Leaderboard

Let's do some more math: what's $.75 multiplied by the USPA constituency of $39,827 (end of 2018)? $29,870.25 So it's OK for the BOD to "pass the buck"? How about $29,870.25 bucks? That's money we could have used for something that would actually produce something tangible, not some pipe dream that no one seems to "give a poop about." -JD-

Really? Who? I think "lots" of BOD members - those in office at that time, anyway - supported this project. The mumblings I've heard at my previous dropzone, my current one and the one's I've visited on the road haven't been supportive in the least. And that bit about "complaining": it all depends on where you sit. I'm sure the BOD members and previous BOD members who supported this project would call it complaining. I would call it "speaking up." Bottom line: what the USPA is doing amounts to nothing less than embezzlement and we need to clean it up. 5 years and nothing? What a bunch of crap. -JD-

I'm going to say you're 100% right that there will be fewer collisions with sea ice in the future. CONSENSUS!!!!

talk about tightening up gun laws and people will point out the 2nd and then try to make laws based on religious beliefs and totally ignore the 1st yep hypocrisy at it's finest

Agreed with the above. And I would add (and this has been echoed by others here) that if you claim "there's no way a black person can be racist in the US!" the only way that makes sense is to refer to that institutional or structural racism. No white person will be discriminated against the way black people are in the US, because we have a legacy of that institutional racism. We are slowly getting past it, but it's still there. As to affirmative action, I think it was critical to get past a lot of the barriers to employment that existed in the 1950's. That need is now greatly diminished, and I think diversity programs (designed to counter homophily) are better solutions than affirmative action (which was designed to counter both personal and institutional racism.)

That's why I think it can be ridiculous to look to the law's original intent as a the reasoning behind it. We've gotten pretty silly with the literalisms like that you can only own a flintlock but that example goes to show that the world is vastly different now than it was then. What I've come to understand is that when this Amendment was written it was almost as contentious as it is now. The country was trying to figure out how to fund a federal military, some didn't want a federal military and wanted state militaries, some wanted state militias only but it had already been shown that state militias didn't win wars. There was an equal concern that regional squabbles could develop and states were concerned that they could be disarmed by the region that hosted the federal government. This is why when you look at what various figures say they can be confusing and contradictory because in one text they'll write that it was for something they wanted and then in another write how it was to appease an issue for another group. So just like a camel is a horse designed by a committee here we are with the 2nd Amendment, written in a way to appease various groups with various concerns and full of all the vagaries that would allow those various interpretations.

What kind of insurance are you asking about? General liability insurance for skydiving is not a real thing. That's why the waiver is as long and detailed as it is. Hire a good lawyer to write one for you (you can ask other DZs for recommendations). "On the ground" liability, stuff that covers spectators tripping and falling, is out there. Some have it, many (big & small) don't. Building and equipment insurance (fire & theft) is available. Given the value of the gear, strongly suggested. But not all have it. Airplane insurance is a somewhat similar thing. Some have it, some don't. Hull insurance covers the airplane if it gets damaged. Liability insurance covers what it hits if it crashes. If you lease a plane, either the owner will have it or he will require that you have it.

And that is part of our 'democracy'. People of like beliefs or interests usually band together to have stronger influence on their legislators. Bikers, gun owners, even real estate agents. All have lobbying groups promoting their interests. And I fully agree that it's just a little bit hypocritical to scream and yell "THOSE people want Sharia law!! THEY want to force their religion on us!!! While at the same time saying gay marriage, abortion, even Sunday alcohol sales go against their beliefs.

And, that is how the Skydivers MC got started.

I went from a Stiletto 170 to a Zulu 152. I felt they flew about the same. The Zulu opening were much more predictable and more enjoyable :-)

In no way do I advocate for a ban on all firearms. I have several that I would not be keen on giving up. I agree ammo is a place to look if some semblance of a solution is desired. And you are absolutely right about a bolt action rifle being a good sniping weapon. I have a Ruger M77 in 7MM with a 3X9 Leopold that would be excellent for the purpose. But then, it would also make an excellent club, if need be. This is just one of those areas of disagreement gun owners have: I just don't believe in the slippery slope thing. I think sensible regulations will leave guns in the hands of hunters, enthusiasts and those of us who believe in protecting their homes with a Beretta shotgun.

Well Channman made a comment about Chicago mass shootings and then John changed the subject to Memphis and Kansas City murder rates. But if you want to talk mass shootings, Chicago leads the way. They take up an entire page in the mass shooting database that I posted earlier and are home to almost 10% of all mass shootings around the country: - 25 mass shootings in Chicago - 4 in Los Angeles - 0 in New York City, 4 in Brooklyn - 1 in Detroit - 2 in Kansas City - 3 in Memphis St. Louis, Philadelphia and Baltimore are pretty nasty with 8-10 each. Right, that's what I'm talking about. If we're going to compare what cities are "safer" then these areas are segregated enough to make a clear distinction for comparison with patterns of segregation that are repeated in almost every other major city in the U.S. I've spent a lot of time in downtown Chicago, sometimes months at a time. It's world class, and not only do I feel safe while exploring the night life, I actually feel protected. Chicago's murder rate of 24 is practically irrelevant to me when visiting because homicides are virtually non-existent in those ares, just as it is irrelevant if you were to visit the poor segregated areas where the murder rates are 2-5 times higher than that, and are in fact driving that murder rate to begin with. This income/violence gap between these segregated areas is only getting worse. On one side you have strong growth with zero murders and $9 million dollar condos in Trump tower, but the city can't be bothered with adequately funding evidence-based prevention programs to help alleviate the burden to those living on the other side with murder rates of 30-80+ and per capita incomes of around 20k or so. And I suppose the only reason John won't acknowledge such programs is because he thinks that arguing in favor of them somehow undermines the effectiveness of gun laws. Anyway, here's a link to an interesting article about Chicago's crime/income gap when compared to New York and L.A: "once again there is a key divergence seen in the Chicago data when compared to New York and Los Angeles. While black and Latino household income levels tend to mirror gains made by white and Asian households in New York and LA, household incomes for Chicago blacks and Latinos are essentially flat compared to whites and Asians, leading to a widening gap in household incomes by race and ethnicity." there is evidence that suggests there are correlations between high levels of poverty and high levels of crime. And it's quite clear that, in Chicago's case, especially compared to New York and Los Angeles, blacks and Latinos are not enjoying the same economic gains experienced by whites and Asians. The legacy of segregation in Chicago leads to economic disconnection, frustration, and potentially opens avenues for violent crime to take root and expand.

The Danes have now stopped preparations for Trumps visit. Instead they are concentrating on the preparations for Obama's visit at the end of September.

One of my Danish friends put it well. 'Good. No one here wanted the fucker visiting anyway.'

Depends what foreigners from what counties. Some because they are from countries with weak or no national organizations. In that case the local DZs often affiliate with USPA. In Canada there are a couple DZs that for one reason or another don't like CSPA, so they become USPA affiliated. Which as far as I'm concerned USPA should not be allowed to do, but I digress. Many because they want USPA instructor ratings, which as I already stated are highly regarded.