PDA

View Full Version : More Gun Ignorance from my peers


The Soup Nazi
07-07-2006, 11:34 AM
So basically I get into a debate about gun control. So he says that nobody should be allowed to have an "assault weapon" So I ask him to define "assault weapon" because that term doesn't exist in proper gun nomenclature. So he immediately pops out with the predictable response of AK-47, and I ask him what makes it an "assault weapon" aside from the fact that its the iconic bastard child of the former Soviet Union. So he says that it can fire off hundreds of rounds quickly and can kill a lot of people... (Yes, someone watched Heat too many times)

So I go on to explain to him that you can pretty much do that with any semi automatic and fire pretty much any semi-automatic rifle in a full auto mode though I make it clear to him that automatic is overrated when it comes to trying to kill people (more of a supresisng mode). He then switches it to "Only the military should have semi automatic guns or 'assault weapons'", and I ask him how he'd enjoy defending himself with a gun thats outclassed by other available guns if he were in the Rodney King Riots. He then switches it to that civilians should be allowed to have pistols...but wait, he says that civilians shouldn't semi automatic guns. I incquire as to if he says that we should be using black powder single shot pistols, and I ask for him to explain how he can make the distinction between semi auotmatic guns and pistols. Then he says that semi auotmatic rifles can take 20-30 round clips. (Face fault)

I explain to him that there are extended clips, and in some rare cases, drums designed for handguns, which then causes him to shut up from the discussion, and I bring up the whole if criminals commit crimes and break laws, why would they follow gun control arguement, but at that point he just walked away.

Yeah, you have to love logic at work.

Muzz
07-07-2006, 11:51 AM
I once got this:

"My right to stay safe beats your right to own a gun." to which I replied,

"My right to own a gun is what keeps me safe and I sleep very well knowing it's there, too."

There was a bantering of "rights" and whose was more important, but they all seem to just walk away in the end. Ever notice that?

bg
07-07-2006, 11:54 AM
Interesting. If he still believes that citizens should
only have cock and fire, recock and fire type weapons
due to the "fact" it would be slower to expend bullets,
you should show him a video from Bob Munden and how
"slow" he is with a Colt SA or wheel gun..:p

ReconDoc242
07-07-2006, 12:05 PM
dude, ignorant people annoy me

fun2none
07-07-2006, 12:08 PM
I usually respond with a rhetorical comment about how I would support banning cars they have a spoilers, loud exhausts, and large wheels. And SUVs should be banned too since these vehicles are favored by gang members.

When they say you can't do that because...blah, blah, sports cars are fun and soccer moms drive SUV...I tell them about the evil features such high horsepower engines and suspension that allows criminals to out run the police, and SUVs with their large mass and ground clearance which are a danger to the public due to collision impact and roll overs, and bad for environment, etc.

If they have any shred of logical thought, they'll say that those characteristics do not make vehicles any more dangerous. It's the driver who is in control and responsible. At which point, I explain that the current assault weapons laws ban guns based on external features, not their rate of fire. And ask if that makes any sense ? To which I add that true automatic weapons (I use the term "machine gun") have been highly regulated since 1934 and any machine gun made after 1986 can NOT be owned by civilians.

If they say "yeah - that's a great idea, let's ban those sports cars and SUVs" Ok please tell me exactly how you would identify a sports car and SUV. At that point the conversation can go into an endless loop, just like trying to define what assault weapon is.

Hopi
07-07-2006, 12:47 PM
I usually start these avenues of discourse by questioning the genesis of the 2nd amendment. From what context were these ideas born? Perhaps more importantly, how do these opinions translate with regards to a doctrine of guaranteed rights?

The quotes below build a solid foundation for a pro-2nd argument (thanks Kenc9!!), and help shed light on intent, as well as the world-views of the men they are attributed to.


Alexander Hamilton:
"The Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He invested him with an inviolate right to personal liberty and personal safely
************************************************** ******
Sam Adams, Father of the American Revolution:
"The Constitution should never be construed to prevent the people of the United States...from keeping their own arms."
************************************************** ******
Patrick Henry:
"The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun"
************************************************** ******
Thomas Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve it's liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
************************************************** ******
George Mason, Co Author of the Bill of Rights:
"Divine Providence has given to every individual the means of self defense."
************************************************** ******
George Washington:
"A free people ought to be armed."
************************************************** ******
James Madison:
"The advantage of being armed the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
************************************************** ******

Thomas Paine:
"Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."
************************************************** ******
Edmund Randolph:
"A people who mean to be free must be prepared to meet danger in person , and not rely upon the falacious protection of armies.
************************************************** ******




Most arguments degrade to the "personal safety/my neighbor is going to kill me" route, and from my interpretation of the proper context, safety from each other was not necessarily the intent of the 2nd amendment. Instead, protection from corrupt, and un-just governments seems to be at the core of the doctrine.

The threat of an un-just and corrupt government will ALWAYS persist, thus the need for such a declaration and solidification of rights.


Just my 2 cents...

Gromulin
07-07-2006, 1:03 PM
I always fall back to the swimming pool argument, when confronted with the typical brady-bunch idjits:

They kill exponentially more children each year than guns.

They kill almost ONLY children.

They are un-needed, purely for entertainment / enjoyment.

So, if these are the same arguments for gun-control, we should outlaw pools also right? Immediate enforcement wold be needed. Get those bobcats pushin dirt TODAY dammit. Think of the children!

vonsmith
07-07-2006, 1:12 PM
Just be nice to the people who parrot the evil things they hear from the liberal media. I know it isn't easy. Just politely educate them. Don't talk down to them. Just walk them through the facts and answer their questions. I bet you can undo a lot of the dogmatic anti-gun indocrination that people seem to get through the news. I'd rather gain an ally than an opponent.


=vonsmith=

glen avon
07-07-2006, 1:58 PM
be nice, politely disagree once, and take them shooting.

JWC6
07-07-2006, 2:01 PM
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

excerpted and quoted from http://www.fredsm14stocks.com/article.asp?ITEM=9

by John Ross, author...

creampuff
07-07-2006, 2:35 PM
Working in the Bay Area gives me, more than a fair share of antigun coworkers. What I find incredibly hypocritical is, while I never make any offhand remarks about shooting anyone, it is the antigun crowd that is always noting "I want to kill so and so.", or "Can I borrow your gun to shoot so and so", or "Can you kill so and so for me?". This is the most violent "peace loving" crowd I have ever met. :confused: One person wanted to get a Glock to go after someone who stole his identity in the mail. Scary thing is I think he was serious.

The few gun owners I have met at work are responsible owners. I am glad that the violent deathwishing pacifists at work don't own guns, as I would hate to see the path of destruction they would leave behind.

On a side note, did anyone see on yahoo news today, some of the favorite excuses to call in sick?

The voices in my head told me to clean my guns.

or

I am feeling a little disgruntled today, is it ok for me to call in sick?

vonsmith
07-07-2006, 2:53 PM
Working in the Bay Area gives me, more than a fair share of antigun coworkers. What I find incredibly hypocritical is, while I never make any offhand remarks about shooting anyone, it is the antigun crowd that is always noting "I want to kill so and so.", or "Can I borrow your gun to shoot so and so", or "Can you kill so and so for me?". This is the most violent "peace loving" crowd I have ever met. :confused: One person wanted to get a Glock to go after someone who stole his identity in the mail. Scary thing is I think he was serious.

Sounds like you have the makings of a profitable "hitman for hire" business. ;)

BTW, you don't work for the US Post Office do you? :eek:

Your coworkers don't sound nearly as bad as those "right to lifers" that shoot doctors or blow up clinics.


=vonsmith=

The Soup Nazi
07-07-2006, 3:13 PM
BTW, you don't work for the US Post Office do you? :eek:


Thats exactly what my X-ray Tech said to me when I was getting x-rays of my teeth when I brought up the topic of guns.

ivorykid
07-07-2006, 4:03 PM
Most arguments degrade to the "personal safety/my neighbor is going to kill me" route...

