rushmc 23 #326 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote But in any case no one is suggesting "unarming" everyone. The bitch from CA She has said it publicly more than once that she would do it if she could Many of us here are trying to make suse she cant You are having zero effect on any decision made by Congress (well, maybe the opposite effect of what you want because your arguments are so poorly thought out and your posts are so frantic). The probability of a gun ban in the USA is zero. You're getting all worked up over nothing. There WILL be some action, most likely over more rigorous background checks and restoring funding for research on gun violence. I'd like to see mandatory training and liability insurance too. I am not worked up over anything How many gun threads have you started in the past 48 hours? About enough to show how wrong you are to others As for you ? You dont care"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #327 February 6, 2013 QuoteAgain, NOBODY is proposing to take your guns. I certainly didn't write what you've just claimed. If your "fathers" gave you an AR-15, there is NO proposal to take it away. None. Zero. Stop ranting about things that aren't happening. I'm not concerned about an outright ban/confiscation happening via legislation, I'm worried about a preponderance of stupidity and bureaucracy, and if you pile too many things on (registrations, lower standards for "temporary confiscations", bans on classes of new/replacement firearms,) nobody can predict how people will get screwed over, intentionally or otherwise. See Patriot Act, no fly lists, etc. There was an article posted here where a reporter in DC wanted to see what was involved in getting a handgun legally. You have to take an approved course, okay... Except that's easier said than done because they gave her a list and none of the schools were in the area and most of them didn't actually exist. Nobody want's an outright ban but remeber that, technically speaking, BASE jumping is not banned in national parks. There are a few steps that can be taken to help prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands but it's hard to understand how some people can be so aloof about how amok things can run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #328 February 6, 2013 >OK, parachuting is dangerous too. You could land on someones house killing all the >kids. So you need P&C insurance and futher licensing on your chute, more continuing >education, annually, to ensure the public is safe. We already have that. You need a PRO rating to do most demos (i.e. jumps away from a DZ.) You need an FAA rigger to inspect your rig for safety twice a year. To jump at 99.9% of US drop zones you need to take a USPA training course costing thousands of dollars, minimum - and meet regurrency/training requirements to keep jumping. You really want to extend that to guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #329 February 6, 2013 Quote>OK, parachuting is dangerous too. You could land on someones house killing all the >kids. So you need P&C insurance and futher licensing on your chute, more continuing >education, annually, to ensure the public is safe. We already have that. You need a PRO rating to do most demos (i.e. jumps away from a DZ.) You need an FAA rigger to inspect your rig for safety twice a year. To jump at 99.9% of US drop zones you need to take a USPA training course costing thousands of dollars, minimum - and meet regurrency/training requirements to keep jumping. You really want to extend that to guns? Only if skydiving becomes a right???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #330 February 6, 2013 Quote>OK, parachuting is dangerous too. You could land on someones house killing all the >kids. So you need P&C insurance and futher licensing on your chute, more continuing >education, annually, to ensure the public is safe. We already have that. You need a PRO rating to do most demos (i.e. jumps away from a DZ.) You need an FAA rigger to inspect your rig for safety twice a year. To jump at 99.9% of US drop zones you need to take a USPA training course costing thousands of dollars, minimum - and meet regurrency/training requirements to keep jumping. You really want to extend that to guns? No I'm the broke state looking at a budget combined with a disaster where a collection of skydivers impacted a school and killed a bunch of kids and the whole of the nation wants more skydiving rules. Where do you start Billvon, aside from making sure there's enough gas in the plane that was really responsible for the crash in the first place, (as not having good access control on the door at newtown) and only concentrate on the chute. All while having non skydivers support as they don't buy, own or participate in skydiving! Rights or no rights, if the eqiupment of your sport was under further attack, from which you say has already been attacked enough, how would you feel if state wants the money and says it needs to ensure safety of citizens by further burdening the use of the chute. And should skydiving become so horribly expensive due to all the regs, you can't participate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #331 February 6, 2013 QuoteAnd should skydiving become so horribly expensive due to all the regs, you can't participate? This is a poor argument with comparison to gun control. The participant cost of the "sport" should never be a reason to limit the safety of those innocent and uninvolved who might be killed as a result of it. Your "sport" should not come at the cost of somebody else's safety. Ever. That's why things like street racing are outlawed. Sure, it costs more to go to a track...so what? You want to participate, you pay the price of admission.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #332 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteAnd should skydiving become so horribly expensive due to all the regs, you can't participate? This is a poor argument with comparison to gun control. NO IT IS NOT. The participant cost of the "sport" should never be a reason to limit the safety of those innocent and uninvolved who might be killed as a result of it. THEN WHY ARE MORE FEES PROPOSED? Your "sport" should not come at the cost of somebody else's safety. Ever. That's why things like street racing are outlawed. PEOPLE DIE SKYDIVING. SKYDIVERS NEED PROTECTED. HENCE WE NEED TO END SKYDIVING. INSTEAD YOU CAN KITEBOARD AND GO PARASAILING. Sure, it costs more to go to a track...so what? You want to participate, you pay the price of admission. SINCE SKYDIVING IS BANNED, YOU'LL NEED TO GO TO THE OCEAN TO KITEBOARD, AND IT COST MORE TO GO TO THE OCEAN THAN SKYDIVING, SO WHAT, YOU PAY THE PRICE OF ADMISSION. THERE IS NO REASON PEOPLE NEED TO USE WHAT WAS ONCE A SAFETY MEASURE, ESCAPING A BURNING AIRCRAFT WITH A CHUTE AS A HOBBY THAT TAKES INNOCENT LIVES WHEN THE PURPOSE OF LEAVING AN AIRCRAFT IS THAT THE AIRCRAFT CAN'T LAND SAFELY. HOW DO YOU FEEL NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #333 February 6, 2013 Quote Who is going to do all these background checks when there are millions of private sales annually. Here's an idea, have places that sale guns and do the back ground checks now do it. A fee would be charged of course but it would bring traffic in to the store..... I realize there are places w/o gun shops...but there's a decent idea in that....Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #334 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuote Who is going to do all these background checks when there are millions of private sales annually. Here's an idea, have places that sale guns and do the back ground checks now do it. I fee would be charged of course but it would bring traffic in to the store..... I realize there are places w/o gun shops...but there's a decent idea in that.... That's a good idea for gun store. More revenue to the gun shop. But then again, more costs for the shooting sports industry. The reason guys do private sales is to avoid dealer fees which are now around $50. So why buy a used gun from a dealer plus the $50 when you can just buy the used gun from the seller. I recently saw a man write out a check for $6,000 to another man at the trap range for a shot gun. The men knew eash other. Why force men to go to shop. Plus the convenience. I want to sell a pistol to my kid, I have to go to the gun shop 14 miles down the road? Not practicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #335 February 6, 2013 QuoteHOW DO YOU FEEL NOW. I feel like I'm talking to a person, a very young person, who has just been told the price of his favorite candy bar might go up and he's throwing a tantrum. I really could not care less if the price of skydiving increased as a result of safety regulation. It is, by and large, a "rich man's" hobby when you consider the world at large. It's also a completely optional part of life. You wanna play, you pay. So what?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #336 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteHOW DO YOU FEEL NOW. I feel like I'm talking to a person, a very young person, who has just been told the price of his favorite candy bar might go up and he's throwing a tantrum. I really could not care less if the price of skydiving increased as a result of safety regulation. It is, by and large, a "rich man's" hobby when you consider the world at large. It's also a completely optional part of life. You wanna play, you pay. So what? Speaking of tantrums, you made any bets lately?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #337 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteHOW DO YOU FEEL NOW. I feel like I'm talking to a person, a very young person, who has just been told the price of his favorite candy bar might go up and he's throwing a tantrum. I really could not care less if the price of skydiving increased as a result of safety regulation. It is, by and large, a "rich man's" hobby when you consider the world at large. It's also a completely optional part of life. You wanna play, you pay. So what? Speaking of tantrums, you made any bets lately? Didn't you lose? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #338 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHOW DO YOU FEEL NOW. I feel like I'm talking to a person, a very young person, who has just been told the price of his favorite candy bar might go up and he's throwing a tantrum. I really could not care less if the price of skydiving increased as a result of safety regulation. It is, by and large, a "rich man's" hobby when you consider the world at large. It's also a completely optional part of life. You wanna play, you pay. So what? Speaking of tantrums, you made any bets lately? Didn't you lose? I did And I paid up"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #339 February 6, 2013 >No I'm the broke state looking at a budget combined with a disaster where a >collection of skydivers impacted a school and killed a bunch of kids and the whole of >the nation wants more skydiving rules. Yes. If skydivers killed thousands of whuffos a year, then you bet your ass we'd have more rules. >Rights or no rights, if the eqiupment of your sport was under further attack, from >which you say has already been attacked enough, how would you feel if state wants >the money and says it needs to ensure safety of citizens by further burdening the use >of the chute. By, say, requiring a $1000 reserve and two $50 repacks a year if you want to jump? I'd be OK with that. (I suspect you are, too.) If the bodies of skydivers were killing dozens of kids by impacting school bleachers at terminal velocity? Then you might even see AAD's being required for all jumpers jumping at schools - and that would be a pretty reasonable requirement after enough deaths. >And should skydiving become so horribly expensive due to all the regs, you can't >participate? Nope. Is it OK if it gets MORE expensive as a result of measures taken to prevent thousands of deaths a year? Yes, that's OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #340 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteHOW DO YOU FEEL NOW. I feel like I'm talking to a person, a very young person, who has just been told the price of his favorite candy bar might go up and he's throwing a tantrum. I really could not care less if the price of skydiving increased as a result of safety regulation. It is, by and large, a "rich man's" hobby when you consider the world at large. It's also a completely optional part of life. You wanna play, you pay. So what? Phoohey. $3,000 chute and $30 dollars a jump. More than $30 in bullets is spent in less time it takes to skydive from 10,000 ft. Thousands of round fired every year... nice rich man approach but it's not working for you. I'm just playing devils advocate. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. OK so you can accept your sport being banned due to safety concerns. OK. And you don't care about rising costs and more regulations. Seems you hardly care. Nice attitude to have for your sport. Carefree, I don't give a crap attitude. I'm sure your peers might think differently, but then again with all the straw men around here they type stuff they don't mean. You really could give a hoot if your sport was banned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #341 February 6, 2013 Quote Quote >OK, parachuting is dangerous too. You could land on someones house killing all the >kids. So you need P&C insurance and futher licensing on your chute, more continuing >education, annually, to ensure the public is safe. We already have that. You need a PRO rating to do most demos (i.e. jumps away from a DZ.) You need an FAA rigger to inspect your rig for safety twice a year. To jump at 99.9% of US drop zones you need to take a USPA training course costing thousands of dollars, minimum - and meet regurrency/training requirements to keep jumping. You really want to extend that to guns? Only if skydiving becomes a right??? Though we do not have a specific right to access the civil airspace as part of our constitutional rights, we do have the right to navigate the US National Airspace System (NAS) by Public Law. PL 112-207 states, “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.” ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #342 February 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteAnd should skydiving become so horribly expensive due to all the regs, you can't participate? This is a poor argument with comparison to gun control. The participant cost of the "sport" should never be a reason to limit the safety of those innocent and uninvolved who might be killed as a result of it. Your "sport" should not come at the cost of somebody else's safety. Ever. That's why things like street racing are outlawed. Sure, it costs more to go to a track...so what? You want to participate, you pay the price of admission. Are you sure you're comfortable with the only people able to exercise constitutional rights are the ones that can afford to pay a fee? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #343 February 6, 2013 QuoteSpeaking of tantrums, you made any bets lately? I haven't lost a single one on this web site. Why do you ask? Are you looking to be humiliated again?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #344 February 6, 2013 Quote[Are you sure you're comfortable with the only people able to exercise constitutional rights are the ones that can afford to pay a fee? Depends on what they're actually paying for. Are you suggesting a government paid gun welfare program to give guns to people who can't afford them? I wouldn't have thought that would be your style. I'm not for it. The de facto reality is that in order for a person to exercise a number of their rights, they have to pay to do so. For instance, in order to exercise your 3rd Amendment, you kind of have to at least have paid for your domicile to begin with. Likewise with your gun and bullets. You already pay sales tax on those. A registration fee would be nothing different.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #345 February 7, 2013 QuoteQuote[Are you sure you're comfortable with the only people able to exercise constitutional rights are the ones that can afford to pay a fee? Depends on what they're actually paying for. Are you suggesting a government paid gun welfare program to give guns to people who can't afford them? I wouldn't have thought that would be your style. I'm not for it. The de facto reality is that in order for a person to exercise a number of their rights, they have to pay to do so. For instance, in order to exercise your 3rd Amendment, you kind of have to at least have paid for your domicile to begin with. Likewise with your gun and bullets. You already pay sales tax on those. A registration fee would be nothing different. That is not what he's suggesting. YOu have the right to KEEP a gun, the state does not have the right to charge a licensing fee to exercise your right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #346 February 7, 2013 QuoteQuote[Are you sure you're comfortable with the only people able to exercise constitutional rights are the ones that can afford to pay a fee? Depends on what they're actually paying for. Are you suggesting a government paid gun welfare program to give guns to people who can't afford them? I wouldn't have thought that would be your style. I'm not for it. The de facto reality is that in order for a person to exercise a number of their rights, they have to pay to do so. For instance, in order to exercise your 3rd Amendment, you kind of have to at least have paid for your domicile to begin with. Likewise with your gun and bullets. You already pay sales tax on those. A registration fee would be nothing different. In another gun thread a few days ago I expressed that I feel that registration fees and/or insurance premiums can be high enough to be unconstitutional. Ah - here it is: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4436736#4436736 Generally speaking, my starting position is to be very disapproving of having to pay to exercise constitutional rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #347 February 7, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote[Are you sure you're comfortable with the only people able to exercise constitutional rights are the ones that can afford to pay a fee? Depends on what they're actually paying for. Are you suggesting a government paid gun welfare program to give guns to people who can't afford them? I wouldn't have thought that would be your style. I'm not for it. The de facto reality is that in order for a person to exercise a number of their rights, they have to pay to do so. For instance, in order to exercise your 3rd Amendment, you kind of have to at least have paid for your domicile to begin with. Likewise with your gun and bullets. You already pay sales tax on those. A registration fee would be nothing different. In another gun thread a few days ago I expressed that I feel that registration fees and/or insurance premiums can be high enough to be unconstitutional. Ah - here it is: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4436736#4436736 And by logical extension, low enough to be considered Constitutional as well. I guess the Supreme Court could decide what is the appropriate level of fees.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #348 February 7, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[Are you sure you're comfortable with the only people able to exercise constitutional rights are the ones that can afford to pay a fee? Depends on what they're actually paying for. Are you suggesting a government paid gun welfare program to give guns to people who can't afford them? I wouldn't have thought that would be your style. I'm not for it. The de facto reality is that in order for a person to exercise a number of their rights, they have to pay to do so. For instance, in order to exercise your 3rd Amendment, you kind of have to at least have paid for your domicile to begin with. Likewise with your gun and bullets. You already pay sales tax on those. A registration fee would be nothing different. In another gun thread a few days ago I expressed that I feel that registration fees and/or insurance premiums can be high enough to be unconstitutional. Ah - here it is: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4436736#4436736 And by logical extension, low enough to be consider Constitutional as well. I guess the Supreme Court could decide what is the appropriate level of fees. They're just judges. As I noted in the linked post, a NYC judge already ruled one particular fee structure to be constitutional, and I disagree with that ruling; I felt the fees in that case were excessive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #349 February 7, 2013 QuoteThat is not what he's suggesting. YOu have the right to KEEP a gun, the state does not have the right to charge a licensing fee to exercise your right. Nobody is taking away your guns, unless, of course, you shouldn't have them to begin with. Is that really your issue here? You're afraid you might not qualify? I don't think I've read where anyone is suggesting a change to who does or doesn't qualify. In other words, no change in your current status.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #350 February 7, 2013 It's bad enough you have to get a permit to protest and exercise your right to free speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites