DrewEckhardt

No. You're confusing America with other former British colonies living under The English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." with limits to avoid issues with the riff-raff rising up against a divinely ordained leader and his state religion or merely poaching the King's deer. Note Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power ... 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; A "letter of marque and reprisal" gives a private citizen permission to cross international boundaries and take action on behalf of the issuing country. These were granted to privateers who owned war ships with cannon so they could do battle with enemy ships including those owned and operated by opposing navies, with privateers playing roles in both the Revolutionary war and War of 1812. That would not have been possible with limits on private armament. Wealthy militia members owned warships and cannon. To deny that is spinning history. I agree. Common sense dictates that an armed populace is less vulnerable to predation by private and government sponsored actors. Reading the Constitution's plain English unveils no limits on our right to keep and bear arms. In modern times that means those of us who are less fortunate shouldn't be denied our M16s (under $1000) and guys like Bill Gates are entitled to float carrier groups if they want. It's unfortunate that "common sense" is so uncommon.

My home dropzone had a Chinese-Canadian, Israeli, Namibian, South African, Welshman, bunch of British, Kiwi, and blacks of both genders. While most of us looked white it was a fairly diverse group.

Thus confirming my statement. Thank you. It is exactly why the pro-gun people are fearful of even allowing a discussion to even take place. Pro-gun people don't want discussion with anti-gun people who are unwilling to compromise and will only talk about what we'll loose today. I'd compromise and accept mandatory back-ground checks if the anti-gun people would allow the same bill to contain Federal pre-emption which forbids the states being stricter about what guns are allowed or Federal shall-issue concealed carry permits. Compromise does not mean one side getting only some of what it wants while the other side looses, like a mugger who gets your wallet but not your iPhone too.

No. People jumping small canopies that they're not ready for (are too scared to or incapable of turning at low altitudes and/or after plane-out) are unguided meat missiles that pose a threat to other people on the same loads as them. Often when there's an injury the fun stops until the victim is stabilized and taken away by ambulance or helicopter. When there's a fatality the fun sometimes stops for the day. I'm not going to sell a small parachute to some one that might later run me down with it or get my loads postponed or cancelled. I'm not going to risk a lawsuit for negligence from the buyer's family or health insurance company subrogation department when they're likely to injure or kill themselves. I'd also feel bad if I sold a jumper a canopy which I knew to be too much for him and he got hurt. Some jumpers are just ignorant and deserve sympathy - we often tell them to get advice from their instructors, and a lot of those guys aren't as conservative as they should be. Some probably deserve whatever happens, especially since that's likely to prevent an incident under an even smaller canopy that's likely to be worse (I only know a few people who didn't learn judgement from their first visit to the orthopedic surgeon). Regardless I'd feel bad for their family. It's emotionally painful, time consuming to deal with, and expensive (even with insurance - disability usually only covers 60% of some one's salary, there can be four figure co-insurance payments for health insurance, you pay a lot for last minute air and hotel reservations to go and collect a person that was injured) when a family member gets hurt. There are usually multiple willing buyers when goods are priced right.

One thing I don't understand. I came from the standard State University so I may not know completely, but, aren't Engineering schools usually part of a University? There are other colleges on campus. Sometimes. The Missouri state engineering school is on its own campus. At the University of Colorado in Boulder everything was all together - Engineering, Arts and Sciences which we referred to as Arts and Parties, Film, Business, Law. Engineering students were allowed to take classes with more diverse student populations, live in integrated co-ed dorms, and participate in school clubs with co-ed overnight road trips.

How about keep 13 but get rid of 100? Is that really too much to ask? Is that completely unreasonable? No, as long as it's in line with other reasonable restrictions on things which are more likely to kill us. Perhaps we could start with restricting motor vehicles capable of speeds over 30 MPH beyond the speed limit to police and military. Speeding fatalities aren't limited to the offending driver. Bans on beer containers with more than 24 servings would be a fine be a fine idea too since drunk driving is a factor in about half the annual traffic fatalities.

Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. Nonsense. The Holocaust was about genocide. It wasn't about gun control. That was after the Nazis made it illegal for Jews to own firearms and confiscated many of their guns in 1938. They also leveraged local records of gun ownership to disarm victims outside Germany as they marched across Europe.

I wanted to buy a baseball cap from their site. But they don't sell them... Here you go: [URL]http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=103[/URL] It's even made in America.

Although many of us are safer in America than we'd be in Canada. People like to cite _Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities_ (Sloan at el) as an example showing how American access to guns makes us less safe than Canadians where similar cities (size, geography, etc) are compared although this is incorrect. Although Seattle and Vancouver are similar cities on opposite sides of the border they have radically different demographics. At the time of the study white people on both sides of the border had similar economic circumstances and were safer in Seattle with 6.2 murders per 100,000 versus 6.4 per 100,000 in Vancouver.

Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. To quote the web site http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/about.htm our goals are to

Nope. The NRA is a defender of America whose only regrettable trait is too much compromise. I let my membership lapse and joined a gun-rights association (Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) which panders less to self-styled liberals after I noted they (or more precisely the NRA-ILA) was endorsing Republicans who were more anti-gun than their Democrat opposition. The key there is that gun control is genocide, and even if gun control could reduce the murder rate (it hasn't worked real well in places like Washington DC, Mexico, or Jamaica) we'd need a thousand years to match the body count from a somewhat effective genocidal regime.

His rights end where the peoples' civil rights begin. For instance he can't bar entry to people who aren't white.

Ignore it as long as other DZs are inconveniently far away and/or lack sufficient lift capacity. A DZO who puts too many Gs on the airframe and bends the wing skins leading to inspection covers that no longer lie flush and does negligent things leading to an upside down King Air will probably die before you do. The King Air incident came from a plan to reduce turn-around times by putting out the tandems first but still loading them in the usual way without thinking about CG. Too many people got behind the door, he ran out of elevator travel, airspeed dropped below VMC (the Minimum Controllable airspeed) with the critical engine throttled back to ease the tandem masters' exits, and things got exciting. The DZO in question did die before me. Aerobatics below 500' after you've neglected to check your fuel load don't always go well. More than a few of us were thankful he only took one person with him. I leave how much or little one value their own life (do you have family to take care of?) as a personal choice for the reader. Personally if I had to do it over again I would have asked for a free jump ticket because the rest of my group bailed out without me (If the plane has returned to level flight you do NOT need to get out) and the solo wasn't nearly as fun as my jump should have been. Some people made that load their last at the DZ in question.

Your comment reminded me of this op-ed. The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. It's a practical matter not idolatry. Being a Senator pays $174,000 a year. The average successful Senate campaign costs $10,000,000 or about $1,666,666 year which is nearly 10 times that figure. Since American congress critters aren't that wealthy some one else needs to cover the difference. A little quid pro quo helps to gain those people's support (natural, corporate, or other). The bulk of some candidates' contributions from natural persons are at the statutory $2500/person/election maximum ($10,000 for a married couple contributing for primary and general election), those people aren't poor, and their quid pro quo is less punitive tax treatment.

Things are different for students and experienced jumpers. With more experience you can carefully pack a parachute in 6-7 minutes. Licensed skydivers (starts at 25 jumps in the US and I think FAI requirements are similar) are subject to much less supervision than students which should limit the safety checks. I've made 10 jumps in one day and find 5 or 6 pleasant and unhurried.

It's pretty common to include all of the variations you can think of.

While the standard deduction is double a single person's, the tax bracket cut-offs only double for the 10 and 15% bracket. For instance, a couple living in sin who individually make about $71K - $85K pay 25% on that money while a married couple pays 28% ($840 penalty total for both). Mid career professionals still pay 28% from $108K to $178K but a married couple pays 33% ($7000 additional penalty). From $194-$388K people pay 33% as singles and 35% as a married couple ($7760 additional penalty). Tax deduction and credit cut-offs often don't double. As a single person making $58K participating in a 401K at work a separate IRA deduction is fully deductible and remains partially deductible up to $68K although as a married couple the numbers are $46K and $56K. The itemized deduction and personal exemption phase-outs don't double. In a state without income tax that costs you $1963.50 when you're in the 33% bracket.

