champu

Once you set aside taxpayer money for arms procurement, wouldn't anyone want to get the most, biggest, and strongest for it? I don't think many people want the least, shittiest arms for the government regardless of how much they feel is an appropriate amount of tax money to spend on it. OTOH, they also claim to want to defend themselves against said government that they have armed to the teeth, when it turns tyrannical. Why don't you figure out what you're trying to say with this thread and get back to us.

As others have said, you can do a lot of things... But while it's tempting to put on a tracking suit to go on track dives, or tight shorts and a baggy sweatshirt for sitflying (essentially mimicking a sit suit from old days) these are like putting a toddler on crutches. I would recommend a well-tailored freefly suit with nice even drag everywhere so you can learn to fly these positions naturally. And I would recommend trying to go on skydives in small groups such that you can be challenged, but not "left behind." Not being in on a skydive can be a powerful motivating tool, but it's also a safety issue if people don't know where you are. Conversely, solos can be a less stressful environment for learning, but can also be a safety issue if you don't know where you are.

Or another way to parse this... Once you set aside taxpayer money for arms procurement, wouldn't anyone want to get the most, biggest, and strongest for it? I don't think many people want the least, shittiest arms for the government regardless of how much they feel is an appropriate amount of tax money to spend on it.

The only right answer is "who the hell knows what they were trying to accomplish by exempting the Colt Sporter and Sporter copycats." Maybe they were trying to exempt it for the heavier barrel, forgetting that the lower receiver has the serial number. Thus, all AR-15 OLLs could either be considered "Colt Sporter copycats" or "non Sporter AR-15 copycats" depending on premonitions of what upper/barrel might be joined with them. Or, maybe the authors really like the Colt pinned sear block because it's a hurdle to using certain FCGs or a DIAS (legally obtained or otherwise.) If you think about how focused the authors of these types of bills are on similarities to service weapons, this (pretty dumb) line of thinking seems plausible.

In effect you're saying that... In effect you're saying that... I've written about this before regarding gun ownership, but I also see parallels to a thought I had regarding some other fun speakers corner topics, too. In short, it's pretty hard to argue with people who don't stand to gain anything by coming around to your side. But, on the topic of marginalizing people... I'd like to conduct an admittedly ridiculous analysis. I will start by saying I don't stand very firmly behind all these numbers or all the sources (one calls the AR-15 a civilian equivalent of the M-16, but whatever.) Between 1981 and 2010 There were 31,326 violent firearm deaths/year including suicides, police killing people, etc. That source also estimates between 1% and 6% of gun crimes involve "assault weapons", so I'm going to split the different and say 3.5% leading to 1,096 violent assault weapon deaths/year. Life expectancy in the US is about 78 years and pulled out of my ass I'm going to say the average victim is 16 years old. So each of these deaths results in 544,000 lost hours. or a total of 596M lost hours/year. It's really hard to say how many assault weapons they're are but I just found an article that supports a number of about 5,000,000. Suppose that an average assault weapon receives 6 hours of use 20 times a year. Could be going to the range, cleaning it, ogling it, whatever. That's about 600M hours per year. So the scope of the marginalization is probably on the same order of magnitude.

I posted a link to the MD bill in post 25, but in short, no. Anything on the list or clones thereof would need to be registered with the police by 1 Dec in order to continue to possess it legally, however.

As opposed to the, "Fuck it. Just let people die" crowd? I don't recommend people snap in line with any crowd. I recommend that if people want to post a story of every shooting that makes the news There would be nothing else posted if that were the case, with 9000+ gun murders every year in the USA, each of which makes the news somewhere. "I'm getting better!" "No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment." I feel compelled to, again, point out that nobody was murdered in this story. I consider the individual threads an attempt to portray as many shootings as possible in a personal light. It's kinda making the argument that, "one shooting is a tradgedy, and however many thousand shootings is not just a statistic, but in fact however many thousand tradgeies." So, insofar as this thread is trying to give pause in consideration of the victims here, I think it's worth remembering that they are still alive. (at least to the best of my knowledge, as of this writing.) That said, the rest of my post also applies to statistical analysis of the (yes, large number of) shootings across the country each year. I posted how I would go about reviewing the details of a shooting in one of Andy's other threads. I would hope any study conducted would examine incidents in this manner, and not simply lump incidents together based on a keyword search.

You're demonstrating my point... Virginia Tech... Sandyhook... University of Central Florida... Christiansburg... They're all just "school shootings" at this point. What's the suggestion? "Universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines." Do the details matter? What if- "Oh so I see you just want to let students just die then, fuck them, is that it?"

The implications of the proposed balance limit on tax-favored retirement accounts is discussed in another thread. Although in fairness, the OP article in that thread didn't have as awesome of a "holy-shit-evil-obama" freeze frame to go along with it like your article does... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4469998 Bless your heart.

