Saw this on another site and thought it was worth passing along. It bothers me that a city council, no matter how big or small, can get away with this. It obviously doesn't affect me but once a precedence is set...it's always easier to justify and replicate.
That's great. He pistol whips his wife and fires in anger and instead of being in jail, he's now the mayor. It seems like if he wants to keep people safe he would resign, or at least stop pistol whipping people.
I think the way it was viewed is if this group was going to ban cyclists rights/privilges to the roadways by changing laws they were going to do something in turn.
That's petty. It makes them seem childish.
Originally Posted by SUX VR40 Rider
BTW, not to start a debate on owning a gun, but the right to own firearms is not an absolute and neither are any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers never meant for them to be absolute.
You are correct. But they intended the use of firearms to be a preventative measure towards tyranny. When I see government led initiatives to disarm the population, I think, this is exactly what they meant. Also the constitutional protection of firearms only really applies to those that could be used to preserve democracy from terror foreign and domestic,Assault weapons and hand guns. Therefore "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. " is pretty self explanatory.
Bicycle Colorado.org and other bike clubs are looking into the bike ban in Black Hawk. Bicycle Colorado is a strong bike advocacy here in Colorado.
Black Hawk is a small former gold mining town west of Denver. It is now home to multiple casinos. The 2 or 3 roads are very narrow through this small town, but traffic doesn't move very fast. Stay tuned.
I called the LAB about asking the FHA to wtih hold federasl hwy funds if states banned or attemtped to ban cyclists from the roadways. That is not something they think should happen. What they do think is working from within the state advocacy groups and with law makers and maybe even with groups like AAA and such to prevent such a ban in the first place.
I am not sure if I should take this to mean they do not have the balls to step forward and become more militant about it or what. Sure becoming militant and more aggressive can alienate people, but when it does work it does obtain fast, long lasting results vs. the slow, painstaking, not achieving a whole lot, and have very little if anything to show for the effort process. So it's a coin toss and a gamble. Should cyclists become more militant and aggressive and run the risk of alieanating everything they have worked for so far? Or do we stick with what is being attempted now knowing it will be years before the full achievment is accomplished? Is there a middle ground between the 2?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying as adults confront the issue instead of parlaying it to the 2nd amendment issue. Feel free to be militant, just don't mess with my guns. Of course SUX I have to say that if a population finds cycling dangerous on their roads and then outlaws it, with the populace behind it, it seems within the rights of that community. My only real issue was just don't go attacking other issues because you can't do anything else. It's the mark of the ignorant and childish.
I still see it as petty. Not to mention that guns are a necessary part of our existence. We have two choices when we choose to persuade people to our way of thinking. There's force and there's reason. When reason doesn't work, force is applied. Owning a firearm puts people on equal measure and ensures that reason and not force must be used. You want to progress as a culture? Arm everyone. Only allowing segments of the population the right to force ensures that a population will always be oppressed by those who have force and are willing to use it.