|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#461
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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, and gave a list of at least 10 things you need to do to be safe in such a weird facility. One of the last tips was to avoid the facility if you're in a hurry. Apparently it's safe (if you can call it that) only for slow riders. And yet, weirdness like this is still being promoted by starry-eyed dreamers. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#463
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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.Â* 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.Â* 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? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 2017-10-13 09:04, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:06 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-11 19:23, wrote: On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:34:34 PM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: -snip communist exploitation of medical services- Again a statement without knowing much. You obviously have never see a severe case where it looks like a person might be at risk of losing a limb. You can not get the required anti-biotics and highly potyemnt medicine without a prescription. I knew exactly which ones I needed, teh doctor nodded and wrote it out. Took two minutes. Two minutes that cost me $70 co-pay. A lot less than most attorneys charge to review a contract (which IME is money well spent) It is sometimes. Though I have also seen cases where high-class attorneys had a hard time understanding some clauses in my agreement, written by yours truly. However, they do not charge $35 per minute. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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'. An effective citizen militia are able bodied armed men with experience, skill and their own ball & powder. The practice at the time was to select officers by election. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#466
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. |
#467
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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 ... |
#468
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:39:11 AM UTC-7, 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.Â* 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.Â* 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? It means normalized, and that would imply all members bearing modern arms. It's kinda like calling a bicycle an 'ordinary' |
#469
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/13/2017 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
It is sometimes. Though I have also seen cases where high-class attorneys had a hard time understanding some clauses in my agreement, written by yours truly. (... must resist... must resist...) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#470
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily | [email protected] | UK | 0 | February 16th 08 10:41 PM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 5 | September 14th 06 09:59 AM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 0 | August 25th 06 11:05 PM |
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions | osobailo | Techniques | 2 | October 5th 04 01:55 PM |
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? | Andrew Short | Techniques | 16 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |