ? Or >> maybe it's just that the only channel they get is the 24 hour Barney >> channel. That, and Tele-tubbies. > >Didn't you know the Europeans enjoyed better TV? Less commercials and >less 6 o'clock news... > >"YOU have meddled with the primal forces of NATURE, Mr. Beale ... >There is no America. There is no Democracy. There is only IBM and ITT >and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the >nations of the world today ... the world is a BUSINESS, Mr. Beale." > >"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" > >Those are memorable lines from the movie 'Network.' In this satirical >view of COMMERCIAL TELEVISION, you get a prime time view behind the >curtains of the American media network. In it, the main character, Mr >Beale, tells the truth and nothing but the whole truth. Talk about the >opium of the people... > >Memorable Quotes: > >I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are >bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing >their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, >shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in >the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, >and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our >food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local >newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty- >three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We >know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like >everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We >sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting >smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our >living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted >radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not >gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to >protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your >congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't >know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the >Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've >got to get mad. [shouting] You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, >Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all >of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now >and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M >AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to >get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your >head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this >anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get >mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to >take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the >depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out >of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and >say it: [screaming at the top of his lungs] "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND >I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/quotes You need to get out more. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/           Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:03:30 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: {6 KBs of rambling snipped} > You need to get out more. You need to trim more. (Please!)             Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:53:43 From: Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:03:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >{6 KBs of rambling snipped} > >> You need to get out more. > >You need to trim more. (Please!) > Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/               Date: 23 Apr 2007 16:37:08 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:03:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> > wrote: > >> .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> {6 KBs of rambling snipped} >> >>> You need to get out more. >> >> You need to trim more. (Please!) >> > > Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( Well let's not get circumspect... :-P                 Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:07:30 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in news:462d4325$0$9954 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>> You need to trim more. (Please!) >>> >> >> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( > > Well let's not get circumspect... :-P I wish you guys would quit dicking around in the groups... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                   Date: 24 Apr 2007 20:35:49 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! Stephen! wrote: > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in news:462d4325$0$9954 > $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > >>>> You need to trim more. (Please!) >>>> >>> >>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >> >> Well let's not get circumspect... :-P > > I wish you guys would quit dicking around in the groups... You're getting under my skin...nutcase.                     Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:12:43 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in news:462ecc9f$0$9927 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>>>> You need to trim more. (Please!) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >>> >>> Well let's not get circumspect... :-P >> >> I wish you guys would quit dicking around in the groups... > > You're getting under my skin...nutcase. Bet you don't have the balls to say that again... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                       Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:10:04 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! Stephen! wrote: > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in news:462ecc9f$0$9927 > $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > >>>>>> You need to trim more. (Please!) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >>>> >>>> Well let's not get circumspect... :-P >>> >>> I wish you guys would quit dicking around in the groups... >> >> You're getting under my skin...nutcase. > > Bet you don't have the balls to say that again... This is getting hairy. Sack up or...withdraw! Bill "twofer" S.                         Date: 25 Apr 2007 16:07:43 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in news:462f8b75$0$9921 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>>>>>> You need to trim more. (Please!) