Bignugget

I'd like to hear this as well... New Thread though. Simple, many people who drink are capable of doing so without getting drunk. However, anyone who smokes pot, only does so to get stoned. Thus everyone who drinks is not a drunk, but everyone who smokes pot is a pot head. Lol @ you. "Simple, many people who drink are capable of doing so without getting drunk. However, anyone who smokes pot, only does so to get stoned." Those are not the same thing. Let me try and help you at least phrase your nonsense correctly. 'Simple, many people who drink are capable of doing so without getting drunk. However, no one is capable of smoking pot without getting high' That would at least be a valid comparison... you know apples to apples....of course how you would judge 'drunk' and 'high' would be up for discussion. But you aren't even capable of making an accurate comparison when you are sober.....

I have several firearms.... Most are 'securely locked in a safe'. What that does not tell you is that I have my carry weapon normally on a table near me or on my nightstand at night... So does my wife. When I am not at home, I have the gun with me.... So does my wife. So my guns are 'securely locked in a safe'. Or that while I have a safe, some of those weapons in the safe are loaded and I can enter the combination faster that most people can break in. Or a person can buy a quick action safe and still have guns 'securely locked in a safe' and that are easy to get.... It should take less than 3 seconds to open this safe. http://www.thefirestore.com/store/product.aspx/productId/11182/GunVault-1000-Series-Mini-Vault-Digital-Safe/?gclid=CImenJ6p7LgCFbDm7AoddVAAMw Nice, I like that link. That would be accessible I would think if it was located near your bed while you slept. From my front door to my bed is about 25 feet, it would be pretty tough for me to open a combination safe before being bashed about the head with a club I think, but one like that might be doable. If that is the kind of secure safe people are generally referring to that makes a bit more sense. Dogs by the nightstand just seems more my style.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/07/health-care-fix/2629717/ "The proposal does clarify that the government will continue to pay its standard share of premiums, resolving one of the biggest unknowns about the impact of Grassley's amendment. Many had been warning of a Capitol Hill "brain drain" if staffers were suddenly forced to foot the entire cost of their health insurance premiums." So first off the amendment the Republican put forward would do nothing but make them switch from the network 8 million federal employees have access to, to the market where unemployed/uninsured people will be shopping...the government would still be paying the 70-75% they already pay...... "Under the amendment, lawmakers themselves and staffers in their personal, or "official," offices would have to exit the federal employee plan and get coverage through new health insurance marketplaces coming under the law. Also known as "exchanges," the marketplaces will offer subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to a plan on the job.' Basically it makes 0 sense, and thats why it was overridden. There is no need for Congress to exit the insurance system they already have access to. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/ So you want the option to be exempted from carrying insurance under Obamas plan if you already have private insurance from your employer? You got it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fair+Housing+Act+of+1968 The act explicitly defines a list of prohibited practices involving housing, including sales, rentals, advertising, and financing. Its primary prohibition makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent to, or negotiate with any person because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, familial status, handicap, or national origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 added extensive provisions that apply to discrimination against disabled persons and families with children 18 years of age and under." Gun owners aren't listed unfortunately but thats why you can't do what you were proposing.

To expand on my own thought after a nice glass of blueberry lemonade... I don't own firearms, just not my thing. But I do want my home to be secure, both while I am home and while I am away. I also love animals. My solution is simple, I have several big ass dogs. But I don't lock the dogs into a kennel when I am sleeping or not home..... And I am under no illusion that if they were kenneled when my home was invaded with me asleep, I would have time to go release them to assist me while being assaulted/murdered etc. So I honestly wonder how the thought process works with gun owners who say they use the guns to provide a secure home, but have them in an inaccessible place in a time of need. Isn't that like kenneling your big ass dogs? (I know plenty of people who do kennel their big ass dogs....also making no sense for home protection)

