Re: Disc brake maintenance tips

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?
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971