cyclist shoots motorist

So the National Reasonable-regulation Ass and its 'members' decide whose
Rights are infringed? We flee tyrants. We depose tyrants. And we grow our
own.

The 'gun' is not illegal but possession by this individual was. This is the
agenda of the NR-rAss - to make felon of all but their friends and legally
disarm us.

Gun control is not missing your target - philosophical or physical. The
conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.


"Q." LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com wrote in message
...
| "Steven M. O'Neill" wrote in message
| ...
| "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver"
| http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...04-243243.html
| snip
|
| All the facts have yet to come out but from what I've heard so far the guy
| riding the bike, Robert Urick, was riding a bike because he had his
drivers
| license revoked, and is being charged with illegal possession of a
firearm.
| Sounds like a real winner to me.
|
| As a life member of the N.R.A., I hope this guy rots just for having an
| illegal handgun. Gun control would work great if they started with the
bad
| guys *sigh*.
|
| Riding a bike, and being a looser are not mutually exclusive.
|
| C.Q.C.
|
|

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:31:15 -0700, "Bestest Handsander"
wrote:

Situation 1. Grandma yells, "You have disappointed me for the last time! I'm
going to kill you!" She raises the knife to plunge it into you chest and
pushes the "GO" button on her motorized wheelchair, but the battery is dead
and the chair doesn't move. Do you shoot? NO! #2 from the above is
missing.

YES! The wheelchair is probably a ruse to get you off-guard.

Situation 2. Grandma yells, "You have disappointed me for the last time! I'm
going to kill you!" She pushes "Go" on her wheelchair and when she's in
range, she begins to pummel you with her osteoporosis bones under her
vellum-like skin. Do you shoot? NO! #3 from the above is missing.

YES! We know from 1 that she's hiding a knife somewhere.

Situation 3. Grandma pushes "Go" on her wheelchair, comes toward you with a
knife raised. Do you shoot? NO! #1 from above is missing. She was just
going to cut the tag off of that new shirt she just gave you.

YES! After 1 and 2, how can you trust this old woman?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

=v= I ain't taking sides one way or another, but I will point
out that the article's lead-in isn't particularly fair:

| ... an altercation that began when the man pedaling the bike
| made an obscene gesture, police said.

It's unfair because the bicyclist's version of events is that
the confrontation began before that: when the motorist told
him to get off the road. (BTW, other versions of this AP story
use the word "confrontation" instead of "altercation.")

=v= Also unclear is whose deadly weapon was wielded first:

Nicoletti said he turned his truck around and drove toward
Urick ...

=v= Also, another story differs in some details:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm

_Jym_

There was a rather long discussion about this at Fark.com today
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comm...?IDLink=826542

=v= Great. Yet another batch of ranting online idiots.
Sometimes I wish whatsisname* never invented the Internet.
_Jym_

__________________________________________________ ______________
* Insert Al Gore joke here.

The over riding fact is "In what state this happens" and who has the best
lawyer....... maybe the cyclist was just trying to shoot the cell phone out
of his hand.


"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote in message
...
"Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver"
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...04-243243.html

The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm
during an altercation that began when the man on the bike made
an obscene gesture, police said."

Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told
them he reacted as he did because Nicoletti told him to get off
the road."

So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily
threatened the cyclist with bodily harm first -- but of course
it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.

(Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't
there.)

Steve
--
Steven O'Neill

"Doug Huffman" wrote

So the National Reasonable-regulation Ass and its 'members' decide whose
Rights are infringed?

When did I say that? It was just a way of saying that I'm pro second
amendment, although I'm against dunderheads and downright criminals
possessing firearms.

We flee tyrants. We depose tyrants. And we grow our
own.

??? This is NOT Nazi Germany, or the USSR, or the Middle East. This
country is not perfect (far from it), but it's still the best situation that
ever existed ... or are you just accusing *me* of being a home grown tyrant?

The 'gun' is not illegal but possession by this individual was.

You knew what I meant so there is no need to argue semantics. Whatever the
case, he is being charged with illegal possession of a firearm ... if he
didn't know you had to be licensed to carry or possess a handgun he was an
idiot, if he did know he was committing a crime and still carried, he was an
idiot. We can argue about how crappy the "tyrannical" government is and all
that ... but in the end it sounds like this guy is just a plain old moron.

