ChrisL

People on both sides of this issue seem to love taking arguments to their ridiculous extremes to make their point. I think the main point here is that the process is broken in several significant ways. Ways that allow dangerous individuals to legally acquire or possess firearms, and ways that prevent sane, rational people from exercizing a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Great care should be taken before denying someone their rights, AND a more careful and respectful process should be in place to safeguard the public by preventing dangerously irrational people from acquiring firearms. __ My mighty steed

As is the restoration of rights that are erroneously revoked. __ My mighty steed

I agree. That why I stated earlier that a temporary, immediate suspension would not bother me at all. This should be followed up with a more thorough evaluation and if the individual is found to present no danger to themselves or others then this suspension should expire and not be made permanent. In my case my rights were simply gone and the fact that I was NOT found to be a danger to myself or others did nothing to change that fact. I went to the ER one night very drunk with a bad laceration on my wrist that the ER doctor thought might have been self inflicted. He had me committed involuntarily for 72 hours of observation. The reality on this occasion was that I had put my hand through a window because the glass was so freakin clean I thought the window was open. (and I was super drunk) Ding! An overly cautious ER doctor effectively revoked my 2nd amendment rights. I then had to wait a long time and fight a very costly battle in the courts to have my rights that should never have been revoked restored to me. All told it cost me about $6000.00 For many the cost of this process is more than they can manage so they remain without this fundamental right. This is SOP in Pennsylvania and many other states as well. __ My mighty steed

Are you saying the NRA has been wrong all these years in their position that guns shouldn't be in the hands of crazy people? Doesn't your position weaken the idea of responsible gun ownership? Thats not what he said. Guns shouldn't be in the hands of crazy people. However, the method by which "crazy" is determined is capricious, unreasonable, and frequently grossly inaccurate. Determinations regarding individuals mental status are being made by people that are completely unqualified to make such determinations and they lose their rights as a result. We are talking about a constitutionally protected right here, not a drivers license. It should absolutely not be abridged unless a fair and thorough assessment of a persons mental status has been conducted by qualified individuals and they determine that the individual presents a clear danger to themselves or others, and then a court of law can act on the recommendations of the mental health professionals. __ My mighty steed

Enough loonies that can vote regularly put really bad people in positions that have directly lead to the deaths of vast numbers of human beings. I think both conservatives AND liberals can agree with this. They will just have different opinions about who the loonies are and who the "bad people" are A loonie with a gun is pretty benign by comparison even if the risk is more immediate __ My mighty steed

Actually its not. We are not required to prove that we are sane in order to vote or buy firearms. I'm sure many people feel that we should have to, but then it wouldnt be a "right", would it? :) Its more accurate to say that sanity is a necessary prerequisite for the safe and responsible exercise of many rights I dont necessarily disagree with your sentiment, BUT I believe that if rights are going to be revoked or ignored based on a perceived lack of sanity, then it should be a very temporary measure, after which, to extend or make such a disability permanent, then lack of sanity needs to be clearly established by a body that is able to make such a judgment before said right is revoked, AND that a reasonable (and affordable) process whereby one can have relief from said disability should the ones mental status change for the better (this can absolutely happen) should also be available. Thats not usually the case. It certainly wasn't in my own case. __ My mighty steed

I did. I dont believe that a person should lose their rights without due process. In most states any involuntary hospitalization is enough to cause one to lose a constitutionally protected right with no due process. A medical doctor can commit a person to involuntary inpatient treatment for "observation" for 72 hours and regardless of the result of that observation, the persons 2nd amendment rights are gone. No court or legal proceeding is ever involved. I dont personally hold with violating the rights of a few to protect people from what people are afraid someone might do. Thats a very ugly and very slippery slope. I do not agree that the case in the article is an accurate representation of how this is handled in the majority of states. what should have happened here is that Mr. French should have been thoroughly evaluated by a professional mental health expert and a determination made as to whether he was a danger to himself or others, and based on the result of that evaluation a determination should have been made by a judge as to whether or not he should be allowed to maintain possession of his firearms. A judge should not be making determinations as to the mental health of a person. In PA you dont even need a judge. A doctor sends you for observation and BAM, rights gone. A very lengthy and expensive legal process is required to have your rights restored. It IS a mess, I agree. Its not a uniform mess either. Every state has their own messy way of handling it __ My mighty steed

15 years ago I was hospitalized involuntarily in the state of PA (a 302) I committed no crime and I was never arrested or convicted of anything. I was released a few days later, but I no longer had the right to purchase or own firearms. 4 years ago (11 years after that event) I finally went to court and had my rights restored. I had to be evaluated by a reputable psychologist and had a court hearing. I was found to be a sound minded, responsible person and the judge did what he should have and restored my rights. Do you really feel that anyone that loses their rights for any reason of mental instability should be banned forever from ever being able to purchase or own firearms? Do you feel that if a person at one point in his/her life shows signs of mental instability that they are mentally ill forever and that there is no recovery possible for all mental illness? Once a loonie always a loonie?

LOL. I hope the people that designed the website didnt design the AAD __ My mighty steed

Not funny every single time Farts arent a big deal. Simple (sometimes unpleasant) fact of life. But while they aren't a big deal, they also aren't particularly funny either. As for the plane ride, I endeavour to restrain myself until the door is open unless there is a lot of discomfort involved. Cant claim 100% success, but I try to avoid it if at all possible. __ My mighty steed

I feel both stupid and selfish. I will immediately sell my rig. Oh wait. Obama is right. I really dont care about children. Never mind, I think I'll hang onto my gear. __ My mighty steed

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I dont see the connection to skydivers here. Can you enlighten me? How do you get to "Obama says Skydivers don't care about kids." from that statement? __ My mighty steed

is there a danger of hitting the landing gear or is it just a camera angle thing that makes it look that way? PS, congrats on your progress __ My mighty steed

What kind of plane is that? __ My mighty steed

I'll be upset. I like dollar coins

Internet porn sites. duh. __ My mighty steed

"innemities"? I think you mean amenities __ My mighty steed

Only if its a lawful request. This was absolutely not a lawful request. The police have to obey the law too. What kind of example do they send to the public when they ignore (or are ignorant of) the law they are tasked with enforcing? __ My mighty steed

... as I wrote ... mistake are made (long) before ... I believe he was saying that he headed straight for the dropzone, not straight back up the jumprun. That could be the same thing, but not necessarily jcalor, I might have considered cutting away as well. Once you lose sight of it, and the last thing you did see was it heading your way, I think I'd be fairly worried about collision, especially if I was flying a giant, slow canopy __ My mighty steed

And neither did i when my radio failed on my first solo jump and I landed just fine and even stood it up. My instructor signed me off radio then and there. BUT, this was in 1989 and I thought a lot more emphasis has been added to increase safety for the students since then. Certainly A license requirements and student progression is a lot more involved now than it was back then. I'm not saying that I know better than the more experienced jumpers here. I got my A in 1989 and then quit jumping for 15 years and now I'm just a fun jumper with no ratings of any kind. Seemed to me that under the same circumstances, I would have been more concerned about the student than the gear. Just thought I'd see what others thought. __ My mighty steed

They should have the knowledge to land safely off dz without assistance, shouldn't they? Isn't that taught in the FJC? then they shouldn't need radio at all right? __ My mighty steed

I didnt mean as a standard practice. I meant after a cutaway where the student is clearly landing off the dz under a reserve canopy. I doubt anyone at the dz would have been able to adequately direct the student via radio from back at the landing area. __ My mighty steed

In the post about the IAD deployment titled "Is this normal" one of the students had a malfunction and cut away his main. The instructor followed the canopy down and left the student to fend for himself. It was not clear in the video where the student landed but it certainly looks like it was off the DZ in a less than ideal location. In my mind he should have chased the student. Am I wrong? __ My mighty steed

Its not terribly obvious how to vote. __ My mighty steed

Damn, 4 months. That would pretty much end my band (or at least my involvement in it). My Doctor tells me that I should be able to start playing again within a week or two, and even that will be hard since I play almost every day for at least an hour. Thanks for the info, sorry to hear about your arthritis... My own issues resulted from (most likely) a combination of guitar playing and weight lifting both for the last 35 years... __ My mighty steed