Leaderboard

The problem with that idea is how the people who wrote it meant those words (there's a lot of notes and background material, including earlier drafts of the 2nd). "Well regulated" meant, at the time, 'properly equipped and working'. Not 'subject to rules and regulations'. And "militia" meant 'every able bodied man aged 17-60'. The word 'people', as in 'right of the people' would indicate that they meant it applied to... The people. I have always found it rather interesting that 'people' means just that in all the other amendments that have it, but not in the 2nd. As it sits now, the MacDonald decision established that 'people' means just that. It would require a new SC ruling to overturn that, and given the makeup of the court, I don't really see that happening any time soon. The cops DIDN'T stop him. Not that they COULDN'T. The police knew exactly where he was, there were kids on the phone with 911 as he was shooting. The cops were equipped and supposedly trained to deal with an 'active shooter' situation. They stood outside and did NOTHING They were fucking cowards.

What about putting more weight on the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd, which currently seems to be completely ignored? For example owning military style weapons could automatically enroll a person in the state national guard, with a requirement for one weekend a month in training or service. If an owner was obviously unhinged their superior officers could limit their access to weapons, or authorize military police to examine their social media posts for evidence of planning criminal activity. It would be politically extremely challenging to get this enacted, but maybe not quite as impossible as repealing or drastically modifying the 2nd. After all the language is already there, it would "just" be a matter of interpreting the meaning.

Showing up to a hometown football game and watching some guy without a PRO rating drill himself into the ground was not something the crowd agreed to. Further, friends and family showing up to a DZ to watch a loved one make their first tandem skydive and witnessing an instructor do a 180 toggle turn at 100 ft, killing the passenger is not something anyone agreed to.

Sure, high performance landings can be done without injury or death if done properly, but it will never be safe. The level of risk involved is equal to pulling <1.5k and BASE jumping. Your suggestion that those of us who are voicing concern simply don’t understand swooping - is ignorant at best. The injuries and deaths happen when high performance landings aren’t done properly (duh). People are flying themselves into the ground because they couldn’t do it properly every time. If you haven’t already, read the 2022 Fatality Report. Eight people died from intentional low turns. Three of them were tandem passengers. This should have sent shock waves throughout the skydiving community. Instead, we got the same ol’, “Whelp, that’s a shame, but we’re making progress!”

You are welcome!

I recently received exceptional customer service from Sunpath Products Inc. Their responsiveness, service and support far exceeded my expectations. It started over a year ago when I was shopping for a new “rig” to be used for WS (95%) and belly (5%) Even though I wasn’t really a fan of the Aurora’s aesthetics, I decided that Function was more important the Form so called them directly to order (one challenge in being in the sport for 40+ years, is that my favorite gear vendors have either sold out, retired, or otherwise timed out). We discussed my needs, they looked up my current Javelin’s dimensions and they said, nope, won’t make you an Aurora, we don’t make them in your yoke size and you won’t be happy with fitment. That was disappointing, but also spoke volumes of Sunpath’s business ethics. We agreed on a new Javelin with some WS specific features would be appropriate. Fast forward 20+ weeks and the rig was delivered. I’m a picky ass mechanical engineer and I wasn’t really happy with the way the side flaps , main flap and closing tab were cut and sewn. Not a functional issue, but to my eye an aesthetic one. My rigger agreed so it wasn’t just me. I took some photo’s, wrote and email and sent it to Sunpath. I got a call the NEXT MORNING from Robbie R and his colleague in their repairs dept. We discussed and agreed design wasn’t ideal and they asked me to return the entire packed rig so they could size container flaps appropriately. A few weeks later they delivered upgraded product that looks great and I’m anxious to go out and fly. Robbie and Sunpath’s service was exceptional and I will continue to buy my harness / container systems from them and would advise others to do so without reservation.

funny, just read your comment after I posted mine.

I'll bet that you've never been in terminal freefall below 1500 feet. Trust me, there are visual differences. Magical? That's up to the observer.

