Re: cyclists attack auto driver

On 8/17/2024 8:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:28:43 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 8/16/2024 9:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/16/2024 10:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/16/2024 8:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/16/2024 3:59 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

>
Krygowski has yet to comprehend the simple fact that
benefits and
detriments are subjective.

>
Benefits and detriments can very often be measured. The
benefits of bicycling have been measured in terms of
increased health, reduced health care costs, years of
life saved, pollution reduced, etc. etc. I've seen and
filed at least five studies that have done that, each one
showing that the benefits of bicycling far outweigh its
tiny risks.
>
The detriments of American gun craziness can also be
measured. As just one example, huge numbers of schools
now hire full time security guards in case some whacko
with an AR attempts to enter the building. The buildings
themselves are now often "hardened," with various weapon
detecting and weapon resisting technologies. That was
never the case until the current gun mania came into
fashion; and taxpayers pick up the bill for that extra
security - as they do for advanced protective equipment
for most policing. So we all pay for the gun fetishists
fantasy hobby.
>
It would make sense to levy a massive tax on every gun
with, say, more than 6 rounds capacity, to pay for the
security expenses they generate. But of course, the
"Gotta have a big gun" crew is also the "No new taxes"
crew. They want others to pay for their play toys'
consequences.
>
>

p.s.
You cannot tax an enumerated right. *example = poll tax)
This is once again in the courts.

>
You may be right. But I didn't say it was legally possible.
I said only that it would make sense.
>

>
Not in our (yet relatively)  free Constitutional Republic.
It's nonsense.
>
More deeply, as Chesterton actually wrote (popularly
misquoted by JFK):
>
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from
deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a
principle which will probably be called a paradox. There
exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us
say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected
across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily
up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us
clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of
reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use
of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and
think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do
see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
>
Our Framers had indeed thought deeply before composing our
Constitution and argued, discussed, fought and reconsidered
repeatedly before writing.

 How wonderful is the fact that they made the requirments for amending
the Constitution too difficult and complex for the bureaucrats to
fiddle with it in accordance with their whims and presumptions.

Uh, mostly.
Not including the occasional mass hysteria:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-18/
Or our modern inability to think logically or compose clearly:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-25/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971