Re: bike path news

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 3/12/2025 9:13 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/12/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/12/2025 2:50 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 3/11/2025 8:37 PM, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:58:04 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/11/2025 6:47 AM, John B. wrote:

On 11 Mar 2025 10:23:20 GMT, Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 3/10/2025 6:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/10/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:

>
People form their own opinions and arrange their own
behavior based on their own situation.

>
Yes - or based on their own phobias. I know people
who are
horribly afraid of spiders, garter snakes, honeybees,
graveyards and more.
>
Smart? No. Logical? No. But at least they're not
carrying
lethal weaponry.
>

My daughter for example used to take the train to
work in
inclement or bitter cold Chicago winters.
No longer. ...

>
You're the anecdote master, Andrew. But IIRC you've
not yet
found a horrifying anecdote about quiet bike paths in
suburban Florida, near our timid tricycle rider.
>

>
The murder of this thread was of an unarmed man on a
bike path.
>

>
Just because it can happen doesn’t mean it will
happen, going out on limb
but I suspect that CatTrike Ryder will be perfectly
safe with or without
carrying any guns on his rides.
>
I suspect he knows this as well, but simply likes
having the gun on him?
>
Roger Merriman

>
I spent more then a year in Vietnam where people did,
on occasion,
shoot at you and I can assure you that a firearm did
give you a
certain sense of security :-)
>
Even when they weren't shooting :-)

>
lol...yeah, let's compare an active war zone to a
florida bike path -
that's rational.....

>
The point was, as I did state, "you felt more secure
"even when they
weren't shooting"

>
Comparing a bike path in floriduh in 2025 to vietnam in
1970 isn't rational, in fact, it's pretty fucking
stupid....kunich-level stupid.
>

But as I've said (many times) it is legal in Florida.
You would deny
someone the right to do something that is legal?

>
nope, if he wants to carry a gun, he's free to do so. His
rationale for carrying one is weak in that the risk of
being attacked on the trail is less than being struck by
lightening, and the idea that a fragile old man with his
admitted deteriorating motor skills, eyesight, and
hearing could actually defend himself without an
assailant taking the gun from him and pistol whipping him
with it is laughable.
>
But in the immortal words of Mason Williams, "one day you
realize that 'I Want to' is the worlds greatest reason".
>
>

Isn't it still a
(sort of) democracy back there?

>
The fact that there is no linkage between a working
democracy and the "right" to own guns notwithstanding,
the answer to that question is: Sort of, but it's
slipping fast. In 2022 trump stated “A Massive Fraud of
this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all
rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the
Constitution,”. Throw in the recent SCOTUS decision that
gave trump broad immunity by ruling that the president is
immune from prosecution for any and all official acts
committed as president, followed by his more recent X
postings “He who saves his Country does not violate any
Law” (not just once, but twice). Trump is emboldened to
ignore the rule of law, which is not unlimited to
blatantly unconstitutional acts (He's already done that
with his refusal to honor the spending bills passed by
congress - essentially implementing line-item vetos
pafter the fact - clearly ruled by SCOTUS as
unconstitutional numerous times.
>
This is the man(?) that the majority of americans voted
for. So you tell me, do we still have a democracy?
>
>
>

>

>

>
In the immortal and prescient words of Selena Zito from
September of 2016:
>
“When he makes claims like this, the press takes him
literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him
seriously, but not literally.”
>
She nailed it.

 
nope. The recent SCOTUS decision that gave trump broad
immunity by ruling that the president is immune from
prosecution for any and all official acts committed as
president, followed by his more recent X postings “He who
saves his Country does not violate any Law” (not just once,
but twice). Trump is emboldened to ignore the rule of law,
which
is not unlimited to blatantly unconstitutional acts. He's
already done
that with his refusal to honor the spending bills passed by
congress - essentially implementing line-item vetos after
the fact - clearly ruled by SCOTUS as unconstitutional
numerous times.
 

Oh by the way regarding democracy, hell no!  We are a
Constitutional Republic not yet subject to mob rule.

 
Regarding Constitutional republic, hell no! The judicial and
legislative branches have give tacit approval for the
president to ignore the constitution. If the president can
ignore the constitution, it no longer has any purpose.
 

>
>
The decision is a natural elucidation of prior decisions and
practice. They broke no new ground.
>
Regarding Presidents ignoring, exceeding or impounding
Congressional appropriations I agree it's not ideal but
every President (not some, each and every) have played on
that field. Some get away with it, some don't, some relent
and some just move on with the issue unresolved.
>
It would be better for Congress to be explicit and
determinative,  but that's not going to happen. Congress for
decades would much prefer to spend time in their home
districts fundraising (a combination of selling policy
positions, shakedowns and outright extortion) than
legislating.  Which is why we've come to more delegated
administrative agency rules, enforced by agency judges in
light of agency opinion, than actual Statutes.

I doubt if many legislatures know what's in the laws their signing.
It's pretty clear that Biden didn't either. I don't foresee any huge
improvements, either.

As discussed here regularly on various subjects, notably by
Mr Slocumb, writing laws (or Constitutions) is one thing,
but actual enforcement and practice is quite another.
>
We can agree this is a dog's breakfast and not what it could
be, but Mr Trump is not at all an an outlier in that regard.

Trump is a disgusting braggart and a liar, but I have no complaints
about his efforts about the illegals and on DOGE. In my opinion,
getting rid of the DEPT of Education is also a good move. Whatever
happens, I'll roll with the punches until I'm outahere.

--
C'est bon
Soloman