You should have stopped after the first 8 words. We don't need to hope for an amendment that will never come, we need to pack the SC and use it to reverse Heller and any other jackass interpretation of the second. We need to put giant taxes on guns and especially ammunition the next time we have all three branches after the court is packed. Kieth is a smart guy and a real thought leader on this, and probably a fancy dresser and nifty dancer, too, but I'm also of the mind that responsibility will read regulation and go down in flames

I'm a cataloging librarian in real life. A large portion of my job is redescribing legacy records by cleaning up the mistakes that may have cropped up in them over the years. The basis for this type of work is to trust but verify the information in front of you. You trust that the person who worked on the record before you did their best but you check the information provided for accuracy. When you're presented with conflicting information that can't readily be resolved, you put a note on the record describing the situation and you keep going. This makes it easier for somebody coming along later with more resources at their disposal to work on it some more. Nothing about record keeping is worth getting upset over. It's record keeping. Inaccuracies are absolutely 1000% guaranteed to surface. Future generations might have a better perspective of the matter at hand or have better resources at their disposal; however, source material may be lost in the interim. Very smart people may make mistakes. It's frustrating sometimes but that's the nature of the beast. It comes with the territory. That's what makes the discussions interesting. That's what it sounds like with the report of Cooper's nicotine stained fingers. You've got thousands of pages of primary source material saying that he had no distinguishing features with no marks nor scars. Then you have the leading investigator saying he had nicotine stained fingers without much in the way of citations. He was there, we weren't. He may well have had access to information that hasn't been released to the public or hasn't been preserved. On the other side, he may have been mistaken. He didn't cite his assertion. His ghost writer may have been mistaken. He may have had a suspect in mind and was consciously or unconsciously tailoring his narrative to fit. He may have relied on a case summary with erroneous information. All this has been brought up in recent posts, right? Now looking at the rest of the evidence, I do question whether Cooper really did have nicotine stained fingers on his right hand for a couple of different reasons. If he really had stained fingers it either means that he smoked like A LOT and didn't wash his hands, or he smoked filterless cigarettes. He didn't do either on the plane. He smoked eight filtered cigarettes in five hours while sitting in a tense situation. That's less than a pack a day which really shouldn't be enough to stain his fingers to the degree described. It also seems no one was able to see much of his right hand. On the plane he kept his right hand hidden inside the briefcase for the most part. Tina sat on his left side. He smoked with his left hand. Florence may have seen his right hand some more but she doesn't mention that anywhere else either. Is the question of the nicotine stained fingers on his right hand part of a bigger discussion as to whether Cooper may be have been left handed (or ambidextrous)? It certainly seems possible that he could have been. He picked the right hand side of the aisle to sit. This would make his dominant (left) hand free closest to the aisle of the plane, which would be in a better position to fend off any potential threats (assuming the bomb is fake). He also kept his right hand inside of the briefcase in order to keep up appearances that he could detonate his bomb at any time. Again, assuming the bomb was fake, this would have been a ruse to create the illusion of control. He could use his non dominant (right) hand for that purpose while keeping his dominant (left) hand free. While keeping his right hand inside the briefcase (with the stained fingers supposedly) he smoked with his left hand, the one without the nicotine stained fingers. That further calls the report of the stained fingers on his right hand into question. The only left handed famous person I can think of who smoked is Paul McCartney. He's pictured smoking with his left hand half of the time. The other Beatles were right handed and are only occasionally pictured smoking with their right hands. Could he perhaps have had a burn mark instead from an earlier injury? Perhaps it tied in with with mixture of the particles on his tie...if such a scar existed in the first place. I've read somewhere online that he may have had a scar on one of his hands, but don't have the slightest idea if that's true or why it wasn't included in the FBI reports.

Wow. It seems like Our Mister Cooper was an absolute peach compared to what these people had to contend with. Yikes.

Same with AR-15's you reckon?

