Re: Disc brake maintenance tips

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 19:37:08 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> 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?

Ah Frankie, how quickly he forgets. My referencing Vermont, New
Hampshire and Maine was in direct reference to Franking stating that
is you have a gun in the house you are more likely to die from a
gunshot , which seems to be a statement that is applicable to all
houses with guns. I simply pointed that,  as is so common with
Frankie's posts, that in at least three cases he was wrong. But then
as with all gun grabbers the Biblical phrase "the truth will set you
free"  is ignored.
--
Cheers,

John B.