Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:39:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Reading the legislative history of it, besides The Federalist (Hamilton,
Madison & Jay) the intent, that the nation would do well to be armed, to
a man, is clear.

"well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean?

You must have skipped over the part:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...

I'm aware of that. But the U.S. Supreme Court is not infallible. Dred
Scott is one famous case proving that, but there are many others. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rt_deci sions


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/13/2017 2:40 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:31:58 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-12 06:57, wrote:

There is a semi-major road near us that just did a really odd thing.
They converted the road from a four lane barrier divided road to a
two lane road with the CENTER LANES turned into a cross-hatch white
line. This is a commonly used bicycle route and they did not add a
bicycle lane.


Cyclists ride in the center? That doesn't make much sense.

It wasn't clear to me that that's what Tom meant. Perhaps he can clarify
whether the center crosshatch was intended as a bike facility. Normally,
cross hatching means nobody is supposed to use that portion of roadway.

However, Washington DC did get a center bike lane on 15th street a few
years ago. It triggered an article in _Bicycling Times_ magazine by
Carolyn Szczepanski, who was then LAB's communications director. It told
about her bad crash using that facility, described the hazards coming
from all different directions, an...

The cross hatching means - no use at all save emergency vehicles.

As I suspected.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/13/2017 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 11:39 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4,
Frank
Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers.
But
I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend
games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most
citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in
a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should
argue
for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet
there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My
10th
grade English teacher would have had red marks all over
it,
and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so
unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial
readers
have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and
it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have
been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed
like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the
21st
corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written
2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other
modern industrialized country. We should amend that
amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time
limits
for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's
life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a
mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more
deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second
with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice
has
been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never
have
inconvenienced me.

So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit?
It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost
all breech
loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders
would
be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload
in four seconds.

Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss
specific firing rates.

But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back
purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what
Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were
impossible
to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to
limit
fire rates.


Reading the legislative history of it, besides The
Federalist (Hamilton, Madison & Jay) the intent, that the
nation would do well to be armed, to a man, is clear.

"well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean?


Similar to optimal 'gun control' which is, 'all ten inside
the little circle'.

So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the founders
envisioned.

An effective citizen militia are able bodied armed men
with experience, skill and their own ball & powder.

How about discipline, self control and a respect for the
orders of their superior officers?

I (and many others) think it's very likely the founders
envisioned something like the national guard or the military
reserves. I doubt very much that they would approve of nut
cases wanting to secede from the federal government, or
crazies shooting kids and other citizens in churches,
schools or concerts. I strongly suspect that in the current
context, they'd think it was a good idea to do background
checks and keep suspected terrorists from buying high
powered guns. And I suspect they'd be willing to control the
ownership of mass murder tools, whether they were bombs or
guns. Most other Americans seem to agree.

The practice at the time was to select officers by election.

Fine. Make that happen in the National Guard, and pass a law
that if a person wants to play with people-killing tools,
they have to join the Guard and periodically report for
intense training.


So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the founders
envisioned.

Well, there's crime and there's crime.

In the unlikely event that something like Mumbai happened in
your neighborhood, he may well be more valuable than an
unarmed traffic warden or a retired academic telephoning
911. We spoke of France earlier- Even a French street thug
may well have saved lives at Bataclan but, again, there was
no immediate armed response to foreign invaders vs civilians.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-attack.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-escape.html

I'm not defending career criminals or felons in possession
(who ignore all the 'sensible' rules now) but even they may
well defend their family and neighborhood in extreme events.

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/13/2017 3:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:39:11 AM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Reading the legislative history of it, besides The
Federalist (Hamilton,
Madison & Jay) the intent, that the nation would do well
to be armed, to
a man, is clear.

"well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean?

You must have skipped over the part:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a
landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United
States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second
Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...

I'm aware of that. But the U.S. Supreme Court is not
infallible. Dred Scott is one famous case proving that, but
there are many others. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rt_deci sions




They do indeed err.

But beside Heller, there's my hero Otis McDonald:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/meet-o...article/422191

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 1:23:37 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Similar to optimal 'gun control' which is, 'all ten inside the little
circle'.

So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug selling punk who's
practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the founders envisioned.

It doesn't surprise me that you are unaware that no one can put ten rounds of rapid fire into the small ring save by sheer luck. The FBI and NCIS doesn't require that because they are smart enough to know that exact powder load and exact bullet weight varies as does crosswinds and your heart rate.

So they require 10 rounds of rapid fire into the black.

An effective citizen militia are able bodied armed men with
experience, skill and their own ball & powder.

How about discipline, self control and a respect for the orders of their
superior officers?

I always wondered about those Medal of Honor Winners won those medals after almost every single one of them disobeyed orders.

I (and many others) think it's very likely the founders envisioned
something like the national guard or the military reserves. I doubt very
much that they would approve of nut cases wanting to secede from the
federal government, or crazies shooting kids and other citizens in
churches, schools or concerts. I strongly suspect that in the current
context, they'd think it was a good idea to do background checks and
keep suspected terrorists from buying high powered guns. And I suspect
they'd be willing to control the ownership of mass murder tools, whether
they were bombs or guns. Most other Americans seem to agree.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Imagine that - 234 year ago Frank was visualized in England.

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 1:31:45 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:39:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Reading the legislative history of it, besides The Federalist (Hamilton,
Madison & Jay) the intent, that the nation would do well to be armed, to
a man, is clear.

"well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean?

You must have skipped over the part:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...

I'm aware of that. But the U.S. Supreme Court is not infallible. Dred
Scott is one famous case proving that, but there are many others. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rt_deci sions

Then by all means lets see you overthrow the Supreme Court's ruling. We're waiting.

