Leaderboard

It's almost as if the point is being willfully missed. No one sane thinks mass shootings are ever a win. The point is that firearms ownership in America will never be eliminated. Consequently, pointing out each and every gun travesty as evidence they must be banned is a pointless exercise. You need to accept that Americans are ten times as many as Canadians and our histories are far from identical. Simply put, it's different here. I personally think the second amendment was never intended to be interpreted as it has been by our courts. In fact, I place responsibility for most of these senseless deaths on our courthouse steps. But that doesn't matter. We have what we have and the best we can hope for, at this point, is incremental change.

Do you mean stuff like Project Exile? In the late 90s, Virginia, mainly Richmond started a program where people who used a gun in a crime faced enhanced punishment. One big change was that the 'gun charges' weren't plea bargained down. When it became clear that this was going to be followed through, gun crimes dropped. How about punishing 'straw purchasers'? Those are the people who can legally buy guns and do so for people who cannot. One recent prominent one is the guy who bought the rifle for the underage Kyle Rittenhouse, who then used it to kill 2 people in Kenosha. The straw purchaser has been charged and is facing significant time. One thing that should happen but rarely does is prosecuting people who can't buy firearms but try to. A false statement on the 4473 application to purchase a gun from a FFL dealer is a crime. It says so right on the form. The folks who are in favor of background checks always love to proclaim how many ineligible people were denied their purchase, but never seem to care that virtually none of them are prosecuted. I know a few are unaware that they shouldn't have a gun, but that's a pretty small number. You want to 'get tough on illegal gun purchasers'? Get tough on those who try to get a gun.

I can assure you that the woman's commitment to a pregnancy has more impact than a man's does. I'm a woman, and I've been pregnant, and I've had a baby. There are more health impacts, more job impacts, on the woman than on the man. Period. And, yes, there are so many denying the reality of and responsibility for the children they've created. Most of them are fathers who don't want to be bothered. Until they're born, they're not children, any more than fertilized eggs are chickens. They deserve respect and humane treatment, but often the needs of the mother are in conflict with the needs of the child -- especially if she's pregnant without its having been planned. Until they're capable of being alive outside the womb, they're a far bigger impact on the mother than on the father. She is the only one providing physical support to the pregnancy. Until the pregnancy has attained the age of viability, it should be her final decision, preferably with him being involved in it. Of course -- when the father cuts out, he generally doesn't involve the mother, does he? After the normal age of viability, I honestly believe that exceptions should be made for non-viable fetuses, along with mother's health concerns, as well as the rape and incest exceptions. People involved in those situations are compromised already, and may be in situations that are dangerous enough that getting an abortion early isn't reasonable. Wendy P.

Is your goal to reduce the number of abortions, or just to make abortion illegal? If you had to choose one or the other, which would it be?

It'd be hard to say that Keith hasn't given it some serious effort -- he's the one who sent to his congresscritter a thought-out approach that he thought would fly in the more conservative areas -- because anything that is passed has to pass in the more conservative areas. They just do. Wendy P.

Oh yeah. We've got hawks & bald eagles in the area. Not too many 'ground based' predators (no foxes or coyotes, very few free roaming dogs). I think there's five of them. I don't expect all 5 to make it. If every bunny that was ever born survived to produce offspring (and all those offspring survived & reproduced), we'd be buried in bunnies pretty quickly. They're getting bigger & have left the 'hole' nest. They sort of stay together, and are hiding under the vines & weeds in the corner that I left alone. They bounce around in that area a bit, and I've seen them out in the open garden area a couple times. I got a few pics, but I can't load directly onto this computer. I'll post them in a couple days.

I'm an ardent sizzle hoper, for sure. I'm speaking to the head in sanders who think that just because he's wounded he'll shortly die. Maybe he'll bleed out but it's still way too early to take a trophy picture, seems to me. In my religion it ain't meat until it's in the pan.

There is no legitimate scientific OR religious basis for the GOP point of view on this one, it's purely a control thing. In fact, as you say, in the bible first breath is the point at which life begins so in this case it is actually science that is more restrictive.

you know how you can tell the gop doesn't care about anything other than controlling women in this abortion bullshit? they try to use "christian" values, but totally ignore the fact that the bible says a child has no soul until it takes it's first breath. so a fetus has no soul, at least according to the bible. to me, it isn't a child until you can leave it alone for a while (a few hours) without it dying. like at least 27 weeks or so (not real sure on when they can). those premies that they put in incubators don't count, since they can't live more than a minute or so without the machines. but then again, i prefer leaving my wishes or desires out of a woman's business. her body, her business, period, no exceptions. piss on anyone who tries controlling them through ANY method without their consent.

The solution isn't definitional. The solution is political and politically this country, will for the foreseeable future, have a right to keep and bear arms not limited to a single shot. The reality is that even a general agreement amongst the majority of Americans on reasonable restrictions and regulations would be an uphill fight. The only path forward that has a hope in hell of working is trying for something like Keith proposes. If that happens then we let time do it's job.

Fellow Lefties, this is reality. And truly, it would be a damn fine result.

Well, I would think his point is that the demonizing of military style semi auto rifles is not accurate. Many of the comments made during the enactment of the AWB back in 94 were pretty off the wall. The functional difference between an AR type rifle and a Ruger Mini-14 is virtually nonexistent. Yet one was banned by the AWB and one was not. I think the 'Swiss Army Knife' comment comes from the versatility and modularity of it. You can swap around parts and make an AR just about anything. From a long distance sniper rifle (within the capabilities of the cartridge) to a 'close quarters' carbine. Calibers from a 22 Long Rifle up to a 450 Bushmaster. If you read the 2nd A that the 'right of the people' means the actual people (same as in 8 of the other 9 amendments), and that 'militia' means the 'whole of the citizenry', as was the meaning when the 2nd was written, then the ruling makes sense. If you tack on the SC ruling in the Miller case, then the idea that the 2nd A gives the ordinary citizen the right to 'keep & bear' weapons appropriate to the 'milita', then the ruling makes even more sense. I won't deny we have a huge problem with gun violence in this country. I have no clue how to address it. Taking away over 300 million guns from the citizenry simply won't happen. I also won't pretend that the 'taking away the guns is a precursor to taking away our freedom'. The UK, Australia & New Zealand have all enacted very strict gun controls in the past few decades and haven't seen any real loss of 'freedom'. Kinda funny that the US has come closer to an autocracy/dictatorship in the past 5 years than in the past 245, all supported by the 'gun rights equal freedom' crowd.

People can express it however they want regardless of what you think.

unless one also thinks that trump knew how to lead and defend a nation. then it starts to make sense.

Yeah... I'm certainly light years away from attempting this! I just got my A last week! Thank you for all the information and advice!!! Tim

Glide ratio is numerically equal to the lift/drag ratio. Adding weight increases the forward speed, but also increases drag in the same proportion, so the ratio remains the same. You can google "glide ratio is independent of weight" and see any number of articles on the subject, and none to the contrary. The flight path angle with respect to the horizon depends on the glide ratio and winds. When flying in a headwind, a more heavily loaded canopy will have a shallower angle than a lightly loaded one. When flying with a tailwind, it is the more lightly loaded canopy that will have a shallower angle. In both cases, the glide ratio is the same. The airspeed is different, and the amount of time of exposure to the wind conditions is different. Do not equate glide ratio with the flight path angle with respect to the horizon.