|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote: To the larger issue: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg ... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized countries that have reasonable gun control? Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of course, you don't think that officials should be armed. I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America introduces universal background checks and restricts the purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police will begin executing civilians on the streets. IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine. You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and tersely written with a definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh. Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/ which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm Sum of DEATHS YEAR Total 2014 33,508 2015 36,132 2016 38,551 2017 39,673 2018 39,615 Total 187,479 Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 1:24:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: If you actually search using Google to see what the laws actually are you cannot find it. This is because the police are immune to traffic laws. Not just running lights and stop signs but any other traffic law. This is nothing but another leftist tool to try and convince people that the police are subject to the same laws as everyone else and that it is cheating that they are doing to chase criminals. Such bull****! The police are NOT immune to traffic laws. The laws specify what they can and cannot do. That should be obvious to any rational adult. And Tom, maybe YOU cannot find it, but others can. As just one example: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.03 I ignore most of Tom's nonsense, but once in a while I feel compelled to post corrections. Not that he'll learn... So with your usual ignorant ideas of your own intelligence you found a law that said that cops or emergency vehicles must use caution when blowing stop lights. On your best day you make Joe Biden look absolutely brilliant. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 5:53 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:39:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/24/2020 10:37 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/ Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is that not illegal? Probably. Ring 911 to ask for more police? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lling-911.html Similar to that incident: One friend of mine lives on a lot of wooded rural acreage. He has "No Hunting" signs posted. He got wind of a hunter on his property and walked out to confront the guy. As he told me, the hunter's attitude was threatening. He pointed his gun at my friend and asked "What are you going to do about it?" My friend faced him down, saying something like "You're not going to shoot me." But I think that takes extraordinary courage. I'd certainly have called the cops. And about the "Defund" movement: ISTM that many, if not most, of those saying that are not saying police forces should be abolished, or that criminals should be given free rein (although I suppose there are radical libertarians). They are instead proposing that other agencies handle encounters that don't require an armed man in uniform. As to radical libertarians: I suppose people who frequently say "laws don't work, legalize everything" must be very much in favor of abolishing police forces. I'm not one of those people. Are there "other agencies". I believe that the Military is specifically forbidden to act as police in U.S. territories. Perhaps a new agency could be formed, "The Agency of Armed Force", (TAOAF). But would that be a State or Federal force? Not all that simple. You're right about the formal armed forces but the prior administration set up armed security branches in every Department: This from 2012: https://www.theblaze.com/contributio...h-armed-agents and 2016: https://www.dailywire.com/news/prett...s-hank-berrien those are from a quick web search. It's a perplexing trend to those who wonder why the Education Department needs an assault team. To the larger issue: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg Every one of these armed agents is required to qualify at a range once a year. And that qualification means hitting a 50 foot target with a hand held gun in rapid fire situations. So they are pretty damned good with a handgun.. I was never much one with a handgun other than an automatic, but with a rifle you should have seen me there with a Federal Agent. It was one of those ranges where at 100 feet to 100 yards, targets would pop out and you had to make sure you only hit qualified targets Someone with a weapon that wasn't a uniformed cop) and not the picture of the little old lady or the man with a walker. I hit bullseye on 100% of those and the Federal Agent gave up after he couldn't even hit the long targets before a new one appeared. That was 3 or 4 years ago. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:00:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 9:50 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote: To the larger issue: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg ... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized countries that have reasonable gun control? Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of course, you don't think that officials should be armed. Meanwhile, just a few days ago and about three miles away, some dude barged into a house in a very quiet neighborhood at 2 AM and blasted away, shooting four adults and one four-year-old boy. The boy died in his mother's arms. Oddly, no "good guy with a gun" prevented the murder. I suggest that the question is "Why". I did read that the police, "stressed that it was not a random act of violence but rather a targeted attack." And I later read that "A suspect connected to a shooting that killed a 4-year-old Ohio boy and wounded four adults, including the boy's mother, was arrested Monday night, authorities told Fox News. and Kimonie Bryant, 24, surrendered to the U.S. Marshals Service around 8 p.m., Struthers police Chief Tim Roddy said. I do find it odd that one seldom hears calls for edged weapons control or ban: https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2020092...-hebdo-offices Or perhaps fertilizer. Timothy McVeigh carried out the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others and is considered the deadliest act of terrorism in the United States prior to the September 11 attacks and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the U.S., using fertilizer and diesel fuel. In contrast the 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed 60 and wounded 411. -- Cheers, John B. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote: To the larger issue: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg ... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized countries that have reasonable gun control? Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of course, you don't think that officials should be armed. I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America introduces universal background checks and restricts the purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police will begin executing civilians on the streets. IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine. You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and tersely written with a definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh. Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/ which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm Sum of DEATHS YEAR Total 2014 33,508 2015 36,132 2016 38,551 2017 39,673 2018 39,615 Total 187,479 Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day. Yes, and of those horrifying numbers: an average of 11,843, annually, were classified as homicides 18,599 were classified as suicide 375 classified as "legal intervention" https://gun-control.procon.org/us-gun-deaths-by-year/ I read that in 2018 there were 36,560 deaths. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...in-the-us.html -- Cheers, John B. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote: To the larger issue: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg ... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized countries that have reasonable gun control? Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of course, you don't think that officials should be armed. I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America introduces universal background checks and restricts the purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police will begin executing civilians on the streets. IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine. You mistake my position. Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives. The Second was clearly and tersely written with a definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh. I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never been interpreted as complete and total license to own any and all firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two functioning brain cells. The current radical interpretation is rather new and is at odds with many decades of interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him. Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not interested in that argument. Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago. They are not interested for very sound reasons. So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident. My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass multiple years while stored away. In other words, they are not necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid individuals. In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven detriment of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them. (BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red light running.) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/25/2020 4:26 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 9:25:39 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 12:00 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote: On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote: https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/ Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is that not illegal? Why are you unaware that police are not subject to traffic regulations? Are you supposing that the police are going to pursue someone while staying within the speed limit? I can see good reasons police are allowed to exceed the speed limit in a pursuit situation. That doesn't justify cops violating any law they like any time they like. I've witnessed cops in patrol cars violating red lights apparently at will - no speeding involved, no warning lights, no indication it was any official business. I'm pretty sympathetic to cops, but they shouldn't be using their position to break the law for their own convenience. This is why when you were young enough not to have bones broken someone should have slapped the holy **** out of you. Gosh, Tom, you're trying to sound so manly and fearsome! But I wonder if anyone here is impressed? I'm certainly not. Exactly how did you know that a cop wasn't responding to something? The two incidents I remember most clearly were at the same traffic light, one that I'll admit tries my patience. It's badly timed, unnecessarily long and with almost never any cross traffic. In both cases, the cop came to a stop, then proceeded - one pretty quickly, the other after maybe ten or fifteen seconds. In both cases, there was absolutely no hurry. They motored on at a relaxed pace, and of course their patrol cars were not lit up nor running sirens. Cops not being subject to traffic laws is NOT cops doing anything they like without rules. I can see why you failed to graduate high school. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On 9/25/2020 7:11 PM, John B. wrote:
Timothy McVeigh carried out the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others and is considered the deadliest act of terrorism in the United States prior to the September 11 attacks and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the U.S., using fertilizer and diesel fuel. In contrast the 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed 60 and wounded 411. Interesting point about the Oklahoma City bombing. Yes, 168 dead is a lot for one criminal act. But in five days, you'd exceed that with U.S. gun homicides. Is that really supposed to make those OK? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
New Tactical Cycling Maneuver
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 19:54:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote: To the larger issue: http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg ... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized countries that have reasonable gun control? Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of course, you don't think that officials should be armed. I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America introduces universal background checks and restricts the purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police will begin executing civilians on the streets. IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine. You mistake my position. Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives. The Second was clearly and tersely written with a definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh. I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never been interpreted as complete and total license to own any and all firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two functioning brain cells. The current radical interpretation is rather new and is at odds with many decades of interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him. No, I am quite sure that you are wrong. At the time of writing I'm sure that the 2'nd amendment meant just exactly what it said that possession of firearms would not be curtailed. It didn't specify what sort of, or, type of firearms , probably as there weren't many types available. Remember that in the very early period the battles apparently were fought with privately owned firearms, the Lexington "battle" for example, was fought in April of 1775 and the first official U.S. troops were raised in July of the same year. And one of the major reasons for making an ally of France was the France was a source of firearms. "Estimates suggest that at the colonists’ October 1777 victory at Saratoga, a turning point in the war, 90 percent of all American troops carried French arms, and they were completely dependent on French gunpowder." Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not interested in that argument. Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago. They are not interested for very sound reasons. So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident. My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass multiple years while stored away. In other words, they are not necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid individuals. In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven detriment of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them. You seem to be arguing that rapid fire guns are not required... which was recognized by the U.S. government in 1934 when it applied a very large tax on the ownership of rapid fire arms. $200, I believe it was, equal to nearly $4,000 today. (BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red light running.) -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thousands of miles of cycling lanes and bikes on NHS all part ofJohnson's cycling revolution | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 7 | July 30th 20 01:09 AM |
Cycling along, crash into grass = hospital, maybe death. Cycling is good for health. | MrCheerful | UK | 2 | March 4th 20 03:13 PM |
Hincapie, tactical genius | Fred K. Gringioni | Racing | 5 | March 30th 10 06:12 PM |
Novice Looking for Tactical Advice | Frank Taco | Racing | 17 | June 8th 07 07:28 AM |
Lance keeps it tactical | Bill C | Racing | 45 | July 22nd 05 09:14 PM |