Re: bike path news

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.
 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.