|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 7:47:08 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:38:56 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote: Tell us what this farm welfare is. wild guesses, since I don't live there, but; rebates on fuel for agricultural purposes, import tarrifs protecting inefficent farms from global competition (The USA is a biggie on that one), rebates of all sorts of taxes, licences, registration. import tarrif relief for agricultural inputs. In addition to long standing farm subsidies: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...nyone-objected -- Jay Beattie. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 03:33:42 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote: On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:21:03 +0700, John B. wrote: A bit more history is beneficial: So, in fact, the 2nd amendment was nothing new, or strange, or unique. It was simply adding to the new country's set of laws a law that paralleled existing state or colony laws. You've described a few "laws" in a few towns that could just as easily been laws f oppression and get the fritz out of townn as we do not want the poor here. No, I was describing laws that were promulgated in some of the original American Colonies. In 1640 Connecticut had a population of ~1500, the Plymouth colony had ~1,000, Rhode Island had 300 and the colonists would have had to finance their own travel from Europe to the colonies. Remember that most, if not all, of the early New England colonists were religious "fanatics", one might call them, who left "The Old Country" to gain religious freedom and either paid their own way or in some cases were financed by English investors.. There were indentured persons in some of the colonies but I doubt that there were any "poor folks" as the term is understood today. Yes, one might argue that the 2nd amendment is no longer required... after all an estimated 10,000 ran away rather than serve in the "militia" last time they tried to draft them... and according to the Nation's laws it can be changed. Unfortunately, it requires a vote to change and apparently to date no one has been able to convince a majority of the citizenry to vote for the change. So, you can wave your arms in the air, and rant and rave, to your heart's content but unless you can convince 2/3rds of the citizenry to agree with you there isn't going to be any change. Isn't the issue the number of arms concentrate in the hands of a few unstable individuals? If maintaining the militia was the real need, the laws should specify the arms and ammunition, for a few specific needs, that should be kept, thus providing reliability by part canabalism and the holding of useful caches in central storage. instead you have a rolling circus carrying a smorgas board of iron mongery of dubious reliabiity or usefulness. Given that the "militia" consisted of all males between the ages of 16 and 60 and these people were living in a wilderness which was also inhabited by some rather war like people who resented having their land stolen and you can begin to understand why the Rhode Island Colony passed a law saying you couldn't travel more then two miles outside the town without arms. Note that the so called Mystic Massacre which virtually eliminated the Pequot Indian tribe, thus ending the Pequot War, took place in 1637. -- cheers, John B. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On 1/25/2020 9:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 15:59:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/24/2020 8:54 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:58:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/24/2020 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: The founders of this nation, thank God, were very powerful thinkers. But to you they were dopes and you know much better. They were fairly sharp guys. Not gods, not saints, not infallible, but sharp guys. They believed in well-regulated militias. That was understood quite well for about 200 years. They believed in a militia quite simply because that is all that they there was in the 1700's and yes, they tossed in the word "well regulated", apparently in hope, as none of the state militias of the 1700's were what one might call "well regulated" and yes, there is sufficient history available to realize this. Read up on the Penobscot Expedition. It was only in very recent times that the firearms industry and some gun nuts got lawyers to convince activist judges that all precedents and all previous legal thought should be thrown into a trash can and shot to hell with an AR-15 fitted with a bump stock. Read some history Frank. In the 1700's there was no standing army in the colonies and the only armed defense available was the town/state militia which by the mid 1700's were being viewed with some dismay by the colonial governments. When Washington tried to mobilize the Virginia Militia to fight against an Indian attack, in 1755, the follow was written, " he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support." Thus, I suggest, the term "well regulated" might well have more then a cursory meaning. As for AR-15's I might comment that contrary to popular belief the bulk of the "continental Army, and the militia before them were armed with smooth bore muskets - the rapid fire weapon of the era. From all the records I can find there were in the neighborhood of 