Douva

Probably a good plan--We weren't really accomplishing much. Maybe we each gained a better understanding of the other side's point of view, but I doubt it. Politics and religion will kill you every time. No hard feelings, Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'd like to hear more details about this "shoot up" and where you saw the aftermath. I'd be willing to bet you can't even come close to telling me what the assault weapons ban bans without looking it up on the Internet (which previous posts have probably already inspired you to do). I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So, you're going to use it in self defense or as part of a state militia? 'Cause, I'm thinking for self defense a rifle like this doesn't make too much sense. State militia, well, that's another story altogether, but I don't think you really wanna go down that road -- do you? I mean, seriously why would a person want this weapon? I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I really want to know. Do any of you actually own (or maybe owned and had it confiscated) this weapon and why did you purchase it? First of all, the constitutional intention of "state militia" was an armed population prepared to defend the state at a moment's notice, and it's hard to maintain that when the population isn't allowed to be armed (side note: This militia was intended to remain completely autonomous of the federal government). But we can let that slide for now. These guns are useful for self defense in civil defense situations. They were used by shop owners to defend their stores during the '92 Los Angeles riots. To answer your second question, I own an SKS, but it is not modified to the "sporter" configuration because I want to be able to keep the bayonet (Yes, they regulate bayonets--Apparently bayonetings are also a national crisis) and grenade launcher attached (Before you throw an ignorant fit, a grenade launcher is a functionless, aesthetic piece of metal attached to the end of the barrel, incapable doing anything besides looking scary). Federal law says you have to remove the bayonet and grenade launcher before attaching a detachable magazine. The gun is a collector's item, so I prefer to keep these features intact so that it can be returned to its original Soviet configuration. What annoys me is how arbitrary some of these laws are (Bayonet restrictions on a rifle--are you kidding me?) I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Fuckin' A, that's esoteric shit. Ok, I'm not that much of a gun wonk . . . can somebody explain to me in plain english why the fuck anyone would even want such a weapon? I mean, I can certainly understand it from a criminal's perspective -- easily modified to accept high capacity magazines (and I'm pretty sure that's why they were banned -- no fuckin' duh!), but if you're using this thing for hunting . . . WTF? Show me where the United States constitution says anything about hunting? The only mention of "arms" in the constitution is in relation to "security." That point aside, there are many items sold in this country that serve no purpose to some or a majority of the population, but that doesn't mean we outlaw them. "Assault weapons" are reliable and accurate (particularly outdoors) in defense situations and for many forms of hunting. So called "assault weapons" fire the same ammunition as many hunting rifles, "assault weapons" fire no more rapidly than most hunting rifles, and many hunting rifles also come with detachable magazines. "Assault weapons" and high capacity magazines are not a major national problem. According to the FBI, "assault weapons" were used in 1.4% of all gun crimes and 0.25% of all violent crimes prior to the first "assault weapons" bans. Criminals prefer easily concealable weapons (which "assault weapons" are not) and are more likely to use a single shot derringer than an "assault weapon." Just because an item's description seems scary to you is not a legitimate reason to ban its ownership for the rest of the nation--Arguments for or against banning an item should be based on facts, not emotion. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Help me out here. Since you seem to be incapable of (or unwilling) doing the search yourself, give me the EXACT weapon that was banned and if possible when this happened. At the risk of being accused of making a personal attack, I would have to say that your "incapable of (or unwilling) doing the research yourself" quote is the pot calling the kettle black; however, since the previous poster was apparently unable to provide the information at the time of the post, I will. This California confiscation case is a pretty well known one. It was the SKS "sporter" model, and it happened in the late '90s. http://www.jpfo.org/commonsense08.htm I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

It is presumed that people are going to use tractors and dirtbikes, but no license is required to own or operate them because they aren't used on public property. No license is required (at least in most states, there may be exceptions) to operate a ski boat, but the boat does have to be licensed IF you are going to use on public waterways. Do you see how this works? The question is never whether or not you are going to use it; it's whether or not you're going to use it on publicly controlled land. Likewise, the gun licensing issue is not about whether or not you are going to use it, it's about whether or not you are going to use it on publicly owned land. None of the potentially lethal devices you or I have listed require a license simply to own or operate them, and neither should guns. Licensing is a measure for regulating who can use potentially lethal devices in public. The idea that guns are regulated less than any other dangerous device is ridiculous. Guns are regulated more than almost anything else in this country (behind possibly drugs and explosives). And likewise, I'm sure this won't satisfy you any more than your attempt at defending your point satisfied me. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Actually, no education or licensing is required to own or operate a car or motorcycle, only to operate a car or motorcycle on public streets and highways. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe any license is required to own an airplane, only to operate it in federally controlled airspace, which is admittedly everywhere; however, people are allowed to operate ultralights without a license or training. My point is that we regulate who can operate these vehicles in public the same way most states regulate who can carry a gun in public. Go to just about any farm in America, and you're likely to find an unregistered pickup truck being legally operated by an unlicensed preteen kid. A lot of those same kids will be carrying unlicensed an unregistered gun in that truck. The kid can't drive the truck to town, and he can't carry a gun in town. If he wants to drive the car to town, he has to turn sixteen, take driver's education, and pass written and practical driving tests. If he wants to carry a gun in town, he has to turn twenty-one, take a concealed handgun course, and pass a written and practical concealed carry/shooting tests. So tell me again how exactly we regulate guns less than any other potentialy lethal device? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So if you were joking when you said you were right and we were wrong, does that mean you were actually admitting we're right and you're wrong, or were you simply uttering words that had no meaning? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Yet, this is exactly what people try to argue to prove that Concealed Carry laws deter crime. I guess we're either both right or both wrong, depending on how you look at it and which side you're on. Well, that being the case, crime rates are either declining because of concealed carry laws or in spite of them, but regardless, there is no evidence to suggest that concealed carry laws are increasing crime, so what is the problem? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

That's always fun to say, but what "facts" do you back the statement up with? Quit telling us to research it when we have clearly shown that our research suggests gun control laws have little discernible effect on gun crime. The way a debate works is that you present your own evidence; you don't ask your opponent to do your research for you. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

As has already been stated, you are making unfounded assumptions about cause and effect. We could just as easily point out that states began issuing Concealed Handgun Licenses at about the same time. The real cause of the drop in gun crimes is a complicated issue that it is thoroughly studied and hotly debated by a lot of people with better access to statistics and a lot more free time than a bunch of politically active skydivers. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

If you had actually watched or read the Stossel piece, you would have seen he also tore into the Republican Party for their claims that they create smaller government and less government waste. Personally, I thought it was a pretty balanced piece. He was dispelling myths on all sides. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

This is a pretty naive statement. The CDC does annual studies to determine the leading causes of death throughout the US. If you'd like to present any findings from the DOJ (instead of hypothesizing about what these findings MIGHT show), we'll be happy to review them. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Are you kidding me? According to the FBI, violent crime rates are 26% higher, homicide rates are 49% higher, robbery rates are 58% higher, and aggravated assault rates are 15% higher in states with strict gun laws. There has been a significant decrease in crime rates in states that have passed concealed carry laws. After passing their concealed carry law, the crime rate in Florida fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below the national average. The crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average. Again, you can't infer a direct cause/effect correlation between the passing of these laws and the drop in the crime rate, but you certainly can't claim that these laws are causing or perpetuating crime. A 2000 study showed that people with concealed carry permits are 5.6 times LESS likely to be arrested for violent crimes and 13.5 times LESS likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public. This is do in great part to the rigorous screening process CHL applicants are put through. As of January 1999, the state of Florida had revoked only 109 of the 551,000 issued concealed carry permits. These permits were not necessarily revoked for violent crimes--Most were revoked because the holder became ineligible to hold the permit do to conviction of nonviolent crimes. If crime rates have fallen faster in any state without a concealed carry law than in a state with a concealed carry law, it is most likely because crime rates in the state without the concealed carry law had a lot further to fall. I can't believe I actually got drug into one of these DZ.com gun debates. I normally don't even read them, but I watched the 20/20 special last night and was curious what the reaction would be. While I'm here, I'd like to point out one more interesting fact. A recent study of the safest and most dangerous cities in the US found Austin, TX, and San Diego, CA, to be in the top five safest and Dallas, TX, and Los Angeles, CA, to be in the top five most dangerous. Obviously gun control and geography are not the primary determining factors in the safety of a given city. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Actually, a 2000 study by the American Medical Association showed that the rate of gun crimes dropped just as rapidly in the 18 states that didn't pass the Brady Bill as in the 32 states that did. The correlation between cause an effect can't be inferred. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

