-
Content
3,035 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by ChrisL
-
Maybe if you accidentally put a few staples in the fold before you lay it down
-
My 05 FLSTFI got pretty pissed off when I came home with the 09 FLSTF
-
Must be a Windoze environment... __ My mighty steed
-
I made it to 2006 convention and had an incredible time. Jumped the jet, did a HALO, helicopter, skyvan, and CASA, as well as many Otter jumps. I was so bummed that it was the last one, but I'm glad I got at least one before it was all over. __ My mighty steed
-
LOL again. That was the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard. __ My mighty steed
-
LOL. A book, compiled by some dudes a couple thousand years ago from various disparate documents written by more dudes even earlier, claims that the existence of "things that have been made" is proof of the existence of God. This actually works for you? Cool! I wish I could do that __ My mighty steed
-
LOL. You guys are still at it in here? Just remember to turn off the lights and lock the door when you leave __ My mighty steed
-
Snivvle Snivvle...what to do while waiting?
ChrisL replied to shah269's topic in General Skydiving Discussions
I usually flip through a magazine __ My mighty steed -
This is a very controversial question __ My mighty steed
-
I'm the one that brought them up, but not as any kind of example as to why rights should be revoked. Just the opposite in fact. I'm an advocate of the 2nd amendment and do not support preemptive removal of rights. I used them as an example of a failure in the system to identify dangerously irrational people, not as an example why why we should taker peoples rights away. I also used my own experience as an example of a failure of the system on the other extreme where my own rights were revoked for no good reason and I had a long and expensive road to have them restored. __ My mighty steed
-
The time will never come when $300+ for a helmet makes sense, especially when you consider how flimsy all the cool, expensive helmets are. I'm no skygod, but I'm not a total newb either and the Benny works just fine for me. Cant really say I get why it would be good for a beginner and not for an experienced jumper. __ My mighty steed
-
I cant believe skydivers aren't being more supportive
ChrisL replied to DiverStump's topic in The Bonfire
Cant vote without registering. Not interested in registering, all I will accomplish is to increase the amount of e-mail spam I receive. __ My mighty steed -
I dont want to wait for this. People like Cho and Loughner were both identified as, not just mentally ill, but possibly dangerously so long before they ever committed a violent act. I think that as soon as this became evident they should have been given one of those lovely 72 hour stays in the hospital that I enjoyed where they could have been examined more thoroughly. I'm certain that the results of that examination would have identified them as a real threat, after which the court could have revoked their right to purchase firearms and ordered appropriate treatment. The problem there is that very clear danger signs were completely ignored in both cases. __ My mighty steed
-
Tricky question. I'm not usually first in line to grant more powers to the Federal Government, but technically (or traditionally) the federal government is supposed to have jurisdiction over constitutional issues and this is a constitutional issue so I think its already in their purview. Case in point would be DC vs Heller where the SCOTUS ruled that the DC handgun ban violated the citizens exercise of the 2nd amendment and struck down the ban, Clearly the Federal government already has this power, they just dont exercise it unless pressed to do so. I'm not really sure why the states each get to have their own sets of rules on this issue, but thats how it is. It would be great if they could all agree on a homogeneous solution. __ My mighty steed
-
Exactly. Its not a one sided problem, and the fact that each state can put their own laws in place that supersede the federal guidelines makes it a big giant mess. Hopefully. Not there yet in a lot of places. Funny thing about this thread is that I think some of the folks posting in here are so used to being on opposite sides of contentious issues that nobody noticed that everyone is pretty much agreeing with each other but nobody is noticing it.
-
Indeed. Wheres the pic? __ My mighty steed
-
Unfortunately some states have their own instant check systems. PA is one. Here we have PICS, and in PA you can lose your rights for things that the Federal regs do not approve of. so, in PA a 72 hour commitment (with no due process) gets you added to the PICS database system immediately and your rights are gone. Any existing firearms in your possession must be forfeited or transferred, and you can no longer buy any. This is permanent unless you have thousands of dollars to fight it in court. The Federal regs to not recognise the validity of a legal disability imposed as a result of a 72 hour commitment because there is no due process involved in the revocation of rights. This was fortunate for me because I only had to fight the state. I was never barred from ownership at a federal level. In this case the Feds have it right, the state screwed up the process. __ My mighty steed
-
No option to select boobies. Bad poll __ My mighty steed
-
If it was my rig I would have it replaced, unless it was actually supposed to have a slight curve. You should inquire of the container manufacturer __ My mighty steed
-
This is what I use. Its a fine helmet. It will not provide as much protection as the protec. The shell isnt as tough. Still, it will protect your head better than many far more expensive helmets and looks pretty decent. I have a ContourHD mounted on mine as well (and I didnt do that till I had over 200 jumps) I did take the "Benny" decals off of it because my name isnt Benny, and its kind of silly name for a helmet __ My mighty steed
-
+1 I would refine this to say that if the state HAS proved an individual to be potentially dangerous (via thorough psychological examination by qualified mental health experts) and revoked their rights based on that finding, then in any future attempt by the individual to have their rights restored the burden of proof should be on the individual to prove that they are no longer a danger. In no case should rights be revoked long term without the state (via thorough psychological examination by qualified mental health experts) having to prove in a court of law that the individual presents a real danger to themselves or others. __ My mighty steed