1,500 riflemen, in total, in the Colonial army during the war. However rifles may have been a factor in the Colonial victory in the battle of The Battle of King's Mountain. I can only assume due to the rapid acceptance of fully automatic weapons by various forces in modern times that had a weapon like the AR-15 been available in 1775 that both sides would have adopted it :-) Aft all both side had adopted cannon. John, you haven't written anything new to me. And nothing that you've written has rebutted what I said. The Constitution was written in a time when militias with muskets were the best insurance against an overseas power taking control of the territory of the brand new United States. Those militias needed to be well regulated, or they themselves could turn the place into 1990s Mogadishu, but in slow motion, with at least 15 seconds between shots. Actually a very well trained infantryman could fire 4 shots a minute, but the standard in the British army was 3 rounds a minute, i.e. 20 seconds per shot, and other armies even slower... but the fact remains that this was "rapid fire" in those days. Yes. Exactly as I said. We now have millions of fat Rambo wannabees buying guns not to keep woodchucks out of the garden or put rabbits on the table. They're choosing weapons with fantasy battles in mind, outfitting them with magazines that have no practical use outside a firefight, and pretending that they're going to use them against anyone who demands their background be checked. With funding from the industry supplying their toys, they've gotten the courts to twist away from true originalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment. What these Rambos do is not what your family did in New England. It's not what the Founders imagined in the 1700s. It's not what happens in other economically advanced countries. And our gun death stats and mass shooting stats show the results. Ah but Frank. The original meaning of the 2nd amendment was to ensure an armed citizenry in order that a militia could be formed. Right. A militia could be quickly organized by the U.S. government, or a state's government, in case British battleships once again approached the coast. Or, I suppose, Spaniards came marching up from the south. Can you imagine what today's American Fat Rambos would do if that unlikely situation occurred? Do you really think Gary Gun Nut would pack his pistol and his modified AR-15 and leave his "Call of Duty" game to actually do what he loves to pretend? If such a crisis occurred, we'd have what Mogadishu had in its worst years: Gangs of well-armed thugs roaming everywhere, blasting guns constantly, killing anyone who they perceived to be from a rival group, with the difinition of "rival group" constantly changing. We'd have a society in ruins and a murder rate rising into the stratosphere. It's not that a well regulated militia is impossible. Switzerland does it reasonably well. They do it with gun laws over which the NRA would call for open revolt. And their firearm murder rate and their mass shooting rate prove that what we have is NOT what's mentioned in the 2nd amendment. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On 1/25/2020 6:11 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 11:12:16 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: In other words - go blow it out your ass. There has NEVER been a reduction in taxes that didn't more than pay for itself. What you like is the idea of holding a gun to the head of the American people and robbing them blind. Too bad it ain't going to happen. Maybe you're another Avenatti for all I know. It appears that everyone disagrees with you, including the CBO. https://budget.house.gov/publication...-fiscal-future You can skip the political narrative and go right to the report: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54918 Only you Democrats can possibly believe that the CBO which is what - a part of the Democrat controlled House would say that any benefits are slight and only temporary. I just rode with an investor that plays the market every single day and he says that practically since Trump entered office the market has risen. For a temporary and slight increase that is a very, very long time. Every day they say that the market is going to crash and every day they are wrong. He says that even when the market opens red that it is green before the end of the day. That is as is "green with envy". I especially love the idea that you cutting your fees wouldn't increase your business enough to pay for the reduced income. For someone that thinks he understands micro-economics you most assuredly do not. People do not run out and hire a lawyer suddenly because the price has gone down. Exactly how are you connecting that with reducing taxes? How in he hell are you getting even close to any sort of connection between taxes and cost for services? "practically since Trump entered office the market has risen." Yes, and as is often noted rising equities are a vote of confidence on the future. Always good to see people making money,no beef with that. That said, P/E are scary high, one might say 'bubbly' high... -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 11:04:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/25/2020 9:21 PM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 15:59:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/24/2020 8:54 