You're already picking up the tab for the uninsured. It's disguised in a million little small ways, but why do you think 2 aspirins cost $60 in a hospital? My insurance company negotiated $7000 for stitches (of which they wanted $700 from me) after I made a warranty return following surgery (pools of blood on the floor suggest it's time to go back to the hospital). The other people who'd over-filled the emergency room (It was so full I had to lie on the floor because there was no where to sit) did not appear to require care they could not have received through a doctor or urgent care clinic (there was a lot of minor coughing) for less money and also did not look like the sort of people who populated the surrounding $1.2-1.8M 1500-2000 square foot 3/2 ranch houses and generally had jobs which came with health care coverage. You're wrong. It's a good deal for those guys too. Everyone must buy their product. No one 30 years old or beyond may buy a low-cost catastrophic policy. They can't charge young people less than 1/3 of what they charge old people. Young adults up to 26 are more likely to be on their parents' high-cost policy ($500 in my case if I chose to cover our adult son that way) than individual policies (it was $85 before Obamacare passed after which it jumped to $140). The anti-trust exemption wasn't eliminated. There are no limits on premiums (they do have to spend 80% of premiums on actual medical care, although approving a $100K procedure they wouldn't have before allows $125K in premiums of which they retain $25K which is a win-win - better care for you AND more profits). Medicare for all would have been a bad deal for those guys. It's better for people who weren't covered by employer provided policies and either had pre-existing conditions or were too old for low rates and too young for Medicare. It doesn't matter for the average person who statistically speaking is getting their insurance through their employer, paying the same rate as older people, and doing so with pre-tax money. It may be worse for 30 year olds who are less likely than they were historically to land employer provided coverage especially in job-centers where the cost of living and wages are high and therefore disqualifying for government subsidies.

Consider a president who makes speeches advocating higher taxes for the wealthy, increases taxes on capital gains, gives amnesty to illegal aliens, and gets universal health care for all. Ronald Reagan was that president. In 1986 Regan made the capital gains rates the same as those on ordinary income resulting in a 28% rate. Barack gets 20 + 3.8% for a 23.8% total, with Regan's rate 23.8% higher. In 1986 Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants who'd been here for about five years (arrived before January 1, 1982) regardless of age. Obama has just stopped deporting those under 30 who came to America before they turned 16 and have been here for 5 years. In 1986 Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which requires virtually all hospitals in the United States to treat people regardless of their ability or willingness to pay with no remuneration from the federal government. The net effect is those of us who require medical service must cover the freeloaders regardless of our ability to pay. Obama's plan requires nearly all of us to pay something towards our own care. I'd say that Obama is the second coming of Reagan although that would be wrong - if Reagan were reincarnated and ran against Obama he'd loose for being the more "liberal" candidate.

All of the above.

Because the people building "top of the line" jump suits 1) Aren't familiar with the average fall rate at your home dropzone where a suit built for that neutral speed will leave more range for movement. 2) Aren't the ones measuring you which makes time consuming finger pointing probable if anything is wrong. 3) Will have a longer delivery time from their backlog. 4) Will charge you much more to cover overhead and because they can. There's no reason to do that either. I paid $250 for my last brand new jumpsuit in 2005 made to measure with the stripes sewn in as panels instead of done as apliques which also offsets the seams so they're not on top where your rig hangs. That one came from a local rigger with suit making experience and abilities just like the two before it.

Down for people with pre-existing conditions who are not covered by employer plans. Down for people too old for low rates but too young for Medicare. Up for everyone else. For instance, insurance companies are required to charge young people at least 1/3 what they charge old people. Heck no. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is a powerful lobbying organization with a revolving door for compliant Congress Creatures (work to pass something like the Medicare Prescription Drug Act which created Medicare Part D which funnels $100B/year into the industry and they'll make you president with a reported $2.5M/year pay check as of 2010). They have a vested interest in keeping prices high. The health insurance companies also now have incentives to buy more expensive drugs. The law requires 80% of medical insurance premiums to go towards actual medical care. The remaining 20% of twice is much is still twice as much as they were getting; so you can expect insurers to favor new patented drugs which cost more than the old less expensive generics they used to steer customers to. Of course this will be "better" for the patients. Just more expensive.

