champu

It's not hard to figure out. You've been told to stop the personal attacks, so now you admit can't respond. The greenies here may not say anything, but seriously kallend? You called rushmc a robot of his industry and insulted his employer and now you're trolling the hell out of gravitymaster and anyone else who will respond to you about personal attacks. This thread is garbage and it is 95% your doing.

Co-witnessing just means you have two sights in your field of view at the same time. Depending on how high you mount your optic, they may be aligned together (meaning your head/cheek sits in the same place to use either) or the iron sights may be lower (so you can use either, but you have to position your head slightly differently to use one or the other.)

Of course you havent but what about those guns?????? I hate to be the bearer of bad news guys, but you should know this. The NRA petitioned the federal government a long while back for mandatory test-murderings to be conducted with all new firearms. It's true... little-known, but true... just by purchasing a gun, you're murdering people. I know what you're thinking, "But I built my firearms," and I've thought the same thing myself. While you may not have bought the whole thing did you machine the barrel yourself or did you buy it? If you bought the barrel... yep... test murders conducted with those too.

It's pinning for the fjords! Look, I took the liberty of examining that amendment when I got it home and I discovered the only reason it was in the constitution was that it had been stapled there.

I don't think the OP was recommending that the cop dog be treated more like a person in the eyes of the law for the purposes of punishing his handler. I think he was fishing for a double-standard, suggesting that if an officer and his dog were on a call and a suspect caused the dog's death (directly or otherwise) the chief would be going on about how the dogs are every bit an officer as they are. Personally I'm inclined to avoid escalating stupidity. Instead of saying, "Well in this parallel scenario we first put our head in our ass before making decisions so, and I'm only trying to be fair here, I strongly feel our heads should be in our asses before we discuss the present matter any further."

Sigh... Two idiots idiotically arrest two other idiots and people cheer for the lawyers that are coming after me (the California taxpayer) for "big money." Can't we just take disciplinary actions against the former and be done with it?

"shut up!"

Scant few have guns in them too...

Well and, despite being designed to kill, they don't necessarily have to kill people or even be fired to get the job done. Police all carry guns and few ever actually have to shoot anyone with them. In some cases people they are "used on" will fair better than other weapons. Compare an AR-15/Remington 870/whatever your preference and a baseball bat when used for home defense by a fit but not particularly large or intimidating person. If all I have is a baseball bat I pretty much have to try and sneak up on the person and hit them with it to defend myself. I'm not going to confront someone who broke into my house holding a baseball bat, and I'm certainly not going to hide with the baseball bat and hope they just go away. Meanwhile you can point an AR-15/Remington 870 at someone and say "get out of my house or I'll shoot you." Or you can cycle the bolt/slide without even getting them in view and if they recognize the sound, that might be enough of a deterrent and they'll get out of your house. With guns, no one has to get hit over the head with a baseball bat.

Not really a "they" so much as a "she." I didn't read anywhere that it was commissioned or anything, I think a woman just made it as a statement. But yeah, the statement is a little confused to say the least. Zimmerman is shown standing, shooting at a downward angle, bad TV police drama expression on his face... MLK's image dragged into this yet again... Credit where credit is due, at least she showed him with a handgun and not a rifle with brass flying all over the place.

When you put it in a quote box with the words, "Quade's edit" it needs to be made clear I did not actually write it. As is, regardless of your other words around it, because it's in a quote box all by itself it gives the wrong impression. Since he was replying to me, and I know which thread he was alluding to, would it make you feel any better if I said that I know what you said in that thread, I know what you didn't say in that thread, I was not confused by the statement, and my opinion of you hasn't been altered in any way?

Aye, good day.

As many here are probably aware I think pretty highly of myself and the posts I make here. So instead of replying to this thread I'm just going to do this... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4424934;#4424934 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4429231;#4429231 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4482149;#4482149 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4473410;#4473410[/url [url]http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4421455;#4421455 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4422018;#4422018 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4416267;#4416267

From the horse's mouth: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html Really the prize should have been given to "people who voted for what he said during his campaign" rather than given to him. But that would have been too abstract and ridiculous a thing to award a Nobel Prize to, and the Nobel committee was still three years away from jumping the shark.