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:58:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/24/2020 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: The founders of this nation, thank God, were very powerful thinkers. But to you they were dopes and you know much better. They were fairly sharp guys. Not gods, not saints, not infallible, but sharp guys. They believed in well-regulated militias. That was understood quite well for about 200 years. They believed in a militia quite simply because that is all that they there was in the 1700's and yes, they tossed in the word "well regulated", apparently in hope, as none of the state militias of the 1700's were what one might call "well regulated" and yes, there is sufficient history available to realize this. Read up on the Penobscot Expedition. It was only in very recent times that the firearms industry and some gun nuts got lawyers to convince activist judges that all precedents and all previous legal thought should be thrown into a trash can and shot to hell with an AR-15 fitted with a bump stock. Read some history Frank. In the 1700's there was no standing army in the colonies and the only armed defense available was the town/state militia which by the mid 1700's were being viewed with some dismay by the colonial governments. When Washington tried to mobilize the Virginia Militia to fight against an Indian attack, in 1755, the follow was written, " he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support." Thus, I suggest, the term "well regulated" might well have more then a cursory meaning. As for AR-15's I might comment that contrary to popular belief the bulk of the "continental Army, and the militia before them were armed with smooth bore muskets - the rapid fire weapon of the era. From all the records I can find there were in the neighborhood of 1,500 riflemen, in total, in the Colonial army during the war. However rifles may have been a factor in the Colonial victory in the battle of The Battle of King's Mountain. I can only assume due to the rapid acceptance of fully automatic weapons by various forces in modern times that had a weapon like the AR-15 been available in 1775 that both sides would have adopted it :-) Aft all both side had adopted cannon. John, you haven't written anything new to me. And nothing that you've written has rebutted what I said. The Constitution was written in a time when militias with muskets were the best insurance against an overseas power taking control of the territory of the brand new United States. Those militias needed to be well regulated, or they themselves could turn the place into 1990s Mogadishu, but in slow motion, with at least 15 seconds between shots. Actually a very well trained infantryman could fire 4 shots a minute, but the standard in the British army was 3 rounds a minute, i.e. 20 seconds per shot, and other armies even slower... but the fact remains that this was "rapid fire" in those days. Yes. Exactly as I said. :-) No, you said "slow motion" :-) However, an English regiment was capable of firing around 3.000 rounds a minute and were trained in what was called "line" formations that allowed almost continuous firing over a 500 - 1,000 foot wide front. If you want to refer to this as "slow motion", fine, but I'm not sure that your definition will be accepted by any one that had actually experienced it. We now have millions of fat Rambo wannabees buying guns not to keep woodchucks out of the garden or put rabbits on the table. They're choosing weapons with fantasy battles in mind, outfitting them with magazines that have no practical use outside a firefight, and pretending that they're going to use them against anyone who demands their background be checked. With funding from the industry supplying their toys, they've gotten the courts to twist away from true originalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment. What these Rambos do is not what your family did in New England. It's not what the Founders imagined in the 1700s. It's not what happens in other economically advanced countries. And our gun death stats and mass shooting stats show the results. Ah but Frank. The original meaning of the 2nd amendment was to ensure an armed citizenry in order that a militia could be formed. Right. A militia could be quickly organized by the U.S. government, or a state's government, in case British battleships once again approached the coast. Or, I suppose, Spaniards came marching up from the south. Nope, wrong again. in the early days, at least in New England, the Militia wasn't "quickly organized" it existed, it consisted of all males between 16 and 60 and Connecticut ordered in 1643 that at least one person in every house shall bring a musket, pistol or some piece, with powder and shot to every church meeting. And, in early New England Church was not optional, it was the law that one must attend and failure to do so was punishable, and was. Can you imagine what today's American Fat Rambos would do if that unlikely situation occurred? Do you really think Gary Gun Nut would pack his pistol and his modified AR-15 and leave his "Call of Duty" game to actually do what he loves to pretend? If such a crisis occurred, we'd have what Mogadishu had in its worst years: Gangs of well-armed thugs roaming everywhere, blasting guns constantly, killing anyone who they perceived to be from a rival group, with the difinition of "rival group" constantly changing. We'd have a society in ruins and a murder