I missed where they are "taking his guns". Sounds like they are telling him he can't keep them on property. Not that they have any interest in his shit. "So, if he's not able to fight the new rules, he says he'll have no choice but to leave his guns with a friend who lives 30 miles away. He hopes he'll still be able to go hunting, as he has every year since 1953. " Lol. Yea I think its gonna be OK. Have your friend (who you probably hunt with) bring your guns with him when he comes to get you so you can go blast bambis face off. "Dorsch says the guns, which he keeps securely locked in a safe, make him feel secure in his home. " This has always puzzled me about gun ownership, I have heard this reasoning before.....Do gun owners who keep guns 'securely locked in a safe' believe they will be able to access the safe, prepare the weapons, and defend themselves and family against an armed home invader....before the invader has time to close the distance? Seems counter productive to lock the things you need to defend yourself up in a hard to access spot. It will be interesting to see if this gets challenged in court though, at my old job they had all sorts of restrictions on what you could/couldn't do/have if you wanted to live in the complex. This article would be much better if they left out the hysterical nonsense and focused on whether restriction of something defined in the constitution is reasonable.

He didn't ask for expansion on the opinions. Just wanted opinions. But since you asked. I have only ever seen him post horribly slanted vitriol against the president, scream bloody left wing conspiracy about almost anything, refuse to acknowledge the need to control arms in the nation (or even discuss it), etc, etc. Not real "middle of the aisle" type stuff. So I would opine he is on the EXTREME side of the right aisle.

Rofl, this was some sort of Mission Impossible 1 RushMC mole hunt for left wing extremists and like poor Ethan Hunt I was trapped by the mastermind RushMC. You got me.

you are welcome Let me add Standards of good and bad were set a some point and either religions followed that standard or were out front I dont know which came first other that to state the earlist known writings concerning this were religious or biblical (I think) But, I also think we instictively know good from evil being human. Most of us do anyway. And good people who are parents usually raise good children. With or without religion IMO Lol @ this. And yes I think you are an extremist.

So Bill you are saying in 2 that they want to raise the AAD altitude from 750 to 1250 feet? With the addition of the 250 (approximate) that can happen due to body position, that means AAD will be starting to fire at 1500 feet - that is high... They raised the deployment limit 500 feet. The only things I gathered in this thread is that rigs don't work as advertised, the USPA is trying to save lives however they can...and there is a lot of A.O.M.S (Angry old man syndrome) going around because some old dudes don't like how the USPA went about trying to save lives. Can't please everyone. I'm happy the AAD companies plan to raise the activation altitude (if that's even confirmed), sorry you guys have to get an extra piece of paper signed now to do a hop n pop at 2k on a cloudy shitty day. Life sucks, then you die. Hopefully not because your AAD didnt have time to get your reserve out.

In the Zhills incident thread you posted "The AAD's on all three individuals DID fire. Maybe we need to bump up the altitudes. Deployment as well as firing. " So you are for bumping up deployment and AAD firing altitudes, just against there being a rule about it? Like someone is for wearing seatbelts, but doesnt want it to be a ticketable offense to not wear one?

Nope, try reading again. Start on page 1. Ron for USPA Chancellor. Then you can force the rig manufacturers to do all kinds of stuff. You have my vote brother.

MY position? for christ's sake I'm the one advocating for serious testing and holding the manufacturers to standards! The axe you have to grind against the USPA is detracting from the more important message. Don't worry - I'll go and talk about safety stuff elsewhere. You might find Speakers corner more amenable to pointless conspiracy theories though. Sort of what I am getting from this as well. AAD manufacturers hands are forced because of rig manufacturer failings. Ron is angry at the BOD because they don't regulate an industry they have no regulatory oversight of....and is claiming they don't regulate it because the BOD is in bed with the rig manufacturers?? They don't even have the power to do anything! If Ron was the entire BOD, he still has no power to force the rig manufacturers to do anything! So the AAD companies, and the USPA have worked together to try and keep rig companies from killing people....and he is upset. I am also upset rig companies are knowingly going around selling $2000-3000 rigs they know aren't compliant. But screaming at the FDA to regulate banking issues isn't gonna be much help. Screaming at the USPA to regulate something they have no direct power over, is about like that. ETA: TSO's are issued through the FAA, which seems like it would have the power to force the hand of manufacturers. It might be more productive to continually bombard the FAA with reports and anecdotes about this issue. The squeaky wheel only gets the grease if you are squeaking at the right people.

I'm not judging you. Simply explaining why you don't offend me. Your premise was flawed, and you got upset. No worries. Maybe try yoga or something.

I did read those. I liked the idea of the course.. "Module One Jumps 1-2. Execute basic pre-flight procedures; then follow an instructor under canopy to familiarize with basic parachute control and pattern flying. Ground video of jump. 3-4. Follow instructor through toggle control and riser control procedures, and landing pattern. 5. Solo jump. Perform basic wing envelope measurement procedure (aka Play With It Procedure) and execute the basic landing pattern. Module Two Jumps 6. Spot with instructor supervision, then follow instructor through basic pattern accuracy procedures and land in half brakes; ground video of jump. 7-8. Solo jumps. Perform and refine spotting, and accuracy flying and landing procedures; ground video. 9. Follow instructor through basic riser control flying procedures, then follow the instructor through the basic pattern, including a straight-in riser dive approach and flare. Ground video. 10. “Show the leader” jump. Spot without instructor assistance, follow instructor through basic riser control flying procedures, then lead instructor through basic landing and accuracy approach. Ground video." Most of that is covered in the requirements to get your A license is it not? I am all for learning more about canopy piloting, but if you are proposing to add another layer of training prior to AFF (or whatever you want to make freefall training prior to licensing called) how do you propose that will make the sport more accessible financially and time dedication wise? That's why I was confused by the article about student retention. It seems to me MORE work and MORE money to get a license won't be an incentive to join the sport. Again, I am all for learning about piloting a canopy, have read some canopy piloting books, and made arrangements to take canopy courses... but I knew how to fly a pattern and land in a 150ft circle after AFF. I don't really see what you are trying to accomplish that couldn't be done by tweaking the A license requirements and the A license structure to (better?) include those items you mention in your proposal.... To be fair to the BOD member who said he was unaware of the stuff you published...it was published when I was like 10 years old. I was unaware of it also. Not everyone can keep up on every article from the last 20 years.

That sounds like a personal attack to me. I think he has had some personal bad experiences, perhaps with his parents or other family. I am not offended by him. Judgmental people exist I don't worry about them, it often stems from personal issues they carry around. I find my energy better spent with friends and family who enjoy my company....whether I smoke a joint and drink a beer, or not....whether they do....or don't... He resorts to those tactics because his original premise makes no sense. Pot smokers will never have an incentive to move to Uruguay from the United States.

It seems like your beef is with the manufacturers....which I can understand if they are putting out products they know don't conform with the safety standards they are advertising. I don't understand what power the USPA has over the manufacturer though.. Does the USPA have the power to order a recall of a product? Since the AAD manufacturers also have (I assume) no regulatory control over the rig manufacturers...they have come to the conclusion the best way to keep people alive who are jumping poorly manufactured rigs that don't conform to safety standards is to raise the altitude at which their (the AAD manufacturers) product activates....that doesn't seem unreasonable but it appears it wasn't even proposed by the AAD companies, but a canopy company..... If they don't have some sort of regulatory power over the makers of unsafe, inferior products, isn't the next best thing to work to ensure the unsafe, inferior product is given the best chance for success (in this case a bit more altitude to deploy)? So unless the USPA, AAD manufacturers, or canopy manufacturers have the authority to force compliance with safety standards for reserve parachute/rig combinations... I support the rule designed to allow AAD companies to help save lives that would/could be lost due to poor rig construction and false advertisement of safety standard conformance.

That doesn't even make sense. One day my worthless pothead friends will figure out they smoke joints to relax? What will happen once they figure that out? They will move to Uruguay? We can only hope. So I was reading it correctly. Yep, doesn't make any sort of sense. How would worthless potheads afford to move abroad and live in Uruguay? They spend all their government money on drugs. Furthermore, why would worthless potheads want to move to a country that doesn't take care of them like they can suck off the teat of the good sober taxpayer (you) here in MURICA? Additionally, most potheads I know, already know smoking pot is relaxing and have not really mentioned a desire to live in Uruguay. Finally, why would potheads want to move to a country that doesn't have fast food, delivery pizza, and cheetos? Partially correct. Did you know that there are people who know how to relax without drugging themselves up? It's called learning to deal with things instead of hiding in a bottle or in a puff of smoke. Oh, the walls we build!! Yea but we aren't talking about them.....we are talking about people who smoke joints to relax..... They for all the above mentioned reasons, have 0 incentive to move to Uruguay. Now of course the vast majority of pot smokers do have jobs, and pay taxes, and contribute just as much as the average non-pot smoking Joe. But if we wanted to let you live in your dream world of them all being useless, there is still no incentive for them to move.... You make no sense. You are probably a real bummer to hang around, hence why you have no friends who have ever had a beer or smoked a joint. I drink, and smoke pot. Whether or not I drain society doesn't really concern me....but I do know I have plenty of friends who don't do either, they don't seem any worse for wear doing their thing while I do mine and we enjoy each others company. Maybe try taking the stick out of your butt and relaxing using whatever non drinking and smoking means you employ will help you make more friends.

That doesn't even make sense. One day my worthless pothead friends will figure out they smoke joints to relax? What will happen once they figure that out? They will move to Uruguay? We can only hope. So I was reading it correctly. Yep, doesn't make any sort of sense. How would worthless potheads afford to move abroad and live in Uruguay? They spend all their government money on drugs. Furthermore, why would worthless potheads want to move to a country that doesn't take care of them like they can suck off the teat of the good sober taxpayer (you) here in MURICA? Additionally, most potheads I know, already know smoking pot is relaxing and have not really mentioned a desire to live in Uruguay. Finally, why would potheads want to move to a country that doesn't have fast food, delivery pizza, and cheetos?

"What was the deer shot with? AR? 50 Cal.? How big was the magazine? Was it a gunshot or did they manually strangle the deer? On the other hand . . . Maybe they wanted a bar-B-que. " There it is. When your gun toting over the top violence loving folks chime in....they are all too happy to have bambi slaughtered. After all, its policy. When I was a kid we used to go to the Xmas tree farm as a family every year. The farm had a deer they had raised that was friendly like a dog. It would wander around and all the Xmas shoppers could pet it and hang out. Too bad no one shot it when it was a baby. This story reminds me of all the times cops go murder dogs for no reason. "I got out of my car after pulling up behind this dog and it turned around and barked at me!!! So I shot the fuck out of it"....and then the boss defending it "He feared for his LIFE he had NO OTHER OPTION but to defend his own life". They really had no other option but to slaughter bambi here.

It's kind of sad that you are using sarcasm in a caustic manner and fail to understand that you are actually describing reality. Also, trying to understand that nowhere in this thread have I attempted to justify the decision to shoot. I have been trying to help others understand why the officers missed, not why they shot or if it was the correct decision. They are two very different points. It seems like we agree that gross incompetence in training is the main problem. Train cops better and maybe they wouldn't get scared and miss 15x Word.

That doesn't even make sense. One day my worthless pothead friends will figure out they smoke joints to relax? What will happen once they figure that out? They will move to Uruguay?

Interesting article on Marketing techniques and student retention. But I didn't notice a proposal on how to ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting, understanding aerodynamics, and teaching new students in the article? I thought that was what is being discussed, not how to retain more tandem students?

Seconded. He did the same for me. Glad you made it to a camp, those are so much fun! Hope to meet you at one down the road! Keep jumping and practicing all the awesome stuff you learned. Hahah Todd, watching him play bad student was good times. Happy bday btw.

Everyone knows pot smokers are none of that. They are hippie useless drains on society that belong in prison...you know...where they don't drain society because paying to keep them there is free....