Right. Since you appear confused, Flyjack: No one is disputing the single example you posted (with two different appearances) from the files, exists. It is from 1988. Himmlebach's book is from 1986. (That's the 15 years I was referring to.) You have been implying that the source of this must be from somewhere within an unseen cache of yet-to-be-released earlier FBI files, because "anything is possible." You were gently corrected on the issues of the released files, but dismissed the correction and demeaned the person who offered it. You have ridiculed the idea that the source of this could be the primary-source book published two years before this FBI file mention, and ignored the fact that every subsequent mention of this fact is demonstrably traceable to that book and/or its author. And you've been needlessly aggressive and disrespectful, over something that can hardly be worth the energy it takes to work up the dramatic outrage over. I don't know if you took a bath on an NCAA playoff bet or if you simply fear the impression that others might share the trait of careful thinking, and yet still end up with different conclusions than you. But I do know that when grown men and women act out like this, it's rarely because of confidence in their position or themselves. If this is the hill you want to die on, I certainly can't stop you. But personally I think that going down like the Black Knight in Monty Python is beneath you, and makes other assertions you might make bear less weight. Happy Monday to you, I'm off to visit the rest of the world outside this thread. You might consider the same...

This is idiotic. He SAW the FBI file you posted on Friday. He made REFERENCE to it when he said: "There are a couple of mentions of cigarette-stained fingers, with the first one being made 15-years after the event." What else was that a reference to other than the freaking Merlin Cooper reference? He was off by two years, but it was clear that's what he's referring to. He's asking the exact same question that I'm asking. What is the provenance of this statement? Is that so much to ask? If a file suddenly showed up saying that Cooper had missing upper teeth in the FBI files in 1988, wouldn't you want to know where that originally came from? Which witness said it?

I'm reading that it's possible Trump will be slapped with a gag order. Assuming it's legal, and that seems to be the case, and as pleasant as even one hour would be without Trump bloviating wouldn't it be better to bet on him worsening his situation?

Thanks for the advice but I'm pretty sure I do understand. I keep hearing that 180's are the most dangerous turn of all but it's only from those who think doing big turns is safer. At my DZ we've seen it all from minor scrapes to broken bones and backs to near fatalities to a fatality from jumpers fucking up big turns. And some were damn good at swooping, too. Since we banned anything above 180's (we also have an absolute same landing pattern rule) the scorecard is zero.

That this is not obvious to all at the first glance shows how irrational the "personal responsibility" crowd can be; the same crowd, by the by, who argued against using a Cypres because it might fire during a big turn after a skydive.

I can’t really see how anything else could be effective. Your ideas can’t pass unless my understanding of the way the constitution is interpreted is wrong. And even then they would not do the job. Even with the constitution changed it would still take a long time for new rules to be agreed to and implemented. I appreciate that you have reluctantly come around to your new position that rules are needed. But you still feel strongly that the 2nd is even more important. These are not compatible views. So to answer your question, yes. Quit wasting time and start working on the long slow process of fixing the root of the problem.

No, nothing that big; they couldn't afford the prosecution and they'd lose anyway. But they would go after their friend who drove them to the airport. They are all about going after the most defenseless and most supportive people out there.

So collapsing that fast, eh?

Hi Ken, Re: That is why I say the problem will need to become large enough for that to become the minority opinion. I am of the belief that if a substantial amendment to the 2nd were put to a popular vote, it would pass. I believe that the majority of the American people want things changed. The problem is the US House; those Reps know that they keep their seats because, somewhat, of their support of gun rights. IMO the GOP does not give a shit about the American people, they only want the power and to get re-elected. * Re: My guess is at least another 40 years of slowly growing anger before enough becomes enough. I absolutely agree. It will not happen in my lifetime. I only can hope no grandchild of mine is killed while I am still alive. Jerry Baumchen * I am with wolfriverjoe, I will not vote for a GOP candidate at any level.

Digesting this meal is going to start with nibbling at the edges. You may be right about the constitution. The next couple USSC rulings on gun may make that more relevant. Instituting every idea that BIGUN has suggested would likely be a couple big bites of the steak. Leaving most of this Texas sized meal yet to be finished.

I went back and looked up the original proposal. It was depressing. Since February of 2018, we been talking about this. How many children have died in that five years. Fuck me. https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264339-mass-shootings-proposal-[on-topic]/

And even simpler for me. I need a truck about four times a year, so I rent one from U-Haul-It for the day. Total cost per year about $100, and no insurance/registration/maintenance/parking needed.