toolbox

I think it is a bad idea. Most young children do not understand the danger involved in skydiving,and do not kid yourself,skydiving is a dangerous activity. I'm 50 years old and I've been skydiving for over 20 years,and have seen more people seriously injured or killed skydiving than in all the other activities I've experienced in my life. I grew up in a logging family and I've also fought forest fires and worked in heavy industry,so I have not lived a sheltered life by any standard. Skydiving kicks ass,but it is still big boy rules and not for children. 18 is considered adult and thats good for skydiving, and I believe they should also be allowed to drink at 18 since they are old enough to go to war.

Once again 22 kids is a small number compared to the 1,825 who die at the hands of their own parents each year. And then there is the much,much larger number of children who suffer and die of neglect. I feel for all the children and the parents of those who are harmed by evil mass murderers,but how about the kids who are victimized by their own parents? Are the kids who are killed by neglect and abuse less worthy of protection than the others? There have been laws against child abuse and child neglect for decades,and yet it still happens more here in the US than any other industrialized nation. What makes you think more laws against gun owners will save kids anymore than the laws we already have? Is it not against the law to murder children with guns already? Is it not against the law to buy,sell,or use drugs? Last I heard,there are more drugs being sold and bought and used than ever. What makes you think banning guns will prevent criminals from having guns? It would be far easier to stop child abuse and neglect than to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Yet our laws can't even save children from there own parents,let alone all the sick fucked up pedophiles and killers out there. The only way to protect schools from killers is to have the threat of lethal force available to be used against those who would do violence against others. We have armed gaurds in airports and armed air marshals on planes,and it seems to work well. As far as background checks go,mental illness should be reported and this should be the only change made toward gun legislation. I'm not saying that all mental illness makes one a danger to ohers or even themselves,but many are.

>So your enjoyment is more important than the lives of 22 kids in Newtown. 22 kids is a small number when compared to the 5 children killed per day on average in the us from child abuse. Estimates are that even more children die of neglect,but it is believed that 80% of neglect cases are misdiagnosed and thus unreported so there is no way to know for sure. It is known that the US has the highest rate of child abuse and neglect in the industrialized world. With these numbers maybe we should outlaw parents in the US since there are a few bad ones? This is what you want to do with gun ownership to protect the children,and since the leading cause of death and injury to children is from their parents,with your logic we should take away the rights of citizens to be parents as well. Should we have background checks and mental evaluations performed before a citizen can have children? Make having kids a earned privilage like driving?

sounds like a liberal answer for sure

Very well put.

I agree,metal handle and metal cable. I see spectra is starting to replace steel for ripcords. After working in the nitty,gritty desert for several years,and seeing what that sharp dust will do to closing loops,and the white loops on the three rings,I do not like the idea of using spectra for a reserve ripcord. I know the cord would get inspected every 6 months,but alot can happen in 6 months in the dirt.

Once again you have hit the nail on the head. The bill of rights was not created to protect individuals from each other. The bill of rights was created to protect the individuals from the state.

Good point! I bet it gets no other media coverage even if they are charged. It makes them look real,real,real bad.

>once you've done that evaluation.......... 100% spot on

not to mention the guns and ammo are almost as heavy as the 9 year olds using them.

I know most skydivers have drank the koolaid, and think driving is more life threatening than skydiving,but I have to agree with you. Skydiving is far more dangerous than driving. People will quote numbers of deaths each year from each activity,and sure the number of people who die each year on the road are huge compared to the numbers killed skydiving,but the numbers of poeple who drive or ride as passengers in cars are massive compared to the numbers of not just skydivers,but even the total number of skydives made. If you also look at the amount of time spent on the road compared to the amount of time spent skydiving,the time spent in the vehicle is once again massive compared to time spent skydiving. I think skydiving is a blast,and love the feeling of that first split second off the step(the point of no return)but I do not believe it is safe,nor do I tell non skydivers that it is safe,and I have introduced alot of people to skydiving including my girlfriend who is now a coach and working on her riggers ticket. I think AAD's offer a greater benefit to risk ratio,but have never had a problem skydiving without one ,and would jump without one again. I think telling people they are dead when they leave the plane unless they pull is a good way to keep their attention on the life threatening situation they are about to place themselves into.

There is a huge difference between a small WW2 era plane flying low and slow at close range,and a much faster modern jumbo jet that is 1 1/2 miles away. Bloomberg did say 1 1/2 miles right? At that range a so called assault rifle round has lost alot of velocity and energy, and might not even punch a hole through a jumbo jet,if you were lucky enough to hit it. I just checked the chart for the 55grn 223 and at 1000 yards it has dropped to less than 80ft/lbs of energy. 1000 yards is just over 1/2 a mile. Even my favorite,the 308, is pretty weak at 1 1/2 miles.

There have been very low flying small planes brought down by small arms ground fire durring ww2, but it is rare, and as others have posted,it is what they call the golden bullet. Hell pot farmers have shot down a helicopter with bow and arrow,so would you say bow and arrows are a substantial threat to high flying aircraftI guess anythings possible eh. Lets face it,if small arms ground fire were so effective against aircraft then why would the military spend so much more money creating and using SAM's?

Is he gonna take up scouting?

Stalin,Mao,and Pol Pot were very logical in how they achieved total control.