First off, I used to love that show, as cheesy as it often was. Now, not having a right to bear arms doesn't automatically mean they are outlawed (nor, more importantly, that arms cease to exist.) It's hard to say if and when a law would have been passed to ban private ownership, by whom, and what the fallout would have been. If they were banned federally, especially during the 1800s, I doubt the nation would have survived it. That probably wouldn't have happened though. You'd probably see cities and states ban them during the 1910s/1920s and you'd see an even bigger rift between rural and urban areas than you see today. I have no reason to believe any government would be more well behaved. It would still be about saying what you had to say to get more votes and doing what you could get away with for whatever reason. That might mean fear-mongering, that might mean pulling a Tiananmen Square. It's really hard to say, but I think it's a mistake to think that firearms have somehow poisoned human nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

'Hower said there'll be days like this there'll be days like this, 'Hower said ('Hower said, 'Hower said)

Its the highest law of the land. True, but it's really just a framework that says what the government is, what it can do and how, and what it cannot do. If the only law in existence was the federal constitution as amended, then the entire government would be a bunch of people standing around in a field at least once a year. I suppose if a couple people from different states showed up to settle a controversy, they could hold a trial, but otherwise it would be de facto anarchy. All the stuff that people aren't allowed to do (under penalty of the government) comes from laws passed/enforced/adjudicated within the framework of the federal and/or state constitutions. So unless some government with jurisdiction over the area in question passes a law that says "You can't prohibit tenents from possessing firearms on the premesis." Then you can go ahead and prohibit it if you want.

I don't think you understand what the constitution is. Also, people got off into the firearm debate pretty quickly (surprise surprise) but this stuck out to me... This would probably not be considered a "reasonable" regulation.

I'm sure there are several examples somewhere in my bins of miniDV tapes, but I haven't had more than a linetwist in years. As others have mentioned a hundred feet of prevention is worth a thousand of cure, and keeping yourself as centered/balanced as possible through inflation, even if your canopy goes sightseeing, is the best way to avoid line twists altogether. But that wasn't the question that was asked. Also, as Dave clarified, the riser-twisting method doesn't get rid of the linetwists, it just gets your hands above them so you can get the canopy flying level if it was diving.

Comparing cars and firearms directly as weapons or causes of death is silly and non-productive. Parallels between the types of regulations of each that are more vs. less effective, more vs. less realizable, and more vs. less well-meaning can be drawn, but very few people who post to these forums are able or willing to keep track of what a given parallel represents in the other instance. So I've given up on that front, it's not interesting anymore. "So what you're saying is the car the guy was in was the gun safe, and his transmission was the assault weapon, and his doors weren't locked so you just want mentally ill kids to be able to buy thousands of gallons of gasoline online with no id or just go to an auto show after failing a panel of breathalyzers... You're such a conservial-libercon Hitler-Gandhi!"

That entire hillside burned in Nov 2006.

I push the risers together with both hands and twist them opposite the direction of the line twists, trading twists that are up in the lines for twists in the risers below the toggles. Once there are no more twists between your hands and the canopy you can grab the rear risers and stop any diving or spinning that you or the canopy are doing. Now, under a canopy that is flying level, you spin yourself out of the twists in your risers. As you know, the most important thing is to pay attention to altitude throughout the process. I have twice chopped canopies where I was using the above method, had gotten my hands above the twists, and had gotten the canopy flying level, but only right as I reached my hard deck. The last step is pretty fool-proof but you're not out of the woods until it's over, so I decided to chop in those instances. One of the things I also like about this method is that if for some reason I find myself under a reserve with line twists and the canopy is diving, I can very quckly get my hands above the twists, stop the dive, and if I absolutely had to I could even land the canopy like that with twists still in the risers below my hands. If you're trying to kick your legs or tug at your risers and you only get halfway done with that method you're going to have a much less successful landing.

From the article... "Hey we heard your name come up in a court case where someone was convicted over two peoples' deaths and, while it's probably a little goofy, we kinda want to try throwing some charges your way as well. Wanna help us build a case against you?"