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >>>>> >>>>> Well let's not get circumspect... :-P >>>> >>>> I wish you guys would quit dicking around in the groups... >>> >>> You're getting under my skin...nutcase. >> >> Bet you don't have the balls to say that again... > > This is getting hairy. Sack up or...withdraw! No reason to get teste about it... I'm sure we can bridge the vas deference between us. Taint no reason we can't but there are better places than a pubic forum for such discussions... -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com                     Date: 25 Apr 2007 00:16:30 From: Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:35:49 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >Stephen! wrote: >> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in news:462d4325$0$9954 >> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >> >>>>> You need to trim more. (Please!) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >>> >>> Well let's not get circumspect... :-P >> >> I wish you guys would quit dicking around in the groups... > >You're getting under my skin...nutcase. > Getting a bit teste there, aren't you ? -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                       Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:27:39 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:35:49 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> > wrote: > >> Stephen! wrote: >>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in news:462d4325$0$9954 >>> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>> >>>>>> You need to trim more. (Please!) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeh, that one coulda used a Rabbi, I admit :-( >>>> >>>> Well let's not get circumspect... :-P >>> >>> I wish you guys would quit dicking around in the groups... >> >> You're getting under my skin...nutcase. >> > > Getting a bit teste there, aren't you ? Fore!       Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:41:19 From: Polarhound Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Just A User wrote: > Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > those at the campus on Monday. No, instead they have nutcases like Michael Dosunmu who manage to procure a FULL AUTO weapon in the UK and execute a murder plot. Last Updated: Monday, 5 March 2007, 23:21 GMT 'Up to 30' heard boy murder plan Police believe up to 30 people were present when the murder of 15-year-old Michael Dosunmu at his home in south-east London was planned. Speaking on Crimewatch on Monday Det Ch Insp Fiona Mallon said his murder may have been a case of mistaken identity. Michael died of multiple gunshot wounds when two gunmen burst into the bedroom of his Peckham home on 6 February. Detectives said the weapon, a Mac 10 machine-gun, was still on London's streets and could be used again. Let's also not neglect to mention that the UK is now the land of Natioanl ID cards and Big Brother cameras who are now having 2-way AUDIO installed so the Queen and her minions can publicly scold you for anything they see you doing that they think is bad. Speaking of how safe the UK gun laws have made the (severely pussified) Brits: http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/display.var.970828.0.girl_14_accused_of_supplying_machine_guns.php Girl, 14, accused of supplying machine guns By Ruth Holmes A 14-YEAR-OLD girl from north-west London stands accused of conspiracy to supply a machine gun capable of firing 1,000 rounds a minute. The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is one of four suspects from the area who appeared at High Barnet magistrates' court charged with gun-related crimes. She was charged with possessing two revolvers, a Mac-10 machine gun and a second machine pistol. A 16-year-old male youth was also accused of possessing a revolver with intent to endanger life, as well as drugs and CS sprays. 18-year-old Korrey Johnson-Bell, of Westfield Close, Brent, was charged with possession of a machine pistol while Genevieve Sahel, 31, also of Westfield Close, faced charges of conspiracy to supply firearms, possession of prohibited weapons and possession of ammunition. Their court appearance on Saturday follows an investigation by London's Trident crime unit, which handles gun crime in black communities. It occurred as five more victims fell prey to gun crime in the capital this weekend. advertisement Gang warfare upsurge An internal police report, revealed by the Observer newspaper on Sunday, painted a grim picture of the surge in gang warfare and "post-code killings" in London. The report focuses on Hackney, where father-of-two Steven Nyembo-Ya-Muteba was murdered outside his home two weeks ago after asking a gang of youths to be quiet. It says gun and knife crime in the north-east London borough is increasing more rapidly than anywhere in the capital. The report, written by Superintendent Leroy Logan, highlights the "terrible acts of gratuitous violence" that have afflicted the area, "ending up in young people losing their lives or being badly injured, because they were visiting the area and were known by the local violent youth, showing the serious implications of district code warfare". Violent music videos The police chief points to a growing trend which is seeing gangs produce music videos, being broadcast on digital music channels, encouraging violent attacks on rivals. The report, circulated across the Metropolitan police four months ago, warns that if "gangster glamour, was not "shattered" it would "continually end up in predator-type packs of youths committing the most disgusting acts of violence and other forms of crime". According to the Observer, police are particularly concerned about Sky television's Channel U which is seen by some as glamorising gang culture. Darren Platt, the director of Channel U, told the paper it had "tightened things up" and now rejected videos advocating violence and guns. Now, take your lying socialist drivel and stick it where the sun don't shine.       Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:11:17 From: BiffB Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Just A User wrote: > Curtis L. Russell wrote: > >> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 >> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >>> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >>> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >>> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >> >> >> I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a >> little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia >> Tech campus? >> >> And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being >> able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure >> there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think >> you made some point or another. >> >> Curtis L. Russell >> Odenton, MD (USA) >> Just someone on two wheels... > > Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > those at the campus on Monday. > > Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to > carry around on my rides. > > Ken Before Monday, the U.S. had not had an incident like that. The U.K. also has surviellance cameras every 15 feet. Would you be willing to live in an Orwellian world for a false sense of security? I personally figure if some crazy wacko nutjob wants to go on a killing spree, he'll find a way, with, or without a gun, and I'ld just as soon improve my odds by having one to stop him. Now that I've poked at the ant bed a little bit, i'm gonna go have a nap.         Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:16:47 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <4627b0f5$0$48351$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org >, BiffB wrote: > The U.K. also has surviellance cameras every 15 feet. Would you be > willing to live in an Orwellian world for a false sense of security? Cameras that mysterously malfunction when the government is running an op of some sort or the cops did something wrong.       Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:52:26 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <7dmdndnaQcKfDbrbnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@giganews.com >, Just A User wrote: > Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > those at the campus on Monday. 1) They do. 2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if they don't have guns just use other weapons. 3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking tickets) owed to the government. Gun bans increase crime by making working conditions safe for criminals. Allowing people to carry guns decreases crime by making working conditions unsafe for criminals. In the same part of the country there was another school shooting prior to this one, except in that case students went and got their guns from their cars and ended it at 3 dead. Relying on the police to do something hours later is folly and bans will never keep the guns out of the hands of someone bent on doing something.         Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:01:25 From: jcr Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Brent P wrote: > In article <7dmdndnaQcKfDbrbnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@giganews.com>, Just A User wrote: > >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >> those at the campus on Monday. > > 1) They do. > 2) Crime is up, as citizens cannot defend themselves. The criminals if > they don't have guns just use other weapons. > 3) The UK government is becoming more controling. Recent legislative > activity in the UK includes having government employees busting into > people's homes to take items equal in value to any fines (such as parking > tickets) owed to the government. > > Gun bans increase crime by making working conditions safe for criminals. > Allowing people to carry guns decreases crime by making working > conditions unsafe for criminals. > > In the same part of the country there was another school shooting prior > to this one, except in that case students went and got their guns from > their cars and ended it at 3 dead. Relying on the police to do something > hours later is folly and bans will never keep the guns out of the hands > of someone bent on doing something. > > I suppose one could make the case that if only a couple of the students in those classrooms were packing heat (legally registered to carry a concealed weapon), the outcome would likely have been quite different. The fight would certainly have been more fair!       Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:09:21 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >those at the campus on Monday. Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, and they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several in Canada. Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...         Date: 19 Apr 2007 23:59:06 From: Stephen! Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in news:q98f235j6hp7qatph15qnj4mvtdrncqpj1@4ax.com: > Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. Taste has a timeline? Interesting... Reminds me of the joke that ends, "We've already established that. Now we're just negotiating a price." -- RCOS #7 IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com         Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:18:19 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Curtis L. Russell wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User > <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >> those at the campus on Monday. > > Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, and > they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was > there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several > in Canada. > > Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell > everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much > stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. > > Curtis L. Russell > Odenton, MD (USA) > Just someone on two wheels... I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until that time comes, control is the key. Ken           Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:57:10 From: jcr Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Just A User wrote: > Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User >> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a >>> wack job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents >>> like those at the campus on Monday. >> >> Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, and >> they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was >> there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several >> in Canada. >> >> Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell >> everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much >> stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. >> >> Curtis L. Russell >> Odenton, MD (USA) >> Just someone on two wheels... > I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are > banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until that > time comes, control is the key. > > Ken Curious, how would one go about "banning" guns? They are very easy to manufacture. One might be able to stop the legitimate production, but one will never stop criminal production by the enactment of any laws. So, we're back to only law-abiding people complying and the criminal elements still armed. That doesn't make any sense to me.           Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:34:42 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:18:19 -0400, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User >> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >>> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >>> those at the campus on Monday. >> >> Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, and >> they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was >> there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several >> in Canada. >> >> Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell >> everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much >> stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. >> >> Curtis L. Russell >> Odenton, MD (USA) >> Just someone on two wheels... >I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are >banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until that >time comes, control is the key. > >Ken Yeh, right. Let's only let the Government have them. Where did you get that one, Mein Kampf ? -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/           Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:29:07 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Just A User wrote: > Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User >> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a >>> wack job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents >>> like those at the campus on Monday. >> >> Well, actually they do, but not in the quantity that the U.S. has, >> and they seem to be somewhat less successful, even if the intent was >> there. There have been incidents in Germany and Scotland and several >> in Canada. >> >> Starting this thread - often initiated by those who like to tell >> everyone what they will do to this driver or another - is pretty much >> stupid. Doing it today is what makes it tasteless to boot. >> >> Curtis L. Russell >> Odenton, MD (USA) >> Just someone on two wheels... > I agree it's pretty tasteless, as I pointed out, until all guns are > banned and destroyed, these types of events will happen, but until > that time comes, control is the key. Heaven knows the criminals will abide by laws and regulations. (Or, just use gasoline and fertilizer.)       Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:07:18 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 >> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >>> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >>> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >>> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >> >> I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a >> little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia >> Tech campus? >> >> And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being >> able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure >> there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think >> you made some point or another. >> >> Curtis L. Russell >> Odenton, MD (USA) >> Just someone on two wheels... >Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >those at the campus on Monday. Google 'Dunblane', and retract your statement. And if you think a society where you are tracked on camera from the moment you leave your own front door until the moment you return, where you are REQUIRED to submit to criminal attack, where you are PROHIBITED from defending yourself even in your own home, then I suggest you move to the UK yourself. > >Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to >carry around on my rides. Then you better go on a diet, it's only ~ 1 -2 pounds. > >Ken -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/         Date: 21 Apr 2007 12:03:56 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: pray they don't hit you On Apr 21, 1:32 am, David Steuber <d...@david-steuber.com > wrote: > donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> writes: > > Imagine this scenario: You get hit and as you roll down the pavement > > you draw and... > > Already you are wrong and probably a troll. > > A carry gun is a tool for self defence, not revenge. We live in the era of the law of the jungle, ie. where pre-emptive strikes are necessary... 'If a country is allowed to go unlawfully and to do whatever it likes by resorting to its super-military powers or a strong country allowed to "take the initiative by striking first" against a weak country without being condemned, this would mean that the UN is in existence in name only and the international law a piece of waste paper. And so there is no world order at all. The jungle law of the weak being the prey to the strong will once again get the upper hand.' http://english.people.com.cn/200303/27/eng20030327_114094.shtml Or may choose to ride ignorant that the law of the jungle is also apllicable on the roads, and pray. Yep, pray they don't hit you because that's all you can do. Oh well, you may as well get organized, but that's the subject of the revolution.         Date: 21 Apr 2007 10:41:17 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE sleazy wrote: > On 20 Apr 2007 12:51:43 -0700, donquijote1954 > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >The right to bear arms should apply to NUN or NONE... > > > >http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2003/NunsWithGuns.jpg > > > > > >Meaning we should arm everybody to be able to defend him/herself from > >everybody else, or just give it to none so nobody has one. Fair? > > When you manage to get the Constitution amended to reflect that no one > gets a weapon, get back with us. In the meantime, picture me as > capable of defending myself. Think 9mm and thank Kel-Tec. So I'd assume you are a NUN. ;)         Date: 21 Apr 2007 11:29:55 From: Eeyore Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > Just A User wrote: > > >Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack > >job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the > >constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. > >where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like > >those at the campus on Monday. > > Google 'Dunblane', and retract your statement. Dunblane happened before the strict gun laws existed. In fact it was the very reason for those lwas. Graham           Date: 01 May 2007 14:58:35 From: DI Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? > >> >> >Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >> >job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >> >constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >> >where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >> >those at the campus on Monday. >> It's probably good they don't have guns, look at how many people already get maimed and killed at their Soccer (Football) games without guns, with weapons, it would be a slaughter.           