FreeflyChile

Since Norwood was mentioned, I blame Steve Bartman.

Dammit, DSE - I'm trying to get OUT of debt!!

My fiancee is from there...was there in late 07. Agreed...freakin' spectacular.

dead? cuz that's what he is in that movie.

But licensed skydivers is a USPA rule, not a law...so a non-USPA DZ could rent gear to a jumper that wasn't licensed. Again, correct me if i am mistaken. If that doesn't work, then tweak the analogy to one of renting high-performance gear to a licensed jumper with 50 jumps. The guy legally can jump a high-performance canopy, right? Edited to add: Hit post too quickly. My real interest is in seeing the perspective of why you think the range has NO responsability in this (legal responsability or ethical responsability). Because, in both the examples you use, the DZ *did* have knowledge that the person wasn't qualified to jump, or to jump that HP canopy. Unless there's new information that I'm unaware of in this case, there was no sign that the woman was mentally disturbed. That is why I used the "licensed skydiver that rents a rig and no-pulls" - because the person *IS* qualified to use the equipment and the DZ doesn't *know* that the person is going to no-pull. Does that make sense? I'm trying to be as clear as I can, and it makes sense to me, but I may not be expressing myself well. So does the fact that someone can do something legally make them qualified to do it?

I don't think so. This woman wasn't a "licensed skydiver." Yes, she was - she was of legal age to own a pistol, therefore of legal age to rent a pistol. The equivalent of a licensed skydiver, not someone who faked up a logbook. But licensed skydivers is a USPA rule, not a law...so a non-USPA DZ could rent gear to a jumper that wasn't licensed. Again, correct me if i am mistaken. If that doesn't work, then tweak the analogy to one of renting high-performance gear to a licensed jumper with 50 jumps. The guy legally can jump a high-performance canopy, right? Edited to add: Hit post too quickly. My real interest is in seeing the perspective of why you think the range has NO responsability in this (legal responsability or ethical responsability).

It was a rental gun. Lots of ranges rent guns without background checks, because they are in the supposedly controlled conditions of the range. In this case, it looks to me like the range operators are at fault. Sorry, the mother's at fault not the gun range. +1 I understand the thought process that the mother's at fault as she's the one that planned this out and then went through with it, but can you please explain to me how you think the gun range is completely absolved from all responsibility/fault here (if that is your position on this...if I misunderstood, my bad)? To use the skydiving example, I'd say this is like renting gear to someone that says they're a skydiver without checking a logbook and then saying the DZ is not responsible when that person goes in.

Is this information available somewhere? I wonder who they included into those 64% - like everyone who tasted any kind of alcohol once? I would attribute it more to the society tolerance to drinking, and it being a widely accepted social thing. The decline in smoking IMHO should be attributed for changing the society attitude toward smoking and smokers. At least, the number of smokers declines not because the cigarettes became illegal, or significantly more expensive. I think there's a lot of truth to this, but I think legality has *something* to do with it... in Chicago you can no longer smoke in bars. I know several folks who were 'social' smokers that no longer smoke because the only time they did it was in a bar, which is no longer allowed. So there, something becoming illegal resulted in the decline in the number of smokers (if only by a handful).

To be fair.... it should be "You're" as in "You are showing...".

I don't get this line of reasoning. Drugs are illegal. Getting them legalized will require a fight because it's a controversial change to the status quo. And the people doing the fighting will be doing it in support of something they believe is better than what currently exists. So how are they not fighting for something they believe in?

I think this country would be far safer if EVERY high school freshman was required to take firearms training as a class. Everyone should know how to respect weapons and learn their proper use. Letting kids learn about weapons from first person shooter games is NUTZ I'm relieved to know that 3rd person shooter games are still OK!

No they won't - it's Jay Leno.

Are you suggesting that the President fly commercial?

I voted yes and yes. It should be taxed because either a) it's a good way to get revenue for the govt or b) it's a good way to lower taxes on other, more necessary things without hurting the country's revenue.

The police can run blood tests. If I remember law school correctly, isn't there a constitutionality issue w/r/t blood tests in traffic stops? (Lawrocket, looking in your direction...)

Eh, it depends. I have no problem with people putting substances in their bodies to achieve altered states - alcohol does the same thing. My problem is when it's done to the point that it imposes over my rights or when it becomes a danger to others that don't partake. I don't know much about the biology/chemistry of it, but is there a way similar to blood-alcohol level used with booze to tell how high someone is? I mean as a way to tell for restrictions on things like driving. I don't mind some dude smoking a joint in his house. I'd be more concerned with the dude getting in his car after doing a lot of acid. And, I agree - tax the fuck out of it.

At least in Chicago, it's quite expensive. Not free at all.

I was reading this article... http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html ...and it got me to thinking about religious beliefs, how some believe we were made in God's image, we are God's chosen, etc. Well, if intelligent life were to be discovered (or if they discovered us) elsewhere in the universe, would that change your religious beliefs any?

Another solution to the overcrowded prisons... ...hire better defense attorneys!

and (2) Techniques deemed prohibited by US Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations (warning large pdf file). /Marg I don't support it because of the sources I've read stating it doesn't work. If it was proven to conclusively work, I'd support it. The moral dilemma isn't that huge for me because i see it in terms of 'existing/being alive' is better than 'not existing/not being alive'. If death is the worst you can do to a person because of its nature of being 'permanent', and we are so willing to kill those that oppose us, why so squeamish about 'lesser' tactics? I don't personally like the idea of torture, and am glad it seems to not be effective. I just don't understand the moral relativism of 'killing is OK, torturing is not'.

Getting back to Gitmo for a second: When they close the base, what happens to the land the base sits on?

And here the title had me thinking this meant that an al qaeda was swooping a canopy much too small for his skill level....

I will check it out..thanks!

Hey all, Anyone have any experience with bringing a car into the US from another country? Specifically, I've always wanted to own a classic car and I'm pondering importing a Citroen 2CV from Chile because they are all over the place down there and you can find one in good shape for about $1000. I've always wanted to own one (family/nostalgia related reasons, plus I think it's a classic) and I am kicking around the idea of trying to bring one to the States and gradually fix it into good shape (well, pay someone to fix it as I know nothing about cars - I just want one that's in mint condition to have as my classic car sort of thing). Thanks

Not to mention the time between groups....