"Soooo... you're saying that if you had a gun, you would want to kill your neighbor!?!"

They usually give a stern and defensive "no!"

"Then why do you assume that your neighbor with a gun wants to kill you?"

I guess they are privileged with a double standard.

mltrading
07-07-2006, 4:17 PM
Just don't understand who invented the phrase "assault weapon". Must be an idi*t.

Everything that can be used to assault is "assault weapon". Thus, rocks should be banned, bare hands should also be banned because they can be used to assault.

What a bunch of mor*ns to invent such ambiguous phrase "assault weapon"!:)

Pokey
07-07-2006, 4:41 PM
Just don't understand who invented the phrase "assault weapon". Must be an idi*t.

Everything that can be used to assault is "assault weapon". Thus, rocks should be banned, bare hands should also be banned because they can be used to assault.

What a bunch of mor*ns to invent such ambiguous phrase "assault weapon"!:)

The guys name is Sugarman, can't remember the first name and contrary to your statement he is extremely intellegent (not saying I like him, he's a POS in my book). He came up with the modern method of gun banning.

Give it a good name (catchy for the news)
Demonize it in the media
Declare a crisis
Wait for the sheep (general public) to demand its control/ban/destruction.

VERY effective.

Creeping Incrementalism
07-07-2006, 4:48 PM
Josh Sugarman from the VPC invented the term "assault weapon"?

grammaton76
07-07-2006, 4:55 PM
Well, I think you're on to something there. The anti's don't trust US with guns, because they are sure that we're just like them - and THEY have these thoughts of how nice it would be to just kill that guy who annoyed him, and cut him off in traffic, etc.

Larry Niven pointed it out quite well: the process of acquiring power, changes the person who seeks it. This is why we have punks who start taking karate, but the black belts are rarely hot-headed punks. But the black belts frequently started out as punks, just like the rest of them - the process of acquiring their power, their knowledge, reshaped their purpose for possessing it. Firearm ownership is actually kind of like that. You have anti's who have all these impulses, but we who actually own guns tend to think "erm, I actually HAVE the power to do that - I don't want to". Having the means to act on impulses like that, reduces the attraction that such thoughts have.

Harbinger
07-07-2006, 4:56 PM
"Soooo... you're saying that if you had a gun, you would want to kill your neighbor!?!"

They usually give a stern and defensive "no!"

"Then why do you assume that your neighbor with a gun wants to kill you?"

I guess they are privileged with a double standard.


I can't remember where I read it, but there's a huge article on gun phobia that mentions this very thing. Many people fear guns because if THEY owned them, they'd be afraid of what THEY would do with them!

Mike

JPglee1
07-07-2006, 4:56 PM
Josh Sugarman from the VPC invented the term "assault weapon"?


I thought the Nazis did...


STURMGEWEHR... ok so its "storm rifle"... close enough ;) :D


JP

xenophobe
07-07-2006, 5:31 PM
You have to pass a background check and wait 10 days to buy a gun.

You do not have to pass a background check and wait 10 days to buy a car or box van without windows... Even if you've been convicted and released for kidnapping, or pedophilia, or murder...


Every 37 seconds in America, a child disappears. That is an average of 2,000 children per day. In the course of a year, over 850,000 adults and children disappear. Of those 850,000, approximately 97,000 cases will remain open. Almost half of those are adults.

http://www.projectjason.org/nsmpw.html


And guns are a real problem?

creampuff
07-07-2006, 9:53 PM
I would find it highly ironic if you were to turn them in to your local human resources department and have them be fired for creating a hostile work environment or for advocating violence in the workplace. Most H.R. departments have a 'zero tolerance' policy on violence in the workplace.

For most part they make their comments tongue in cheek (except for the I'm getting-a-Glock-to-stop-identity-theft guy). I suppose they feel because they don't actually own a gun, they don't believe they are postal??

However, my observation of some of the antigun coworkers is the degree with which they can treat other people is so uncivil, I'll take my chances with people who own guns.

dwtt
07-07-2006, 11:01 PM
So basically I get into a debate about gun control. So he says ... blah ... blah...blah..... but at that point he just walked away.

