Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: cyclists attack auto driver
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:52:21 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <qv91cj16mii1vspjgoii6v8dtgv6mtb03n@4ax.com>
References: <v9l5dh$10a85$1@dont-email.me> <427sbjpl85qb9v28m4s8ihqj335so892n9@4ax.com> <v9l8ud$10n7l$2@dont-email.me> <o4csbjdtu8t99sjjeeijjshjs17ko4miln@4ax.com> <v9ldee$10n7m$7@dont-email.me> <v9ldkv$11ai1$2@dont-email.me> <uefubjl289nishqcq5eqdeqdj0vj0rt7t6@4ax.com> <v9o65q$1h8t3$1@dont-email.me> <0ibvbjtnogf47avmn1v8rj5sf94g9corum@4ax.com> <v9ot76$1kbqe$3@dont-email.me> <v9p1b4$1kr20$4@dont-email.me> <v9p25b$1kbqe$10@dont-email.me> <v9q8ib$1tr17$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 15:52:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d0845120f8e82e8e24780bc8151043b";
	logging-data="2037065"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18m8DbBkjOTDKBMXkIxZFKCVk0LWnyDCI0="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qTDt3r5JeXjvEvwSYkVRyp+WuQg=
Bytes: 4600

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.