|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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 |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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 |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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 |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. |
#478
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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 |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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 |
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 09:41 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 |