rate rising into the stratosphere. You seem to be implying a cause and effect situation where having guns resulted in massacres but from what I read about the "troubles" in Somalia, firearms were hardly a prerequisite, a machete was quite often all that was required to slaughter "them" and "them" seems to be anyone that isn't "us". It's not that a well regulated militia is impossible. Switzerland does it reasonably well. They do it with gun laws over which the NRA would call for open revolt. And their firearm murder rate and their mass shooting rate prove that what we have is NOT what's mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Yes, the Swiss do manage their army/militia well... But they have mandatory military service for all males (females may volunteer). Do you advocate that for the U.S.? Did you serve? Where? When? Is it possible that strict military training has an effect on gun crimes? Or mass shootings? Even though that up to recently every able body Swiss man had a rifle at home? -- cheers, John B. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 8:18:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/25/2020 6:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Tell us what this farm welfare is. Is that sarcasm? Farm welfare is extensive, pervasive and of long standing. No worse than half of USA endeavors but no better either. If you pass laws that effectively hurt farmers such as demanding export taxes on farm products from foreign buyers I would hardly call replacing the money that it costs farmers as welfare. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On 1/26/2020 6:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 8:18:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 1/25/2020 6:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Tell us what this farm welfare is. Is that sarcasm? Farm welfare is extensive, pervasive and of long standing. No worse than half of USA endeavors but no better either. If you pass laws that effectively hurt farmers such as demanding export taxes on farm products from foreign buyers I would hardly call replacing the money that it costs farmers as welfare. But this is the nature of the expanding regulatory/administrative State. Destroy commerce in the inner cities then patch it up with relief checks. Cripple farmers with policy then support the more clever among them with several hundred farm support programs. Regulate labor, tax it, set a false 'minimum wage', ban casual cash labor and then establish some 500-odd Federal 'job training' programs. I cold go on, and often do. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 19:37:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/26/2020 6:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 8:18:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 1/25/2020 6:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Tell us what this farm welfare is. Is that sarcasm? Farm welfare is extensive, pervasive and of long standing. No worse than half of USA endeavors but no better either. If you pass laws that effectively hurt farmers such as demanding export taxes on farm products from foreign buyers I would hardly call replacing the money that it costs farmers as welfare. But this is the nature of the expanding regulatory/administrative State. Destroy commerce in the inner cities then patch it up with relief checks. Cripple farmers with policy then support the more clever among them with several hundred farm support programs. Regulate labor, tax it, set a false 'minimum wage', ban casual cash labor and then establish some 500-odd Federal 'job training' programs. I cold go on, and often do. The basis of the democratic political system is "vote for me and I'll take care of you". -- cheers, John B. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On 1/26/2020 7:36 PM, John B. wrote:
Yes, the Swiss do manage their army/militia well... But they have mandatory military service for all males (females may volunteer). Do you advocate that for the U.S.? Did you serve? Where? When? I have long advocated mandatory national service of some kind for everyone, perhaps from age 18 to 20. I'd say it doesn't have to be military service, but that should be one of the options available under many others, with each addressing some societal need, but including instruction and discipline similar to what's done in the military. There are many needs that could be addressed by such a system. I trust that the 18-year-old macho gun nuts would choose that military option, and quickly learn to distinguish their fantasies from reality. And distinguishing fantasy from reality is IME something needed by most 18-year-olds. If nothing else, a couple of disciplined "gap years" would give kids time to figure out what they really should do with their lives - as opposed to the typical "rock god" daydreams. And I know well the difference in motivation, discipline and educational achievement between 18-year-olds entering college straight out of high school, versus 20-somethings entering after serving in the military. It's a night and day difference. As to "Did I?" No, and given the Viet Nam situation of the time, I remain very thankful I didn't have to join the military. However, there is a Marine veteran in this household. Is it possible that strict military training has an effect on gun crimes? Or mass shootings? Even though that up to recently every able body Swiss man had a rifle at home? Yes, it is more than possible. IOW, the Swiss do this far better than the U.S. does. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle Parts in the News
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 21:40:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/26/2020 7:36 PM, John B. wrote: Yes, the Swiss do manage their army/militia well... But they have mandatory military service for all males (females may volunteer). Do you advocate that for the U.S.? Did you serve? Where? When? I have long advocated mandatory national service of some kind for everyone, perhaps from age 18 to 20. I'd say it doesn't have to be military service, but that should be one of the options available under many others, with each addressing some societal need, but including instruction and discipline similar to what's done in the military. There are many needs that could be addressed by such a system. I keep mentioning Singapore but they do a lot of things right. For example, they have mandatory military service upon graduation from high school. It is generally considered what I think is called a "Gap Year" in the U.S. except the gap is filled with military service and one simply spends a year "in the service" before collage. But one of the side effects is that a great many of the inductees gain a much greater understanding of the government and how it works - they have classes - than you get from youtube or twitter :-) In addition, first year collage students are a bit more mature and probably do better - I remember when I was a senior in high school we had a lecture from someone at Dartmouth Collage who said that after WW II when they began to get students under the veterans programs that it was noted that these people invariably got better grades than those straight out of high school. I trust that the 18-year-old macho gun nuts would choose that military option, and quickly learn to distinguish their fantasies from reality. And distinguishing fantasy from reality is IME something needed by most 18-year-olds. If nothing else, a couple of disciplined "gap years" would give kids time to figure out what they really should do with their lives - as opposed to the typical "rock god" daydreams. I knew a lot of people in my 20 years in the military and I don't remember any "gun nuts" in the sense of going to the range and just blasting away. There was always a Base rifle team and a Base pistol team, just as there was a Base basketball team so I don't know if military service, per se, has anything to do with wild eyed AK-15 nuts. I did know a bloke who was a Special Forces trooper, three tours in Vietnam, wounded several times, etc., who was a real black hat. He used to comment there wasn't anything better then jumping out of airplanes, blowing up bridges and shooting people, and after I got to know him I realized that he was deadly serious. After I went to Vietnam and had gotten to know some other Green Berets I came to realize that he was probably typical of the so called "A Team" guys (The A Team being the chaps who actually go out in the bush). I met the Green Bennie guy at the local gun club where we shot trap and actually got friendly with him by fixing his shotgun for him. But trap is a highly formalized game not just bang, bang, bang. I remember that he had a MAT-49 submachine gun hanging on the wall in his house but it seemed to be more of a trophy than something to shoot. It seems to me though that this shoot 'em up, bang, bang, thing is relatively recent phenomena. At least I was pretty much in the "gun business" from the time I was about 12 years old, buying, selling,, trading, shooting, gun smithing, Pistol Team, etc., until I got out of the Service in 1972 and I really don't remember anyone going to the range and just blasting away. And yes we had available a small light weight semi-automatic rifle with a big magazine, but I don't remember anyone actually shooting one. But after I came to Asia to work I do remember a guy I used to shoot on a pistol team writing me and saying that he hated to go to the range any more as a bunch of local guys were coming down and just blasting away. He said you didn't even want to walk down to check your target :-) And I know well the difference in motivation, discipline and educational achievement between 18-year-olds entering college straight out of high school, versus 20-somethings entering after serving in the military. It's a night and day difference. As to "Did I?" No, and given the Viet Nam situation of the time, I remain very thankful I didn't have to join the military. However, there is a Marine veteran in this household. Is it possible that strict military training has an effect on gun crimes? Or mass shootings? Even though that up to recently every able body Swiss man had a rifle at home? Yes, it is more than possible. IOW, the Swiss do this far better than the U.S. does. But yet, from what I read, shooting is a rather popular sport in Switzerland and many people participate, so it doesn't appear that there is a simple correlation between gun availability and mass shootings, or even murder, for that matter. -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle Parts In The News | AMuzi | Techniques | 1 | November 20th 12 01:09 AM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | May 14th 08 09:58 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Rides | 0 | May 14th 08 09:56 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |