steve1

>>>>I agree. Violence should be a last resort. But let's just suppose a tyranical government doesn't give a rip if you don't like things. Suppose every time you stood up in front of a tank it smashed you flat. Suppose everytime you demonstrated against the government they marched you off to prison or secretly murdered your family. What would you do then...If things get bad enough violence may be the only option possible. - standing up against the government while armed never works. >>>>I almost have to laugh at this. You aren't looking very closely at history if you say that. Look at any successful revolution where one government replaced another, and I'll bet a whole lot of violence went along with it. Peaceful demonstration can be a powerful thing, but suppose it isn't allowed. Hell no, I'm not radical enough to think that violence is the answer for every situation, but sometimes it's the only option left. Ruby Ridge was not a rebellion. It was a man defending his family against over-zealous feds. Waco was a group of nut cases who burned themselves up in the name of their religion. Oklahoma city was a group of other nut cases setting off bombs. None of these qualify as a rebellion against the government in my mind. Surely there are better examples than these when looking back in history. But I guess these groups of crazies fit your argument better. I already mentioned Iraq, and Vietnam. Kallend mentioned Iran and the Russians. (And I know they were being resupplied by the Americans). These are just a very small number of revolutions where a revolution went on, often successfully, and involved a whole lot of violence. ( And I truly hope we can defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but I also have my doubts.) There's any number of 3rd world countries in South America or Africa who have revolted and overthrown the present government. I can't think of many who did it peacefully. So, my point is that standing up against the government using arms can and does work. Not in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort. But it has been done over and over again, successfully throughout history...Steve1 _Am

>>>>But if you are giving the government power to easily confiscate weapons or to make it illegal to own a gun, as you have argued for in many previous posts, how is that limiting the power of the government? It seems to me that you are doing just the opposite. However, the US HAS its 2nd Amendment, so I think the government should respect it. It should also respect all other parts of the Constitution specifying the rights of the people, including the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th amendments, each of which the government tries to encroach on. >>>>I agree with all this too. But let's get real here. No, it hasn't happened yet, but just suppose an oppressive government takes over and trashes our constitution. What would a liberal decide to do then. I feel like I keep asking this question and an answer isn't being given. Putting blind faith in a system that can be manipulated doesn't make since to me. I sincerely hope that our constitution stays in it's present form and is not manipulated by a selfish government. But this might not be the case. When the founders of our constitution drafted that document they too realiized that their system of checks and balances could fail. If it does fail the only option left might be for our people to rebell. So in my mind, having a well armed Militia is as vital today as it was back in 1776. No it wouldn't be easy to overthrow a corrupt government if that situation ever arose, but it's still possible. I'd like to think that our constitution is infallable and it will always limit the power of Government, but even the founders of our country knew better than that and part of the 2nd amendment grants freedom to Americans to own weapons in case there ever is a need to take back it's government. I'm not saying this would be easy. It would create a whole lot of bloodshed and suffering on both sides, and it might even fail. But what other option do oppressed people have? They can either just take it, or they can fight back. Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1

[reply It also did not make sense because kallend is for less restrictive government (ie, they don't get to tell you not to own something like a gun) and you propose a hypothetical that was OPPOSITE of what he said. I still fail to see the connection or the rationale for your what if. Well, I'll try again then...I've gone toe to toe with Kallend on gun control and 2nd Amendment rights before. In nearly every one of these arguments he has advocated stricter gun control laws in this country, not weaker ones. (Correct me if I am wrong kallend.) In my previous posts I have given my opinion that I think a rebellion is possible even in this day and age. Yet Kallend has tried to shoot my arguments full of holes. I think his words were, that it's not 1776 any more and the thought of rebelling against a tyranical government would be impossible in this day and age. Again my arguments disagree with that. I know our government is not tyranical as many countries today are, but what my hypotheticals are stating is that it is possible for our government to be overthrown and it's constitution thrown out. What if, a tyranny was established in this country (or in another) and due to to strict gun control laws all weapons were confiscated. What would a Liberal suggest a citizen do then? There would be no way to rebell because there are no weapons. So...I think I deserve a reply to this...I don't know how to explain it any easier than that....Steve1

This sounds exactly like the canopy my friend bought. I don't know if there were ever many in production, but it sounds like some skydivers jumped them prior to the Para-Commander. After about 70 or so, they weren't worth much....Steve1

Another possibility would be the Papillon. (French for "butterfly") I really liked the Papillion. Several friends jumped them and they were great! The canopy my other friend bought was much different....Steve1

You know, I truly am trying to simplify things here using "What If's". I really can't see how anything I've said could possibly be that abstract to get. So, let me rephrase things a bit. Suppose you were living in America....and for whatever reason a government came about that trashed our constitution and confiscated all our weapons. This government elected a dictator that had total power and life was awful.....What could you do to change things. I hope I didn't use any words that were too big this time....Steve1

So how did the 2nd Amendment help here? You've lost me. Whose side am I on? I am on the side of restricting the government's powers to those granted in the constitution, and letting the people have all the others as the 9th and 10th Amendments might suggest. So, rather than talking in circles, please explain exactly what you would do if you found yourself living in a country other than America. Where the government's powers weren't restricted. Suppose you were living in a place where a leader had total control of you and your family and you all were being screwed by the government on a daily basis. Suppose all the weapons had been confiscated. What would you do then. (Please explain) Tell me how you would think your way out of that one. So far, you aren't making any sense to me either....Steve1

Yes, that's a fact. The average hunter may have trouble hitting their target at 200 yards let alone 600 or further out. But....they are very trainable!...Take almost anyone who hunts and shoots a lot, and then give them some training and most take to it like ducks to water. They can become very skilled at long range shooting. Most could also be trained in how to use explosives, pull ambushes, or take part in other operations. This is how unconventional wars are often fought. Training is often conducted in secret. How many people in the civilian sector are former military or even have Swat training. These folks could be used as instructors. Or how many other governments might be sympathetic to your cause. They often provide advisors, weapons, ammo, etc. Even some of the high tech stuff you mentioned earlier might be supplied by others outside your country. Sure, the guy at Ruby Ridge didn't fair so well. The Government secretly surrounded his home with a large force, and then shot the hell out of his family. And what did the guy do?...Sell a weapon with too short of a barrel...That's about it. After the government had shot my wife I wouldn't have given up either. And then how many millions did the Government waste in investigating him prior to this? This is exactly what the 2nd amendment was designed to prevent. Some times I wonder whose side you're on Kallend.... Not all armed rebellions are successful, but that doesn't mean they can't be. (Even today.) The chance of success often hinges on the weapons citizens are allowed to keep. Most Governments know this. There isn't much of a chance of a rebellion succeeding somewhere where the government has already confiscated all the weapons. There's many countries that have to put up with a dirt bag government simply because they have no means to fight back, or change things politically. Maybe you don't agree with this, but this is exactly how I see things.....Steve1

Don't ever think that a well trained soldier with a deer rifle is something to sneeze at. They make up an important part of our military even today. Some sniper teams today may use a 50 cal. shoulder fired weapon, but not all. Many still pack your standard bolt action deer rifle that has been accurized and fitted with an expensive scope. In the hands of the right rifleman it's possible to inflict a lot of damage to an enemy force with one. Sgt. Hathcock had nearly a hundred confirmed kills while serving with the USMC in Vietnam. These are the kind of odds that win wars. He used a Winchester Model 70 and a Remington Model 700 for most of his sniping. These are two of the same rifles I hunt deer and elk with back home...Steve1

Back in 72 or so a friend (who was a little bit newer to the sport than myself) went to check out some gear that an old jumper was selling. This other guy was trying to raise some cash for his new family, and he pulled out this canopy that we both thought was some type of para-commander yet it wasn't a P.C. (I'm almost certain that it was called a crossbow.) Hell, my memory is about shot, but my friend ended up buying it because I said it sounded like a good deal to me. Thanks to my advice he got screwed. When we got back to our club we found out we'd just bought some dinosaur of a canopy that noone jumped any more. This was a canopy a lot different than a para-commander, yet it kind of looked like one. At any rate, does that sound like a crossbow canopy to you. Maybe I've got the name wrong. I've been trying to recall that name for a few years now, and I think that's it. And yes, I always used rear risers when jumping modified T-10's or 28 ft. T.U.'s, or double L's. I wish I was still tough enough to do that sort of thing. But then again I think I could still land a T-10 if given the opportunity. I used to wear my Frenchies when jumping with the Guards and stood up a lot of T-10's. But then again I only weighed about 140 lbs. (back in the good ole days). But by God, I think I could still do er...Steve1

Now, I know why the Canadian border guards are always polite and hardly ever hassle you. But coming back to the good ole USA we almost always get harassed in some form or another. After all these guys are packing heat. Last time through, after a fun day of jumping near Moose Jaw, the damn U.S. border guards confiscated all our sandwiches because they had beef in them. If I was a little hungrier I would have eaten all ten of them, in front of them, just to tick them off....Steve1

In a guerrilla type war many of our high tech weapons may not work as well as you think. Just as in Iraq or Vietnam it's really hard to find where the enemy is, because they blend in with the general populace, and then they pull clandestine missions secretly when the opportunity arises. Of course they aren't just going to fight conventually on a battlefield somewhere where they'd quickly be wiped out by Apache gun ships etc. This principal has been proven highly effective throughout history. In 1776 it was used, and now it's being used by the Iraqis in their country. A relatively small force with low tech weapons and explosives can keep a much larger one at bay for months or even years....Steve1

What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get. Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far. I don't think it's absurd at all...People were saying the same thing when we invaded Iraq. After all our army, supported by our government, has some really serious stuff in it's arsenal. Yet, here it is years later, and a determined yet vastly outgunned group of people are still fighting back with any weapon they can find. I wonder how long it will be before our country gives up over there and pulls out. The same thing in Vietnam....I remember Johnson lecturing about how an enemy soldier that lives in a hole and survives on a handful of rice a day, can't possibly beat our country which had Phantom jets and B-52 bombers...Yet look at what happened there. I think the same thing could happen in this country. if the government ever gets too oppressive citizens can and will fight back, (just like in 1776). I think that thought is alive and well even in todays world. Don't get me wrong...I love my country and accept many of it's imperfections, but if our government ever became tyranical, and wasn't the U.S. anymore, I'd be one of the ones fighting back, and not just giving up because I didn't have a guided missle in my home arsenal....Steve1

I work in a school, and it's amazing how much ant-gun propaganda that kids are subjected to. I looked at a Weekly Reader a while back and the headline for an article was "Just Say No To Guns". And then the article went on and on about how evil guns are. You can find the same opinions in many text books and most schools are buying them by the thousands. There's seldom anything favorable about firearms either in any newspaper you read or on a news program on TV. So is it any wonder that people are paranoid of guns. At the school where my wife works there was a kid who wanted to put a picture of himself in their yearbook of himself hunting. We live in hunting country and many teenagers hunt, here. So he turned in this picture of himself sitting up in a treestand with his rifle. An old "Biddy" who was the head honcho of the yearbrook was showing this picture to all the teachers saying, "Owe my God, he looks just like a sniper!" And then she promptly refused to print it. Being raised around guns, I thought what's wrong with that?? But maybe it is offensive to a lot of people...so I guess I don't really care much one way or the other. I guess it is up to this "old witch" in charge. I really can't see the difference though of maybe showing a student pounding nails with a hammer. That picture would probably be published. But heaven forbid...Maybe my Uncle Fred was killed with a hammer, and "damnit" the sight of another hammer just drives me crazy. I wonder if that picture would be removed. Probably not, because most people aren't paranoid about hammers. Or maybe they could show a student cutting wood with an axe. Oh Shit!...just think of all the people who have been murdered by people with axes. That one wouldn't be acceptable either by some, but it too would probably be printed! I could probably think up a few more scenarios. But I guess the bottom line is...if it's offensive to a lot of people maybe it shouldn't be printed. (Even though I can see nothing wrong with picturing a young person with a gun, he uses for hunting)...Steve1

*** After 12 lovely years of noncommittal bliss, she'd finally had enough...saying she'd NEVER date another skydiver! So in order to help her keep her promise, I keep her at the bottom of a deep well I dug in the basement. But...Airtwardo...Remember when you told me that you chopped her up with an axe into little pieces?...Maybe that was your other girl friend...Steve1

The guy in Utah sounded possible, but if the finger-prints didn't match, then he's out. My vote would be that he drowned in the river. What a wicked, wide, stretch of water! I'd hate to try swimming out of it, at night, with a big bag of money tied onto me. I wonder how fresh the head was that the lady found. I didn't read all the info. under D.B. Cooper that you supplied. My brother has found skulls & bones of Indians buried hundreds of years ago (out in the desert) of Eastern Oregon. Could this be a skull from way back then?....Steve1