I just checked a ballistics chart for the 50BMG round and at 1500 yards the bullet drop is 61 feet out of a 29 inch barrel. The drop is 76 feet from the 20 inch barrel at 1500 yards. This is just bullet drop without windage adjustment. The chart only went out to 1500 yards as I'm sure only a very,very small group of people are able to achieve hits at any further ranges. Now factor in the altitude and speed of a jet airliner at a range of 2640 yards (1 1/2 mile) and this shot is going to need a shit ton of luck to say the least. Now the 50BMG is far more powerful and has far more effective range than any of the so called assault weapons rounds,and as stated by regulator before it is very heavy and impractical for use as an assault weapon.

Regulator,you are correct. Arnold did not use a heavy 50(Ma deuce)and I for one would like to see anyone on the planet fire a full belt of ammo out of a M2 while holding it one handed without shooting everywhere except the targeteven the worlds strongest man would get hurt trying a stunt like that. How much drop would you get with a 50BMG at 1 1/2 miles ? I would guess at least 30ft at 1000 yards. You are 100 percent correct in your assessment of Bloomberg as well. I have a friend who used to fly twin otters in africa for a relief organization,and he told me that they put titanium armor under the cockpit and engines because the warlords and malitias over there would shoot at them with AK47's,AK74's,and what ever else they could throw up at him when he was taking off or landing and was only a few hundred feet off the ground. He said he had never been shot or had lost an engine to gunfire. He said he had squeaked in on fumes a couple of times because of fuel loss from holes in the belly. The otter is a slow moving sitting duck and with the 100's of take off's and landings he made over there and this is with several guys if not dozens shooting at him with full auto weapons. He said it was scary seeing bullet holes in his plane but said what really scared them was the possibility of RPG's or rockets.

Skydive San Diego at otay is nice. If you need to rent gear,they had very nice Infinity rigs with safires the last time I was there. They have a nice grass landing area as well.

Are you saying that a person can't be sane if they kill someone outside of self defense? That would mean all gangbangers,robbers,terrorist,ect,are not sane. Islamic terrorist kill because they are waging war against what they percieve to be enemies of islam. Gangbangers kill for money,respect,territory,ect. Armed robbers will kill to get what they want and are motivated by monetary gain. I would say most of these afore mentioned types of people are sane. Just because you do some evil shit does not mean you can't be sane. This guy is on a vendetta that is directed toward all those who represent,or support those, who he feels have done injustices toward himself and others.

>Actually,theres no real reason why a truck couldn't be used to enter a school through a wall I agree! Imagine a 26ft van full of some boom crashing through the wall and detonating,or just detonating next to the building. It's occurred many times in many places before,including the us (oklahoma). If you have a suicidal nut job with rudimentery knowledge of chemistry who knows how to drive and they need to kill a bunch of innocents to fullfill their agenda,how do you stop that? Imagine a crater 20 ft or more across,next to a loaded group of classrooms. They have alot of security in the little country of israel,and they still have people blowing shit up. Guns are not 100% lethal,but being at ground zero is.

Any intruder,armed or not,should never make it into a classroom. They should be stopped at the metal detector prior to entering past the armed guard,just like all the courthouses I've seen in the last 20 years.It is not hard to hit someone at 20 feet or less if you have trained with your weapon. You might not kill them,but chances are very good that they will not want to advance further into the line of fire. Getting back to the real topic,if these cops fired on these people without provocation,then they should be charged.

Cops are not perfect,and there are some bad ones,but most are good law abiding people. Being a cop can obviously be very dangerous so when they hit the lights I pull over as soon as safely possible,and then keep my hands on the wheel untill further instructions. I've been riding with other people who have been pulled over, who have srarted looking for paperwork in gloveboxes or center consoles or what not,and you can see the anxiety on the cops face as they walk up hands on their guns,not knowing what is being grabbed out of concealment. Who knows how the occupants were behaving when the cops made contact? Once again,not saying all cops are good. I have actually been handled pretty rough by some cops for having done nothing to deserve it. Most have been ok though and are just trying to do their job.

Every mentally stable,non felon citizen,should have a gun if they choose to. I would also recomend some firearms training for everyone who is legal to own a gun wether they own one or not,just in case(knowledge is power). Since cops are legal to own a gun,and they get training in how and when to use one,then yes they should most definitely have a gun.

>Flu vaccine is about 60% effective.Does it mean it's useless?NO,it doesn't. Most of my mothers side of the family,including herself and my step dad,have been getting the flu shot for the last few years. No one on my dads side of the family has used the flu shot,including myself(my dads side has alot more people by the way). Everyone on my mothers side has gotten the flu,and two of my cousins have had severe cases this year along with my grandmother(she has ben getting the shot since it's been out) who was hospitalized with it. My dads older brother had a severe case of the flu,but did not seek medical care and was fine after about a week. The rest of us on my dads side have not had the flu for several years. I've had all the shots they gave to kids in the sixties at school for stuff like polio and what not. Never anything for the flu. But hey if it makes you feel better getting a flu shot then get one,I'll pass on it myself. If you do not want to have a gun,then don't get one,but I would like to keep mine and maybe get another since they have actually saved me a couple of times without any injury to anyone involved. Peace through superior fire power.

I think regulator is pointing to the fact that the vice president like all the other new gun legislation supporters,believe that these new laws being proposed are useless in stopping crime,and yet they are willing to push these laws on us anyway. Why are they pushing for legislation that they believe will make no real difference? Is there perhaps another motive for restricting our rights? I could be wrong but I think this is the point he is trying to make with the coverup reference.