A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Build it and they won't come



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #461  
Old October 13th 17, 05:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old October 13th 17, 05:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:36:12 AM UTC-7, 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 ...


You still haven't told us why the states with the strongest gun control laws have the highest rates of murder and the states with NO laws have the lowest. But I'm sure you can sidestep that yet again.


Yes I have, Tom. You've forgotten. Again.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #463  
Old October 13th 17, 05:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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
  #465  
Old October 13th 17, 05:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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


  #467  
Old October 13th 17, 07:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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  
Old October 13th 17, 07:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Doug Landau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,424
Default 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  
Old October 13th 17, 09:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old October 13th 17, 09:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.