Maybe you should find some new friends or bring the ones you already have to the next barbeque at Chabot. Who knows, you might bring some sense to them.

ivanimal
07-08-2006, 1:00 AM
I always fall back to the swimming pool argument, when confronted with the typical brady-bunch idjits:

They kill exponentially more children each year than guns.

They kill almost ONLY children.

They are un-needed, purely for entertainment / enjoyment.

So, if these are the same arguments for gun-control, we should outlaw pools also right? Immediate enforcement wold be needed. Get those bobcats pushin dirt TODAY dammit. Think of the children!


Brilliant, stinkin brilliant. I hope you dont mind that I steal you brilliance.:o

Harbinger
07-08-2006, 8:59 AM
Here's the article I was looking for.

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

WokMaster1
07-08-2006, 9:08 AM
I do have a business in San Francisco. A huge portion of my crew are anti gun liberals. They know that I love guns & they are not shy about sharing the feelings with me. I just smile politely. So far, I have taken 5 of them out to the Richmond Club as part of their annual job performance review & let them squeeze off a couple of rounds on my 10/22 & Taurus PT-22. Talk about a "I just ate sh*t" grin on their faces for a week. all I hear now is, "when are we going there next? or "you took him/her there but you didn't take me, that's wrong man!" Well, 5 down, 67 more to go.:D

WokMaster1
07-08-2006, 2:13 PM
While I appreciate your openness with taking a bunch of socialists out for some good times shooting, I personally wouldn't give them the time of day. They look upon you as somewhat of an oddity at best, a neanderthal waiting to bite out their throats at worst.

Were I in your shoes, I would simply tell them to keep their personal socialist feelings to themselves, or hit the road. They made their beds. Let them lie in them. It isn't their place to vomit up their personal opinions to the guy who signs their paychecks.

In case you haven't guessed, I'm not a big fan of taking an 'anti-gunner' shooting. They can fall off the world for all I care.

I just classify them under uninformed (mushrooms). Just trying to do my part to educate rather than "***** slap". I turned 5 around, yes they each bought a 10/22. Got another 15 or so eagerly waiting in line to try after the first five told them what a fantastic time they had.

You made it crystal clear where you stand. No worries, mate. I respect your call. Isn't America a great country?:)

grammaton76
07-08-2006, 2:32 PM
In case you haven't guessed, I'm not a big fan of taking an 'anti-gunner' shooting. They can fall off the world for all I care.

While I don't have a lot of use for anti's, I do see taking them shooting as a good thing. I've never once seen an anti go to a range for the first time and come away MORE anti-gun as they were when they started. A good portion of the time, they do a complete 180.

In California, it's a numbers game - they have more, we have less. Every anti that gets either converted or neutralized (made neutral), is one less anti-gun voice. And if they convert, it'll be a pro-gun voice.

On a personal level, I find their ignorance irritating. But I take 'em shooting primarily because the pro-2A movement in general needs everyone it can get. If every pro-gun Californian had been converting or neutralizing one anti per quarter since 1989, we wouldn't have an AW ban now.

WokMaster1
07-08-2006, 7:07 PM
Let me 'splain.;)

Actually, I commend you for taking antis out to the range. Exposure does a lot to alleviate the irrational fear that antis have for firearms.

I tried to do this at one point, but all I ended up with was a bunch of 'didn't-change-their-minds-one-iota' folks. I got a lot of the "Well...I had a good time, and shooting is fun, but I still don't think anyone should need one" types of responses.

I guess I came across a little too heavy in my last post. I think it was the disrespectful attitudes displayed by the 'workers' to the 'boss'. To have them walk up and arbitrarily start offering their left-wing opinions on firearms ownership, unsolicited...is akin to walking up to someone in a racially mixed marriage and spouting off how much they don't like minorities.

They'd have been shown the door were it me. Of course...I don't own a business with employees either. ;)

Them being disrespectful to the "boss". That's an understatement!!! We are the end of the planet. They were all pushed from the other "real" parts of this country to California...lol!