As opposed to the, "Fuck it. Just let people die" crowd? I don't recommend people snap in line with any crowd. I recommend that if people want to post a story of every shooting that makes the news, they should read the story carefully, and consider their view of the issue and any solutions they believe in critically when discussing the story. Sandy Hook may have changed how a lot of people feel about guns, but I think it's also negatively impacted the ability of people on both extremes of the debate to read a news story beyond the words "...shooting... ......" Not sure if you noticed, btw, but the people shot in this incident aren't dead. I haven't heard updates on their conditions. I guess one is in okay shape and the other they are not talking about too much, which isn't a good sign. As for the shooter, apparently he posted on /b/ that he was going to do it.

Hopefully the women who were shot pull through. Other than that, there is so little information in the story it's hard to comment on it. I understand this can come off as dismissive of events like this, and that that can seem cold, but where does a story like this fit in the gun debate? Do people collect this like a playing card in their "college campus multiple-shooting" deck and then point to the stack and make hand gestures to indicate incredulity at its size when they want to make an argument for imposing laws "x", "y", and "z"? Is the idea to just toss so many shootings at people through the news that they eventually forget what the proposed gun control measures are, and snap in line with the "something/anything must be done" crowd?

Are you sure? Isn't that covered by the subsections of the MD law referenced in Post #25? Well, it's a little murky... My point was that you don't immediately become a felon just for inheriting it. But I've read it a couple more times, and here's a possible train of thought you can go down... subsection b goes on to list... So it's not illegal to receive a legally owned assault WEAPON by inheritance, but there's no provision for you to possess it if YOU did not register it before 1 Dec 2013.

Thanks. I gathered that, I was just trying to be a little light-hearted in pointing out what I see as the biggest concern* in the story. First they tried him in absentia and convicted him. Then he shows up and they go, "okay okay, you weren't here, we're going to do it again." and then he's acquitted (whatever that translates to in arabic, something might be lost...) and they say, "crud, we were hoping for 'guilty'... okay okay, best of three?" /edited to add: * I say this is the "biggest concern" not being a Jew, others' milage may vary.

Er, what?

Well done! What yardage were you shooting from?

In which orientation? Head down, head up, belly to earth, or your back or all of the above? I've had my share of malfunctions but I can't say I've ever stowed my slider and then ended up head down. For the record, I use a couple wraps of binding tape sewn to the front risers a few inches above the confluence wrap. That's all it really takes to catch and hold slider grommets, and it doesn't add any protrusions to catch anything else. Also for the record, I don't like the magnetic holders. When I'm flying camera for a four-way team and the outside center or tail has one, it's always flapping around, banging into the plane the entire time they're in the door, and no matter how many times I see it, for an instant I swear I'm about to get hit in the face with a reserve.

The assult weapon bans are retarded, but this is not one way in which Maryland's is retarded.

The key to hop-n-pops at Elsinore is to know the magic moment during the climb up to call up to the front of the plane and remind Karl that you're doing a hop-n-pop. Too soon and you're bothering him when he's trying to take off or he'll forget again anyway. Too late and you're miles away from the dropzone at 4000'.

Good one. I get these stoopid friend requests like every month or so, and it's always some bimbo who just signed up on facebook. I constantly get e-mail notifications of friend requests on facebook, linked-in, google+, you name it. I don't even have accounts on any of those sites so I must be amazingly popular.

You are not remotely qualified to make such a statement. To be fair, he did say "...at best" which is a qualitative adjective, so if his goal is to affect "the rich" and not affect "the not rich" then he is correct in saying that "at best, this is a problem for 0.1% of people" i.e. "this will affect at least 0.1% of people." So his statement is true, at best.

Cough... cough...

I'm not a financial advisor either, but I know how to use Excel. If you draw $180K each year from an account starting at $3M that's earning 3%/year you'll drain it in 23 years, not 25. If you adjust up the $180K/year by 1% each year for inflation, you'll drain it in 21 years. Get yourself a new calculator.

Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off. No, YOU make assumptions about what I think You're as bad as Marc Rush in that way. Do some research before spouting off. Completely false. Look at the exchange above. I never said you would disagree that "making everyone wear oven mitts" was a ridiculous idea, in fact that whole post was agreeable in nature. I was reasserting (for the wider audience) the existence of a line that could be considered going to far. You called the post "nonsense" and responded under the assumption that my oven mitt scenario was in opposition to changing the current BG check arrangement. You claimed that "the line" had been crossed towards your "mitt" scenario. That is nonsense. Laws have been passed that I think do cross the line into misguided idocy. Again, it's your assumption that I'm talking about laws regarding background checks when I say that.

Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off. No, YOU make assumptions about what I think You're as bad as Marc Rush in that way. Do some research before spouting off. Completely false. Look at the exchange above. I never said you would disagree that "making everyone wear oven mitts" was a ridiculous idea, in fact that whole post was agreeable in nature. I was reasserting (for the wider audience) the existence of a line that could be considered going to far. You called the post "nonsense" and responded under the assumption that my oven mitt scenario was in opposition to changing the current BG check arrangement.

Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off.