#%&@, I wish somebody had told me that before I invested over $1000 in skysurfing boards. Maybe I can make an even trade for a B.A.S.E. rig. --Douva

[CENTER]JERRY You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweatpants? You're telling the world, "I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable."[/CENTER] Seinfeld episode "The Pilot (Part 1)." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't get the logic of keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. Banning him from participating in Baseball I can understand--It's the punishment for betting on games--But we're not talking about the Virtue Hall of Fame, we're talking about the Baseball Hall of Fame. Players get in based on their skill, not based on the content of their character. If we're going to start banning bad guys from the Hall, we're going to have to go back and yank a few names that have already been admitted. Blue skies, Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

If you are still living with your parents at 25. I hope to hell it's because you are going to college still. To be a Doctor!!! Seems you might be hanging around the wrong crowd. They're called "boomerang kids." It's a trend that has been growing more rapidly in recent years do to a sluggish economy. One recent pole of college seniors found that 61% planned to move back in with their parents after graduation. The stigma of living with your parents in your mid-twenties (or later) can be a tough one to deal with, but it's a stigma that has existed for only about sixty years. The idea that kids are on their own when they turn eighteen is an American, post-World War II concept. For centuries prior to that, most children lived with their parents until marriage. Some children stayed with their families even after marriage, and it wasn't unheard of to have three generations on one piece of land or even under one roof. This practice is still common in much of the rest of the world. Forty-seven year old professional golfer Seve Ballesteros (three time winner of the British open, two time winner of the Masters, three time European Golfer of the Year) is worth tens of millions of dollars but still lives at his parents' home in Spain. Living with their parents as an adult can provide people time to establish themselves in a crowded career field, start their own business, save money for a house, etc. Although living with your parents may leave you with no place to take your date "back to" at the end of the evening, it can be a preferable alternative to potentially limiting your future by taking a low paying, dead end job just to survive. Blue skies, Douva D-22772 Personal note: I'm 24, and I currently share an apartment with my father. Although it doesn't epitomize "cool," I prefer having the time to build a career in my chosen field to the days when I was waiting tables or driving a courier route to pay rent. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So, is my jacket just wrong? By "last year," does the Oct. 1990 issue of Parachutist mean the preceding summer (summer of 1990) or the preceding year (1989)? --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

My WFFC '99 jacket says "Ten years of Quincy magic" on it, so I'm assuming that means ten years since the first official WFFC and not 10 actual conventions. That sound right? --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

When did the Freak Brothers Reunion become the World Free Fall Convention? What was the first year it was held in Quincy? Was there ever a year missed after the creation of the WFFC, or has it been held every year since? Thanks again. Blue skies, Douva D-22772 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Does anybody know the dates and locations of the early WFF Championships (through roughly 1995 or 1996)? I seem to be finding conflicting information on the net. Thanks. Blue skies, Douva D-22772 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm looking for a website or a book or an old dz.com post or anything that features a brief history of freeflying. Basically what I'm looking for is a timeline (similar to the skysurfing timeline found at http://www.ipocskysurf.com/about/history-of-skysurfing.html). Anything with dates and names is fine, and any help is greatly appreciated. Blue skies, Douva D-22772 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You only need a videographer right?? To be more specific, I need a videographer who doesn't mind being in the air with a guy with a missile strapped to his feet. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.