If I take every little one of their "boo boo" to heart, I'll probably keel over with a heart attack. Life is way too short. These people make money for me;). I used that money to pay for my mortgage, cars, AR & AK OLL, my son's needs, my wife's bling blings, my many vacations, etc, etc..... They can call me a donkey as long as they can keep that money coming....

Kidding aside, I try to do my share of the work load. If each one of us here do the same, we are heading in the right direction. It may not always work in our favor, but hey, such is life! Win some, lose some!;)

dixieD
07-12-2006, 7:31 AM
Just don't understand who invented the phrase "assault weapon". Must be an idi*t.

Everything that can be used to assault is "assault weapon". Thus, rocks should be banned, bare hands should also be banned because they can be used to assault.


I just learned from Greta that one of the Duke Lacross players was convicted of an unrelated (to the rape case) assault. His weapon? His mouth....Unbelievable. And, no he didn't bite the victim.

Bishop
07-12-2006, 11:25 AM
I always fall back to the swimming pool argument

you've got to read this:
http://existingthing.blogspot.com/2006/06/pools-vs-guns.html

M. Sage
07-12-2006, 7:46 PM
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine fro hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

I've had people try the "guns are bad, they're made for killing people!" argument on me. I just track down some pictures of Olympic target rifles/pistols.

Cars are a lot more dangerous than guns, especially since the majority of the drivers I share the road with have what I'd call "basic" skills, and I'm being very generous there.

I've also had people try to link availability of guns to crime rates... I point out that the only place I've felt safe leaving my car unlocked, keys unattended nearby with cash under them, a gun AND ammo for it also unattended is at a shooting range... where everybody has a gun.

I've had good luck with taking antis out to the range, too. There aren't many people who can put sights on a target and pull a trigger without having fun. Too many of the antis (I'd say 99%) are just totally uninformed and have never been around guns. The vast majority have never seen a real gun outside a museum, store display or a policeman's hip, let alone held or fired one.

Once they find out that a baby isn't eviscerated with every pull of a trigger, they usually find out that guns are a-ok.

icormba
07-12-2006, 8:38 PM
be nice, politely disagree once, and take them shooting.

+1 ......:)

tankerman
07-13-2006, 1:58 PM
Please lets define the word PEERS prior to the discussion next time.

Prostitutes Empowerment Education and Resource Society

http://www.peers.bc.ca

jessegpresley
07-13-2006, 2:22 PM
You can do alot more for our firearms hobby/sport by not engaging in longwinded vitriolic arguments with aniti-gun folk. Beating people over the head is not going to change any minds.

We should all see ourselves as ambassadors for the gun community; and we should act accordingly. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

ldivinag
07-13-2006, 7:02 PM
I always fall back to the swimming pool argument, when confronted with the typical brady-bunch idjits:

They kill exponentially more children each year than guns.

They kill almost ONLY children.

They are un-needed, purely for entertainment / enjoyment.

So, if these are the same arguments for gun-control, we should outlaw pools also right? Immediate enforcement wold be needed. Get those bobcats pushin dirt TODAY dammit. Think of the children!

from the book FREAKONOMICS:

http://www.freakonomics.com/ch5.php

buy each of your lib friends a copy... ;)

ldivinag
07-13-2006, 7:08 PM
tell you a story about a coworker. they all know me as the dept "gun nut" and this one person actually told only copy and military should have guns. not assault weapons... but GUNS in general...

so FF a few months later. one day she blurts outs she used to have a revolver when she was single and lived alone...

since then... i never really trusted her anymore...

mikehaas
07-13-2006, 7:16 PM
My contribution to "educate the ignorant" is via hi-tech means, letting webservers and statistics speak for themselves. Provides perspective, I think, in just a few minutes. (Rolls over at New Years, of course :-)

http://calnra.com/lifeclock/

Mike

trinity9
07-13-2006, 11:51 PM
I do have a business in San Francisco. A huge portion of my crew are anti gun liberals. They know that I love guns & they are not shy about sharing the feelings with me. I just smile politely. So far, I have taken 5 of them out to the Richmond Club as part of their annual job performance review & let them squeeze off a couple of rounds on my 10/22 & Taurus PT-22. Talk about a "I just ate sh*t" grin on their faces for a week. all I hear now is, "when are we going there next? or "you took him/her there but you didn't take me, that's wrong man!" Well, 5 down, 67 more to go.:D

You are on the right track-- don't be weak. Take all of them at once. If you need more guns, let me know.

trinity9

trinity9
07-13-2006, 11:52 PM
So basically I get into a debate about gun control. So he says that nobody should be allowed to have an "assault weapon" So I ask him to define "assault weapon" because that term doesn't exist in proper gun nomenclature. So he immediately pops out with the predictable response of AK-47, and I ask him what makes it an "assault weapon" aside from the fact that its the iconic bastard child of the former Soviet Union. So he says that it can fire off hundreds of rounds quickly and can kill a lot of people... (Yes, someone watched Heat too many times)

So I go on to explain to him that you can pretty much do that with any semi automatic and fire pretty much any semi-automatic rifle in a full auto mode though I make it clear to him that automatic is overrated when it comes to trying to kill people (more of a supresisng mode). He then switches it to "Only the military should have semi automatic guns or 'assault weapons'", and I ask him how he'd enjoy defending himself with a gun thats outclassed by other available guns if he were in the Rodney King Riots. He then switches it to that civilians should be allowed to have pistols...but wait, he says that civilians shouldn't semi automatic guns. I incquire as to if he says that we should be using black powder single shot pistols, and I ask for him to explain how he can make the distinction between semi auotmatic guns and pistols. Then he says that semi auotmatic rifles can take 20-30 round clips. (Face fault)

I explain to him that there are extended clips, and in some rare cases, drums designed for handguns, which then causes him to shut up from the discussion, and I bring up the whole if criminals commit crimes and break laws, why would they follow gun control arguement, but at that point he just walked away.

Yeah, you have to love logic at work.


You talked to him way too long.

trinity9

Turbinator
07-14-2006, 11:55 PM
I just had a thought. Invariably, the pro-gunners like to use the "cars are more dangerous than guns" argument, to which the anti's always say that cars are a common necessity in American life, they create more value than harm, and if you think we should ban cars, then let's see YOU get along without a car...

Well, I visited Japan and Taiwan a few months ago for vacation, and guess what, most people get around WITHOUT a car. So did I. It was great - public transportation and all that.

So, how about if we build better mass transit systems, ban cars, then legalize all sorts of guns? :)

Turby

blkA4alb
07-15-2006, 12:04 AM
...So, how about if we build better mass transit systems, ban cars, then legalize all sorts of guns? :)

Turby
How would we get to the range without getting busted for a concealed weapon or disturbing the peace? And I'm sure the 50BMG owners wouldn't like to take it on the bus. :rolleyes: :D

dwtt
07-15-2006, 2:29 PM
I just had a thought. Invariably, the pro-gunners like to use the "cars are more dangerous than guns" argument, to which the anti's always say that cars are a common necessity in American life, they create more value than harm, and if you think we should ban cars, then let's see YOU get along without a car...
I got along without a car perfectly fine for most of my life. I had to buy a car and get a car license in 1999 because I had to buy bulky stuff from Home Depot to fix my house, but for over a decade I rode my bike or motorcycle everywhere I went. A car isn't a necessity in life, just a convenience. Also, if I didn't have a car, I would transport my rifles or pistols to the range like I did with my motorcycle, with the firearm locked in a case in my back pack or slung over my shoulder. If I had to ride a bicycle to the range, it would be the same, except my legs would be powering me instead of a motorcycle engine. Try it some day, you'll like it.

M. Sage
07-15-2006, 2:38 PM
How would we get to the range without getting busted for a concealed weapon or disturbing the peace? And I'm sure the 50BMG owners wouldn't like to take it on the bus. :rolleyes: :D

Simple: Legalize concealed carry and start requiring firearms safety classes to get a high school diploma. :D

@Idvinag: I loved Freakonomics.