Your quote does not demonstrate that. It's just additional evidence that Americans aren't living within their means and saving for emergencies. Americans spend too much buying depreciating crap and big houses and too little saving for emergencies. Where the median household income is $46,000 an emergency savings fund of $23,000 is reasonable. With that much in the bank $2000 of medical bills out of pocket and $2000 in lost wages over 2 weeks are not big deals. The average savings account balance is only $3800. $3800 - $4000 = $-200. Oops!

Nothing although that's not what Obamacare does. Obamacare keeps the corporations and increases their profits. People too old to get good rates from individual plans but too young for Medicare will benefit. People who are young, healthy, and buying individual plans will have a bigger bite out of their budget. People getting employer provided insurance will probably see smaller raises due to increased health care costs. Most of that is bad and there were less expensive ways to get the good parts (ex: lower the Medicare qualification age) with more benefit for the natural people and less for the corporate people. Obamacare requires us to buy insurance from for-profit companies 1. With no limit on cost 2. With high coverage minimums where we would otherwise be better off self-insuring. 3. Where young (statistically healthy and early in their careers) people must be charged at least 1/3 as much as old (statistically unhealthy and potentially at their earning peak) people Rather than extending existing government programs which already insure 25% of Americans as a non-profit exercise with finite budgets to cover more low and moderate income households it gives those people subsidies to pay corporations to profit from insuring them. Obamacare also does nothing with our current employer provided health insurance scheme which gets people into much more expensive plans. Disregarding their employer's contribution, a person earning less than the Social Security wage cap in a high-tax state like California could spend 80% more on an employer group plan than an individual plan and come out ahead financially due to the delta between pre and post tax dollars. The way credits work ($100 in lieu of a $500 policy) where an employee waives membership in the group plan the employer provided insurance can run 800% more than an individual policy. With no viable economic alternatives employees are along for the ride on high-cost plans that help sell the companies to prospective hires. Obamacare did open employer provided group plan coverage to children up to 26 years old; although where that child is healthy that's a benefit to the insurance company and not the employee. Prior to the health care reform act's passage I was paying $85 a month for my son's individual policy which is $139 in pre-tax money (28% federal tax rate, 9.55% California state taxes, 1.45% employee Medicare share). If we opted for my group plan the health insurance company would get about $500 a month from me and my employer which would be $405 in pre-tax money (my employer picks up 20% of the tab for family coverage and the employee share is still subject to Medicare taxes) for me. Score: Health insurance companies +$415, me -$266 in take home pay, feds -$112, my company -$100, state -$38. Annually that's $4980 more for the insurance company, $3192 less for me (that covers a _LOT_ of co-pays), $1200 out of my company's bottom line, $1344 less federal income tax paid, and $456 less in state taxes paid. Of course, lots of people who don't stop to think about the situation will do just that.

OR! Instead of going to war we hire teachers, cops and maybe improve our roads? Bad idea. Wars are good because they remind people that we need a powerful military and that having the most expensive (by a factor of six) isn't such a bad thing. Having other countries to hate also directs attention away from our own leaders' failings. The big military needs a lot of hardware, which keeps defense contractors in business, which keeps the campaign contributions flowing, which keeps congress critters in power. Teachers and cops don't have the same huge huge hardware needs that soldiers do so the defense contractors wouldn't be getting their slice of the pork pie, the defense industry would stop paying to get congress critters elected, and the American system would fall apart. Don't forget that the Democrats also aren't going to right-size the military. It's like me deciding to buy a new Ferrari or Porsche 911 Turbo. The Porsche is relatively less expensive, although I can't afford either and my budget would be screwed regardless of the choice I made.