Re: Disc brake maintenance tips

On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 03:55:41 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:33:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 7/7/2024 8:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/7/2024 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/7/2024 3:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/7/2024 11:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/6/2024 10:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

As I've said before, our constitution was groundbreaking. But it
was never perfect, and in many ways it was and is faulty.
>
Other nations were able to examine our constitution, note its
faults and correct them when writing theirs. One common correction
is not letting every whacko buy and use rapid fire weaponry
designed for military use.
>

>
What's rapid?  A revolver?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

>
We've discussed this at length. Before we could have any hope of
numbers we can agree upon, we'd first have to have a rational
discussion on the legitimate uses of firearms by members of the public.
>
I doubt that's going to happen here - in part because on one hand,
you (justifiably) excoriate punks doing things like blasting away at
convenience stores with AR rifles; but on the other hand, you say
that almost anyone should be able to buy an AR rifle at will.
>
I don't think there's a way to get past that cognitive dissonance.
But if you want to try, tell me what firearm uses by ordinary
citizens you consider legitimate.
>

I can't think of anything on earth which hasn't been applied to
military purposes (David, sling, 5 stones...)

>
My phrase was clearly not condemning public use of _everything_ ever
designed for military use. Read again and see.
>

>
Yes that's exactly right.
>
Automobile crashes kill some 44,000-ish people a year here (plus
carbon monoxide deaths, autos crushed aspiring mechanics in driveways
and so on).
>
In theory, we regulate pilot behavior*.  Again in theory, we track
vehicle ownership*. In theory, we even regulate who may* pilot one on
public roads.
>
Yet there's no serious discussion (outside the loony left) of banning
autos altogether.

>
And as also discussed at length: The benefits of widespread car
ownership in America greatly and obviously outweigh the detriments.
>
As a thought experiment:
>
What would be the result of making every privately owned car in
America suddenly disappear? The benefit would be somewhat lower
pollution. The detriment would probably be societal collapse. Almost
all Americans could not get to work, could not buy food, could not get
to medical care, etc. The economy would crash due to roughly zero
consumer activity.
>
What would be the result of making every privately owned gun in
America suddenly disappear? The detriments would be the avid hunters
in John's favorite state would have to switch to bow hunting; and
target shooters would have to get their fun using BB guns. The
benefits would include murder and suicide rates plummeting. Armed
robberies would essentially end. Gang wars among thugs would no longer
kill innocent bystanders... etc.
>

 
Extend your hypothesis.
 
As it is, criminals use firearms for violence to a much greater extent
than do the citizenry in defense. And you want to disarm the law abiding
citizens? How does that make any sense?

>
Easily! Law abiding citizens, except for hunters and hobbyists, rarely
use their guns at all.

>
Nonsense. Having a gun for defensive purposes is a valid use of a gun.
 

I believe that Andrew posted the argument that "It is better to have a
gun and not need it then  to  need a gun and not have it"

And it is noticeable that more and more states are changing their laws
to allow carrying a gun,  Is this some sort or secret plan by the gun
owners  or a reaction to what citizens want?
--
Cheers,

John B.