The Motorcycle Barbarian 08 17 2014

The Motorcycle Barbarian 08 17 2014

Let’s say that an elderly woman in the United States is a victim of what can be classified as a motorcycle barbarian that has a case of road rage.  Let’s say that elderly woman has a hand gun.  What are the odds she is going to be able to defend herself with one shot?  Very slim!  Our founding fathers would want her to have a fully automatic handgun or small full auto rifle to defend herself.  They would also want her to have enough 30 round capacity or more magazines to spray out a whole gang of them if need be!

And now let’s change that scenario to be any citizen who is a victim of any form of road rage; and the same ruling applies in my opinion!

So what if you are a motorcycle rider who feels a car cut you off?  I tell you what you do!  You pull to the side of the road and hide in the bushes!  Not only that, you do not seek to ask for assistance at the next farmhouse!  What am I implying?  More often than not I have seen motorcycles not obeying traffic laws; hence they are inciting conflict with other drivers and then vindicating road rage against them!  The same is true with every other person who commits road rage!  Why?  Because the act of road rage is a violation of traffic laws in itself!

Our founding fathers hung people that poisoned other people!  The direct implication is that they did not want any poisoned freaks capable of road rage for the normal human being to have to contend with!

And I feel that the DA’s function of our Government has become subjective to one side!  In my opinion charges should ever be considered to be brought against someone who defends themselves with deadly force in response to road rage!    Perhaps it amounts to, how can we make a controversy out of this issue so that we can get television publicity for ourselves and our business aspirations?

And sure there will be times when a driver will purposefully cut off another driver in order to test the legal merit of such laws.  And then perhaps something to the opposite applies?  So here we are getting into the area of, would the normal person consider that an attempt on their life?  Driving isn’t meant to be where you are attempting to get in the right lane to turn off on the ramp and another car speeds up in your blind spot to prevent you from doing so.  The grey area is a human being defending themselves to an initial act of perceived road rage.  Basically it works this way; the one with the hot head or the one being cute on the road and cutting a licensed driver off should be the one who loses!

And most of us would say, okay that is a near miss I will keep on driving and hope that person doesn’t try to cut me off again?  But when they do and then slow to a stop in front of you on the highway at that point you have every right to consider the use of deadly force deemed; you will be able to tell by the time that they get out of the door whether you are going to need to use deadly force to defend yourself!  And believe me the normal person knows that if he approaches your car in that instance, fast and angry he is taking his life into his own hands because you view it as a threat to your life; as any normal person would!  At that point he should have known to keep his distance from your car if say there was an issue with your car, oh something very remote like a child fell out the window and was hanging on by their shirt sleeve.

And I am completely against any officers working under cover in any instances whereby you would have a question as to the authenticity of them being law enforcement if they declared that when they approached your car.  Any officer working under cover should know not to incite violence against them as if they were acting as if they were a thug!  So that the honest American who defends themselves is entrapped and framed!  I don’t find that cute!  In fact perhaps a police officer who is off duty and out of uniform should have no more legal authority than the average citizen over you!  And I am also against police officers being allowed to serve on the force if they commit crimes!  Why?  Because they could get in the habit of testing and testing that concept until they have established and empire of organized crime from the proceeds and actions of fear incited from the crimes they have committed.  Those with the authority to protect and serve should not be allowed to be both criminal and also incite fear in the public by wearing a gun and a badge.  It is really that simple!  It is not hard to understand and there is no faulty premise in it!

And in terms of the number of shots fired causing the level of the crime to be different; I don’t believe it has any validity to it when the person is defending themselves in such manner!  You empty the clip to neutralize all the threats of death on you and your wife and children.  And at the first sign of violence the rest in that motorcycle gang should have known to high tail it out of their to avoid death!  For them to stick around with the intent to aid and abet the one with road rage make them an equal to the same threat.

On a lighter note I always believed that we should be able to take our cars on a race track somewhere to see how fast they go.  Maybe the dang thing is lined wall to wall with old tires we don’t know what to do with.  Your get kids that car up to that high speed just once and stars to skid out he will know what that danger is and ease up on the pedal for the rest of his life!  And in riding on that track he just might take his own life.  So these would just be places with no business ownership or liability to anyone.  If the road falls into disrepair then it is repaired and the gate is closed until it opens.  (Just a couple of weeks.) And perhaps a road that is one of those straightaways would be good. But those are only out in the dessert so that would present a problem.   But the odds of accidents in rural areas leading to death are far greater than in urban.  And this brings up another interesting point, how many motorcycle riders are from the sticks?  Quite a few!  We don't need to feel threatened by the metal plate in the head gang, even when they are on four wheels!

 

 Thomas Paul Murphy

Originally published on 08 17 2014 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com

Copyright 2014 Thomas Paul Murphy

Another point about guns.  Today I was in a sporting goods store.  The guns with the heaviest barrels there were Savage model .17 HMR.  Now from my understanding the .17 caliber is less than the .22 caliber and not a legal rifle or gun to use to hunt deer.  I am not familiar with the caliber or its use.  But I would have to say it is for target or head shot or small target sniping at near close range????  The .17 to me would not seem to be good at long range because it would easily be deflected from target by wind age?  But I will have to research this a bit..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.17_HMR