I saw probably the same video. It looked very similiar to hunting rock chucks (if you've ever done that with hollow point bullets in a varmit rifle). Yes, it was disturbing. It made me wonder if the 50 cal. bullets that they were using were some variety of hollow point. I wouldn't think a full metal jacket could do that kind of damage. I mean pieces of enemy soldiers were actually flying ten feet in the air. This new sniper rifle looks good, but it sure doesn't sound too portable. The lighter 50 cal. rifles also look big and heavy. But, "holy cow!" , their effective range, armor piercing ability, and nock down power are truly amazing. It would be fun to shoot a shoulder-fired 50 some time, but I doubt if I'd ever take one hunting. And yes, it is legal to hunt with one here in Montana (at least I have heard of it being done)....Steve1

What an invention! That's the first I've heard of more than one round packed into a barrel at once....I guess the next serious issue is, if it will malfunction in use. I imagine the rate of fire could be faster than a mini-gun (as long as it doesn't melt down the barrels....Steve1 I

One of my rigs had narrow uncomfortable leg straps. I since stuffed a piece of rigid foam into both leg straps and now have a more comfortable ride down, on that rig. The softer types of foam probably won't help much. The seat belt pads also sound like a good idea....Steve1

I don't understand exactly how this gun works. Isn't the mini-gun built on the same design, with gatlin type barrels. Just wondering....Steve1

Great story Roger! In the early 70's Sky Gods were looked up to. I dreamed of earning a 16 man patch back in those days. The Worlds first 16 way diamond must have been all the better....Steve1

I'm not saying this is right, but suffocation is often used to torture prisoners. In the military I went through a phase of training where torture was openly discussed. We were shown a movie of U.S. pilots being tortured by other Americans as part of their training. We were told to hold out as long as you could but eventually everyone would break in the end. I'm glad to say that none of these techniques were used on me. At any rate, these pilots were held down and a wet wash cloth was placed over their mouth and nose, while someone blew cigar smoke up their nose. Before long most were spilling the beans about anything they were asked. I talked with another Air Force NCO who said they sometimes used a small coffin like thing (in training)that stood upright. A person was closed up in this. Then someone turned the water on, and it would slowly fill with water till it was up to your neck. The person inside thought this was the end and the feeling of clostrophobia must have been intense. The person inside didn't know there were holes cut in the upper part of this so it was impossible to drown someone in it. In World War II I read a story about an American who was put in a bath tub and held under by his German captors till he passed out. They did this over and over. Sometimes he would pass false info. rather than tell the truth. They did this to him over and over. More than once he tried to kill himself (once by jumping out a window into the street below) but his captors stopped him. I agree, this torture buisness sounds awful. If someone stuffed me in a sleeping bag and sat on my chest, I'd probably have a heart attack too. I can't stand confined places....Steve1

Pre- 64 Winchester rifles were really nice, and their value is represented by very high prices today. The first big game rifle that I bouight was a Winchester model 70, 30/06, which I bought in 1968. Now this was a piece of junk (in my opinion). I didn't like the plastic butt-plate, the stamped checkering, the huge gap of a floating barrel, or the look and feel of it. It didn't shoot that great either. The quality had gone from one extreme to another. So I promptly sold it and bought a new Remington rifle. Then Winchester's craftmanshipwork seemed to improve again in the 80's & 90's and I even bought Winchester featherweight at a gun show. From the sounds of things, maybe they are headed the other way again. And yes the model 12 shotgun was a great shotgun. I murdered a ton of ducks with mine in the 60's....Steve1

Skratch, Good to hear from you again....Steve1

Glad you're back. There's way too many people who leave the sport never to return. And they are really missing out on a whole lot of fun. I agree the people haven't changed that much. Most jumpers are still a wild and crazy bunch. There are a lot of older jumpers than there once were though. Someone who was 35 was really really old way back when. Now I see jumpers about twice that old still jumping out of planes. The ram-air canopy allowed that to happen. When I returned to the sport I was also amazed at what people were doing in the air. I recall watching some jumpers dirt diving a jump prior and thinking, there's no way they could possibly do all that, but yet they were. Back in the early 70's a 25 way round was a world record...Now that's nothing. Isn't it great to be back!.....Steve1