This is the
agenda of the NR-rAss - to make felon of all but their friends and legally
disarm us.

Since when? It's the intention of the GOVERNMENT to disarm everyone by
passing draconian laws. At times it's unfortunate but that's how things
work in the country. We are a nation built on laws.

The N.R.A. are just about the only ones who stand up for gun rights in this
nation with the power to do something about it. They fight against passage
of unreasonable laws but once those laws are in place we have to respect
them. A lot of the laws are reasonable though ... I don't want convicted
child molesters possessing firearms legally, for example. I am *very*
curious to find out why the cyclist in this case had lost his drivers
license.

I suspect when more information on this case comes to light we'll see that
the shooter was just another looser who couldn't fit in. Let's face it ...
It's not that hard to keep a drivers license, and the guy probably should
have just let the driver get on his way without chucking the finger, but
nooooooo ... he was Mr. Tough Guy with his big bad gun and he wasn't going
to back down from anything. Those kind of people make us all look bad.
He's lucky to still be alive.

Gun control is not missing your target - philosophical or physical.

I agree, but more to the point; as a society trying to further civilization
we must get away from governing this nation through spewing political pap
feed through the media, and start actually doing something constructive. It
will happen, it must happen, or we'll loose this war we're in now. This
whole war on terror is really a war between primitive ignorant society and
modern civilization.

Gun control is often just a sound bite ... what it really embodies is the
fear people have of violence and a perception of controlling violence by
passing (ineffective) laws. If "gun control" is going to embrace what
people actually want ... an end to violence in this society ... there will
be a lot of hard work ahead. It's not a simple as our dumb ass politicians
make us believe.

The
conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

That's a great catch phrase but what does it mean ... especially in this
context? Is there really a conspiracy going on, or are people just ignorant
by choice?

I remember a great Non Sequitur cartoon with the character of "Obviousman".
People were standing around talking about how dumb the politicians are ...
Obviousman asked them "Who played Mary Ann on Gilligan's Island?" They were
able to answer that ... then he asked them who their local politicians were.
They didn't know (but one remember voting for the "good looking guy"). Then
he pointed out that politicians represent the people.

Grandiose statements aside ... I think when this all boils down it will just
be a case of a couple of stupid $#!t heads going at it. There was probably
no good reason for the cyclist to make "obscene gestures", no good reason
for the driver to turn around, and no good reason for the cyclist to pull
the trigger.

C.Q.C.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:12:19 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

"Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver"
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...04-243243.html

The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an
altercation that began when the man on the bike made an obscene gesture,
police said."

Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he
reacted as he did because Nicoletti told him to get off the road."

So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the
cyclist with bodily harm first -- but of course it's only a crime if you
do it with a gun, and not with a car.

(Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)

Steve

Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ? To get rid of
dogs, pepper spray should suffice.

Jacques

In article ,
"Jacques Moser" writes:

Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ?

In case of disrespect, I guess. Got to teach those
disrespecters a lesson. (I'm just being a little
sarcastic.)

To get rid of
dogs, pepper spray should suffice.

The few times I've been chased or followed by city dogs,
I've just stopped. They stop too, sit down, wag their
tails and give me a puzzled look. I tell them how good
looking they are, and they go away happy. Maybe sometimes
when dogs chase they're just lonely and want a little
communication. I understand rural dogs aren't necessarily
so civilized. Good thing they don't carry guns. At least,
I hope they don't.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Jacques Moser" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:12:19 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

"Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver"
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...04-243243.html

snip

Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ? To get rid of
dogs, pepper spray should suffice.

Jacques

Well, obviously to shoot drivers who won't put down the cell phone and get
out of the car!

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
"Jacques Moser" writes:

Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ?

In case of disrespect, I guess. Got to teach those
disrespecters a lesson. (I'm just being a little
sarcastic.)

"There is one thing that travels faster than the swiftest
automobile yet invented and that is a bullet. It would not be
well for the drivers of automobiles to induce the belief that
firearms offer the only really efficient protection against
them."

New York Times Editorial, March 26, 1902 (quoted in Down the
Asphalt Path, by Clay McShane).
--
Steven O'Neill