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 1:57:32 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

The very worst thing about 911 is that your call is not received by a cop but by a dispatcher who has not the slightest training in police duties. They can totally misread your call and send cops to the wrong place or expecting the wrong thing.

On 10/13/2017 5:00 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 1:57:32 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

The very worst thing about 911 is that your call is not received by a cop but by a dispatcher who has not the slightest training in police duties. They can totally misread your call and send cops to the wrong place or expecting the wrong thing.


That's a feature, not a bug.

c.f. Otis McDonald, Army vet, retired employee, homeowner
who paid his property taxes and yet basic neighborhood
security was not part of the deal.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ion-gun-rights

"... Mr. McDonald said the journey had been a lesson in
history. He had come to understand more about his ancestors
and the "slave codes" enacted in Southern states during the
Civil War that prohibited slaves from owning guns. After
slavery was abolished, states adopted "black codes" that
kept guns out of the hands of freed blacks.

"There was a wrong done a long time ago that dates back to
slavery time," he said in the interview. "I could feel the
spirit of those people running through me as I sat in the
Supreme Court."

and
"If you have not found something you will die for, you have
not yet lived."

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 3:24:11 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 5:00 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 1:57:32 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

The very worst thing about 911 is that your call is not received by a cop but by a dispatcher who has not the slightest training in police duties. They can totally misread your call and send cops to the wrong place or expecting the wrong thing.


That's a feature, not a bug.

c.f. Otis McDonald, Army vet, retired employee, homeowner
who paid his property taxes and yet basic neighborhood
security was not part of the deal.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ion-gun-rights

"... Mr. McDonald said the journey had been a lesson in
history. He had come to understand more about his ancestors
and the "slave codes" enacted in Southern states during the
Civil War that prohibited slaves from owning guns. After
slavery was abolished, states adopted "black codes" that
kept guns out of the hands of freed blacks.

"There was a wrong done a long time ago that dates back to
slavery time," he said in the interview. "I could feel the
spirit of those people running through me as I sat in the
Supreme Court."

and
"If you have not found something you will die for, you have
not yet lived."

And and especially good feature if they shoot down the owner of a business holding a robber at gunpoint.

On 10/13/2017 4:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 11:39 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4,
Frank
Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers.
But
I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend
games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most
citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in
a standing
army.ÂÂ* Those who disagree with the premise should
argue
for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet
there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My
10th
grade English teacher would have had red marks all over
it,
and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so
unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial
readers
have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and
it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have
been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed
like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the
21st
corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written
2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other
modern industrialized country. We should amend that
amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time
limits
for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's
life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a
mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more
deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second
with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice
has
been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never
have
inconvenienced me.

So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit?
It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost
all breech
loading single shot firearms.ÂÂ* Most muzzle loaders
would
be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload
in four seconds.

Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss
specific firing rates.

But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back
purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what
Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were
impossible
to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to
limit
fire rates.


Reading the legislative history of it, besides The
Federalist (Hamilton, Madison & Jay) the intent, that the
nation would do well to be armed, to a man, is clear.

"well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean?


Similar to optimal 'gun control' which is, 'all ten inside
the little circle'.

So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the founders
envisioned.

An effective citizen militia are able bodied armed men
with experience, skill and their own ball & powder.

How about discipline, self control and a respect for the
orders of their superior officers?

I (and many others) think it's very likely the founders
envisioned something like the national guard or the military
reserves. I doubt very much that they would approve of nut
cases wanting to secede from the federal government, or
crazies shooting kids and other citizens in churches,
schools or concerts. I strongly suspect that in the current
context, they'd think it was a good idea to do background
checks and keep suspected terrorists from buying high
powered guns. And I suspect they'd be willing to control the
ownership of mass murder tools, whether they were bombs or
guns. Most other Americans seem to agree.

The practice at the time was to select officers by election.

Fine. Make that happen in the National Guard, and pass a law
that if a person wants to play with people-killing tools,
they have to join the Guard and periodically report for
intense training.


So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the founders
envisioned.

Well, there's crime and there's crime.

In the unlikely event that something like Mumbai happened in your
neighborhood, he may well be more valuable than an unarmed traffic
warden or a retired academic telephoning 911.* We spoke of France
earlier- Even a French street thug may well have saved lives at Bataclan
but, again, there was no immediate armed response to foreign invaders vs
civilians.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-attack.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-escape.html


I'm not defending career criminals or felons in possession (who ignore
all the 'sensible' rules now) but even they may well defend their family
and neighborhood in extreme events.

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

I just wonder why a "good guy with a gun" didn't immediately save the
day in Las Vegas. Hell, it was a country music concert in a state with
very few gun laws!

I also wonder where the "good guy with a gun" was at that baseball
practice outside D.C.

And in Orlando.

Oh, and in San Bernadino.

And at that college in Oregon.

And that church in Charleston.

And at Sandy Hook. And so on.

Where are all these members of the "well regulated militia"? What
happens to the God fearing, gun toting heroes when the lead actually
starts flying? Why are they failing us over and over?

Hint: I can quickly think of four people I know who definitely carry
handguns all the time. And I do mean all the time. Some of them are
rather nice people, at least one is ex-military, but each one is a
paranoid coward. And I'm choosing those words very carefully.

I think all of them would pee their pants if a situation arose where
they might really need to shoot. At least two of them would be dumb
enough to shoot an innocent person instead of a bad guy. They're a far
cry from the cops and agents I know, let alone from the heroes they
imagine they might be.

--
- Frank Krygowski