Date: 22 Apr 2007 19:49:59 From: David Steuber Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > writes: > Dunblane happened before the strict gun laws existed. In fact it was the very > reason for those lwas. s/reason/excuse/ This may not seem applicable outside the United States because of the legal situation, but it is because no matter what the law actually says, you do have the right to defend yourself (but not seek extra-legal revenge): http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/47/45 -- This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons. An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader. --- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1 At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored. --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels. --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling         Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:12:32 From: Just A User Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User > <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: > >> Curtis L. Russell wrote: >>> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 >>> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >>>> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >>>> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >>>> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >>> I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a >>> little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia >>> Tech campus? >>> >>> And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being >>> able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure >>> there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think >>> you made some point or another. >>> >>> Curtis L. Russell >>> Odenton, MD (USA) >>> Just someone on two wheels... >> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >> those at the campus on Monday. > > Google 'Dunblane', and retract your statement. > > And if you think a society where you are tracked on camera > from the moment you leave your own front door until the moment you > return, where you are REQUIRED to submit to criminal attack, where you > are PROHIBITED from defending yourself even in your own home, then I > suggest you move to the UK yourself. > >> Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to >> carry around on my rides. > > Then you better go on a diet, it's only ~ 1 -2 pounds. > >> Ken > Okay so that is one, but they are a lot less common than here in the U.S. Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings per year. Oh yeah and the one you mentioned only resulted in half the number of deaths as occurred on Monday. Ken           Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:48:17 From: Matthew T. Russotto Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? In article <iuednRpUe9yUCLrbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com >, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >Okay so that is one, but they are a lot less common than here in the U.S. > >Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings >per year. A lie, of course. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.             Date: 24 Apr 2007 07:20:26 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! On Apr 23, 2:31 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 23 Apr 2007 11:15:29 -0700, donquijote1954 > > > > > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Apr 21, 10:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > >> On 21 Apr 2007 11:36:46 -0700, donquijote1954 > > >> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > > >> >> There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only > >> >> fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns > >> >> (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be > >> >> demonstrated). > > >> >>http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html > > >> >>http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html > > >> >> "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other > >> >> place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." > > >> >I think the main problem here is the jungle where poverty reigns > >> >compounded by violence everywhere, from TV to foreign policy. Ah, also > > >> You're blaming crime on TV now ? Figures. Maybe we should > >> ban TV ??? > > >> >made worst by the stupid drug prohibition. > > >> Bzzzt. Try again. Cocaine, Heroin, and pot are all illegal > >> in Switzerland. Do you figure they don't have TV there either ? Or > >> maybe it's just that the only channel they get is the 24 hour Barney > >> channel. That, and Tele-tubbies. > > >Didn't you know the Europeans enjoyed better TV? Less commercials and > >less 6 o'clock news... > > >"YOU have meddled with the primal forces of NATURE, Mr. Beale ... > >There is no America. There is no Democracy. There is only IBM and ITT > >and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the > >nations of the world today ... the world is a BUSINESS, Mr. Beale." > > >"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" > > You need to get out more. I know commercial TV sucks!             Date: 24 Apr 2007 07:18:33 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: I'M AS MAD AS HELL! On Apr 23, 2:31 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On 23 Apr 2007 11:15:29 -0700, donquijote1954 > > > > > > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Apr 21, 10:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > >> On 21 Apr 2007 11:36:46 -0700, donquijote1954 > > >> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > > >> >> There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns, and only > >> >> fifteen of the twenty-six cantons require carry permits for handguns > >> >> (which usually require that "necessity" for carrying the handgun be > >> >> demonstrated). > > >> >>http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html > > >> >>http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html > > >> >> "More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other > >> >> place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be." > > >> >I think the main problem here is the jungle where poverty reigns > >> >compounded by violence everywhere, from TV to foreign policy. Ah, also > > >> You're blaming crime on TV now ? Figures. Maybe we should > >> ban TV ??? > > >> >made worst by the stupid drug prohibition. > > >> Bzzzt. Try again. Cocaine, Heroin, and pot are all illegal > >> in Switzerland. Do you figure they don't have TV there either ? Or > >> maybe it's just that the only channel they get is the 24 hour Barney > >> channel. That, and Tele-tubbies. > > >Didn't you know the Europeans enjoyed better TV? Less commercials and > >less 6 o'clock news... > > >"YOU have meddled with the primal forces of NATURE, Mr. Beale ... > >There is no America. There is no Democracy. There is only IBM and ITT > >and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the > >nations of the world today ... the world is a BUSINESS, Mr. Beale." > > >"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" > > You need to get out more. I know commercial TV sucks!           Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:33:13 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:12:32 -0400, Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote: >.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:51:02 -0400, Just A User >> <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote: >> >>> Curtis L. Russell wrote: >>>> On 19 Apr 2007 08:34:20 -0700, donquijote1954 >>>> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I guess we cyclists are too pacific for that (or just that we aren't >>>>> Republicans), but in light of all that violence out there, shouldn't >>>>> we rethink our strategy (everyone to himself) and get together to >>>>> launch a good nonviolent campaign? >>>> I don't expect 'normal' from you, but don't you find this just a >>>> little bit tasteless considering what just happened on the Virginia >>>> Tech campus? >>>> >>>> And using 'Republicans' must be your way to compensate for not being >>>> able to actually make a complete, cogent thought on your own. I'm sure >>>> there are some reflexive 'thinkers' such as yourself that will think >>>> you made some point or another. >>>> >>>> Curtis L. Russell >>>> Odenton, MD (USA) >>>> Just someone on two wheels... >>> Upon mentioning VA Tech, I have to put in my two cents, Cho was a wack >>> job, but personally I think the right to bear arm part of the >>> constitution needs to be re thought. In countries, such as the U.K. >>> where gun control laws are very strict, they don't have incidents like >>> those at the campus on Monday. >> >> Google 'Dunblane', and retract your statement. >> >> And if you think a society where you are tracked on camera >> from the moment you leave your own front door until the moment you >> return, where you are REQUIRED to submit to criminal attack, where you >> are PROHIBITED from defending yourself even in your own home, then I >> suggest you move to the UK yourself. >> >>> Now as to cyclists packing heat, thats just extra weight I don't want to >>> carry around on my rides. >> >> Then you better go on a diet, it's only ~ 1 -2 pounds. >> >>> Ken >> >Okay so that is one, but they are a lot less common than here in the U.S. > >Here in the gun happy U.S. we have at least a couple of mass shootings >per year. Population of UK - 60,000,000 Population of US - 300,000,000 Freedoms in the US - VASTLY more. > >Oh yeah and the one you mentioned only resulted in half the number of >deaths as occurred on Monday. Meaningless. You do not set national policy for 60,000,000 people or 300,000,000 people based on the aberrant acts of one or two or 10 or 100 lunatics. You do not base a society's laws on 'What limits should be placed on the worst of us ( or, in the case of VA Tech, the worst of what we allow to come in from some other country ), to craziest of us, the most anti-social and dangerous of us. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/             Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:01:56 From: Don Piven Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Sez .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com: > You do not set national policy for 60,000,000 people or > 300,000,000 people based on the aberrant acts of one or two or 10 or > 100 lunatics. Better tell that to our Fearless Leader. He's been doing exactly that since 9/11/01.               Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:39:17 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:01:56 -0500, Don Piven <spamtrap@piven.net > wrote: >Sez .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com: >> You do not set national policy for 60,000,000 people or >> 300,000,000 people based on the aberrant acts of one or two or 10 or >> 100 lunatics. > >Better tell that to our Fearless Leader. He's been doing exactly that >since 9/11/01. Wrong, moron. If you think 9/11 was 'just a small group of lunatics', YOU are one of the lunatics. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/                 Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:53:00 From: Don Piven Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? Sez .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:01:56 -0500, Don Piven <spamtrap@piven.net> > wrote: > >> Sez .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com: >>> You do not set national policy for 60,000,000 people or >>> 300,000,000 people based on the aberrant acts of one or two or 10 or >>> 100 lunatics. >> Better tell that to our Fearless Leader. He's been doing exactly that >> since 9/11/01. > > Wrong, moron. If you think 9/11 was 'just a small group of > lunatics', YOU are one of the lunatics. It took nineteen people to change national policy on 9/11. That's still way under your arbitrary pulled-out-of-your-ass limit there, even if you count their support organization, who were all sitting on their collective asses when the attacks occurred. These 19 people eventually resulted in the US invading two countries and the US administration wiping their collective ass with the freedoms of its own citizens. Compared to the group of lunatics currently implementing national policy, yeah, al Qaeda is "just a small group".                   Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:05:16 From: Subject: Re: Should Cyclists Pack Guns? On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:53:00 -0500, Don Piven <spamtrap@piven.net > wrote: >Sez .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com: >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:01:56 -0500, Don Piven <spamtrap@piven.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Sez .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com: >>>> You do not set national policy for 60,000,000 people or >>>> 300,000,000 people based on the aberrant acts of one or two or 10 or >>>> 100 lunatics. >>> Better tell that to our Fearless Leader. He's been doing exactly that >>> since 9/11/01. >> >> Wrong, moron. If you think 9/11 was 'just a small group of >> lunatics', YOU are one of the lunatics. > >It took nineteen people to change national policy on 9/11. That's still >way under your arbitrary pulled-out-of-your-ass limit there, even if you >count their support organization, who were all sitting on their >collective asses when the attacks occurred. These 19 people eventually >resulted in the US invading two countries and the US administration >wiping their collective ass with the freedoms of its own citizens. Plonk, you fucking moron. > >Compared to the group of lunatics currently implementing national >policy, yeah, al Qaeda is "just a small group". -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/