Another Cyclist Murdered

TJYeti said:
Sorry I'm confused by your posts. We're talking about the concealed carry of a loaded firearm, not a cased firearm being taken to the range.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I haven’t found or heard of a shoulder holster comfy enough for cycling, so I spose you’re down to a waist pack then. You already know where mine will be.
 
Captain Brainstorm said:
I think that most people that drive are inadequately trained. The system here for driving is get a license and get good through experience, doesn’t matter how many accidents you cause along the way. We give anyone a drivers license here. We should do it like some European countries where the process is much more rigorous. And as someone that likes to drive, I’d say that it’s pretty heavily policed here.

You can’t compare firearms to driving because driving isn’t a political issue. Firearms are like abortion, gay marriage, etc., a political dividing point. I never thought I’d see CC here in NJ. Why give the other side more ammo (no pun intended)? If your going to carry, be smart about it, go above and beyond, don’t be overly cavalier.
Click to expand...
How is driving not a political issue?

- the price of gas
- emissions from cars
- the push to go “green” with electric cars that are arguably not “green”
- the lack of national infrastructure for electric cars
- The costs to ship goods as well as rights for those in the transportation industry
- cash for clunkers and strict emissions standards that have taken away affordable cars as well as cars the average person can work on
- Artifical Intelligence replacing human driving

I would say driving an automobile is a political issue. Over the last ten years the government has increased the costs of owning and operating a car. It is becoming a reach for those less fortunate to own and operate an automobile.

In addition, due to stricter guns laws as well as other issues, criminals are now committing mass murder with automobiles and trucks - are we going to outlaw vehicles now? How many parades have had a terrorist attack with a vehicle?

The picture of the cyclist carrying shows the rider committing a crime (if it were NJ but I don’t think it is). The rider is clearing carrying “open” which is not legal in NJ.
 
Johnny Utah said:
How is driving not a political issue?

- the price of gas
- emissions from cars
- the push to go “green” with electric cars that are arguably not “green”
- the lack of national infrastructure for electric cars
- The costs to ship goods as well as rights for those in the transportation industry
- cash for clunkers and strict emissions standards that have taken away affordable cars as well as cars the average person can work on
- Artifical Intelligence replacing human driving

I would say driving an automobile is a political issue. Over the last ten years the government has increased the costs of owning and operating a car. It is becoming a reach for those less fortunate to own and operate an automobile.

In addition, due to stricter guns laws as well as other issues, criminals are now committing mass murder with automobiles and trucks - are we going to outlaw vehicles now? How many parades have had a terrorist attack with a vehicle?

The picture of the cyclist carrying shows the rider committing a crime (if it were NJ but I don’t think it is). The rider is clearing carrying “open” which is not legal in NJ.
Click to expand...
As much as driving is integral in almost everyone’s life, I think we would all agree that driving is by no means a right. It is a priveledge. While it doesn’t take much to earn the priveledge, it is not guaranteed. There really isn’t any controversy surrounding that.

You make a very valid point. The tools aren’t the problem. It doesn’t matter if those tools are guns, knives, cars, trucks, whatever. The problem is the criminals who are willing to do harm to others regardless of the laws. The rest of us should have the ability to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, if we choose to do so.
 
Tim said:
As much as driving is integral in almost everyone’s life, I think we would all agree that driving is by no means a right. It is a priveledge. While it doesn’t take much to earn the priveledge, it is not guaranteed. There really isn’t any controversy surrounding that.

You make a very valid point. The tools aren’t the problem. It doesn’t matter if those tools are guns, knives, cars, trucks, whatever. The problem is the criminals who are willing to do harm to others regardless of the laws. The rest of us should have the ability to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, if we choose to do so.
Click to expand...
100%. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Any vehicle can be used as a weapon that can kill people, damage property, and ruin lives just as much if not more than a firearm so no comparison. No matter the weapon (firearms, vehicles, knives, sticks, words, etc.) used to harm, the problem is never the weapon but the person using the weapon with the sole intention to do harm. However, firearms can do a lot more damage much quicker in the hands of someone with malicious intent which is why legal ownership should be regulated but not prevented. If you're a law-abiding citizen of sound mind and passes a background check then you should be allowed to own any firearm you want as many as you want without any limitations on magazine capacity.
 
Johnny Utah said:
How is driving not a political issue?

- the price of gas
- emissions from cars
- the push to go “green” with electric cars that are arguably not “green”
- the lack of national infrastructure for electric cars
- The costs to ship goods as well as rights for those in the transportation industry
- cash for clunkers and strict emissions standards that have taken away affordable cars as well as cars the average person can work on
- Artifical Intelligence replacing human driving

I would say driving an automobile is a political issue. Over the last ten years the government has increased the costs of owning and operating a car. It is becoming a reach for those less fortunate to own and operate an automobile.

In addition, due to stricter guns laws as well as other issues, criminals are now committing mass murder with automobiles and trucks - are we going to outlaw vehicles now? How many parades have had a terrorist attack with a vehicle?

The picture of the cyclist carrying shows the rider committing a crime (if it were NJ but I don’t think it is). The rider is clearing carrying “open” which is not legal in NJ.
Click to expand...
Tim said:
As much as driving is integral in almost everyone’s life, I think we would all agree that driving is by no means a right. It is a priveledge. While it doesn’t take much to earn the priveledge, it is not guaranteed. There really isn’t any controversy surrounding that.

You make a very valid point. The tools aren’t the problem. It doesn’t matter if those tools are guns, knives, cars, trucks, whatever. The problem is the criminals who are willing to do harm to others regardless of the laws. The rest of us should have the ability to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, if we choose to do so.
Click to expand...
tonyride said:
100%. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Any vehicle can be used as a weapon that can kill people, damage property, and ruin lives just as much if not more than a firearm so no comparison. No matter the weapon (firearms, vehicles, knives, sticks, words, etc.) used to harm, the problem is never the weapon but the person using the weapon with the sole intention to do harm. However, firearms can do a lot more damage much quicker in the hands of someone with malicious intent which is why legal ownership should be regulated but not prevented. If you're a law-abiding citizen of sound mind and passes a background check then you should be allowed to own any firearm you want as many as you want without any limitations on magazine capacity.
Click to expand...
In order to prove your point some terrorists in Europe and lately also in the U.S. went out of their way, literally, to kill as many people as they could using an otherwise purposed weapon AKA truck, SUV, car...not everybody seems to have gotten the message in the U.S. though...
 
I will add this: Gun violence, unless you count suicide, is not even in the top ten causes of Death in the US.

BUT: Diabetes, Influenza/Pnumonia, Stroke, Respiratory Disease, Heart Disease and Cancer all are - which a good diet and exercise help prevent the majority of these but we don’t regulate them.

We did regulate smoking - but a good amount of this IMHO was because of second hand smoke that people got tired of smelling - so they pushed this into the lime light in the name of “HEALTH” but booze and garbage food received a pass.

3,000 people die annually from texting and driving, this could be curbed by having phones not work over 10pm but good luck trying to get people to give up their phones. Plus both the government and lobiest need you to have it in your hand so they can feed you advertisements, propaganda and make you feel insecure/bad about yourself so you will spend money and generate tax revenue. Granted there are 20,000 gun violence deaths in the Us annually (suicide not included) the phone has not been around as long as the gun.

Beyond deaths, how many people are hurt or maimed by texting a driving? If we really want to save lives, make phones not work over 10mph.

At the end of the day, it is not about saving lives. There is much lower hanging fruit the government can go after to achieve this.

BTW - four times as many Americans die annually by Overdose - 80,000 in 2021 - aren’t most of these drugs Illegal?
 
The reason why most politicians from a certain side of the big government want to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is because guns are the only equalizer against a tyrannical government and is specifically the reason why the second amendment exists.
 
tonyride said:
because guns are the only equalizer against a tyrannical government and is specifically the reason why the second amendment exists.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious to me. Maybe that was case when the second amendment was written, but like most laws written at this time, it’s totally out dated and unrealistic.

Do you honestly think that a group of armed citizens is any match for the government and their fire power?
 
jShort said:
This is hilarious to me. Maybe that was case when the second amendment was written, but like most laws written at this time, it’s totally out dated and unrealistic.

Do you honestly think that a group of armed citizens is any match for the government and their fire power?
Click to expand...
That used to be my thought as well, but changed my mind over time once I moved here. I believe you need to think smaller, the tyrannical government could be you local Mayor and its Police Department...

That said, I truly believe as a foreigner and also an ignoramus, that the Constitution of the U.S. is still great today as it was exceptional when it was written.
 
sundaydoug said:
What if you're a passenger?
Click to expand...
Don’t you want to save a life? #do your part

What if your a law abiding citizen that wants to own a firearm? Law abiding citizens already are hit with this - they pay the price of the criminal, even though the majority of criminals do not legally acquire/license a firearm.

Law abiding gun owners are strapped with the following (just off the top of my head)

- regulated on gun purchases/quantity
- many firearms illegal over what are arguably “visual appearance” of the firearm
- many cannot carry on them
- additional fees/background check/costs to exercise 2nd amendment right
 
jShort said:
This is hilarious to me. Maybe that was case when the second amendment was written, but like most laws written at this time, it’s totally out dated and unrealistic.

Do you honestly think that a group of armed citizens is any match for the government and their fire power?
Click to expand...
Ask the people of Vietnam or Afghanistan.
 
jShort said:
This is hilarious to me. Maybe that was case when the second amendment was written, but like most laws written at this time, it’s totally out dated and unrealistic.

Do you honestly think that a group of armed citizens is any match for the government and their fire power?
Click to expand...
Do I think a group of armed citizens is any match against the federal government? No.

Did I ever think career criminals would be let out on the streets? No.
Did I ever think schools would be poisoning our children's minds and helping them to reassign their gender? No.
Did I ever think elected officials and civic leaders would be for defunding the police? No.
Did I ever think a person can be held accountable for crimes they didn't commit simply because of the color of their skin? No.
Did I ever think a person can be found guilty for the crimes of their ancestors? No.

As some have said, we need to worry about the local governments first.
 
jShort said:
This is hilarious to me. Maybe that was case when the second amendment was written, but like most laws written at this time, it’s totally out dated and unrealistic.

Do you honestly think that a group of armed citizens is any match for the government and their fire power?
Click to expand...

The Joe Biden argument! We should be buying F15s, not AR15s 😃
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom