fpritchett64

That's actually what really got me interested in skydiving. This was about 15 years ago while working on a potato farm in Elberta, AL. I was pulling weeds in a field near Emerald Coast Skydiving when I stumbled across a helmet. First thought was how the hell did this helmet end up randomly out in the middle of a potato field. My neighbor also happened to be a tandem instructor so I told him about my finding and he found out who the owner was. Helmet got returned and the DZO let me go up in the otter for my very first airplane ride. I was too young to jump at the time. If I remember correctly, the helmet came off during deployment. No damage.

A shopping plaza here in Burlington, NC

Ahh. Now that's not something I see around here. If someone was issued a citation for 5 over around here the judge would be asking the officer if he had something better to do.

No worries. I really don't NEED to understand anything about the time you got caught speeding five years ago. Glad to see that you learned your lesson though and have at least improved your driving habits while around LE.

35 in a 25 zone..... did I mention they changed the 25 MPH sign to 500 yards father out of town... it used to be 35 till you hit the traffic circle on the other side of the freeway where the city limits are posted Welcome to our FUCKING SPEED TRAP TOWN with low life pricks for leo. So help me understand this a little better. Really, I am trying hard to understand this. He clocked you traveling 35 in a 25, in the town that you live, where the 25 speed limit sign was hidden behind a tree but you obviously knew about it and the cop sitting there because he is a lowlife and sits there all the time? And he is also lying because you weren't really traveling 35 mph in what you thought was a 35 mph zone? Unless you live in one of the few areas where a radar detector is illegal, then it is very unlikely that the officer had a radar detector "detector." Which you seem to claim was his basis for stopping you and writing you a ticket. Unless the radar detector is illegal in your area, officers could care less if you have one. The decision to extend speed limits further out would most likely have been made by DOT, not your local law enforcement agency. As for the speed trap thing. I really never have understood that one, or entrapment. Nobody forces a person to disobey the speed limit signs, stop signs, or any other traffic control device.

Fixed it. Sound any better?

And how fast did he say you were traveling?

I agree. My local PD is focused on 1- revenue and 2- reacting to crime. We had a cop at a public event a few years ago, and he asked me what the PD could improve on. I told him it frustrated me that I see them running radar up and down the main street behind my house every day, but I've never seen police in driving through my neighborhoods/alleys looking for/preventing crime. He told he he agreed, but due to the way they run his days are either- traffic patrol ($$$$) and responding to "calls". With those priorities they don't have time to be proactive about protecting/stopping crime. They write tickets and wait for people to call 911. I know not all cities are like that...but drives me crazy that mine is. You have to understand a little about crime prevention activities in law enforcement to understand how to prevent crime to understand what ways they may be preventing crime. I would imagine the crime you're speaking of in the neighborhoods would consist of car break-ins and the like. Most likely unsecured vehicles. At least that's one of the more common crimes where I work. Easy solution to that. Lock up your car because most criminals don't want the attention that smashing a window typically generates. This isn't always the case but it is more often than not. As for police preventing crimes, one of the biggest ways that crime is prevented is through police presence. If the officer is spending his day in little neighborhoods, there's a good chance he will never be seen by the criminal 2 neighborhoods over. Every now and then he may get lucky and catch the bad guy in the commission. Most likely though, he is caught on his way to the crime or after leaving from the crime scene. However, if the officer is spending the majority of his time on the main streets and highways then there is a much more likely chance that criminal is going to see him. If the officer is an active one, the criminal will probably even see that officer with his lights on and behind a car. Criminal drives a little further down the road and sees another car pulled over. Next thing ya know, that criminal is going to decide to take his mischief somewhere else. A vehicle is used one way or another in nearly all crimes committed. So, if that officer is spending his downtime catching "speeders" or stopping cars for other traffic offenses then he has a much better chance of catching that criminal than he does riding around in neighborhoods shaking hands and kissing babies. In the town that I work, we have obviously, two different rotations. One rotation is very active and spends most of their time on main streets and highways whereas the other rotation spends the majority of their time in neighborhoods. It's very rare to hear of any crimes, such as b&e's being committed while the active rotation is working. However, the other rotation sees it quite often. I work traffic for my department, so my primary focus is working wrecks, stopping cars, and catching the impaired drivers. In doing this, I have caught suspects that were committing crimes in other towns with stolen property, caught people with felony warrants from other states, etc. these are all people that would never have been noticed by the officer riding around in back neighborhoods. Ya' see, there is a lot more to a traffic stop than just an officer "generating revenue" and usually when I explain this to the unhappy citizens that complain about being "harassed" for speeding a little the conversation ends with a thank you.

I've always had a thing for Avril Lavigne.

I've never had scrapple but it seems to be basically the same from what I just read on Neeces website. They say its just a little coarser. Maybe more cornmeal?

It's a North Carolina thing. Took me a while to give it a try because of the name. Good stuff though. Even good on sandwiches. It's also called Liver pudding.

Can't believe nobody has mentioned anything about corned beef hash or livermush. Mmmm. Fried livermush, grits, fried eggs, and a few pieces of toast!!

There we go. It's all fixed. No Super Bowl here tonight. Watching The Paperboy and falling asleep on NyQuil.

Tourettes guy in grocery store http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q3hX2bfOloY Little old thread but figured I'd use this one rather than starting a new one. Someone showed me some of these on YouTube the other day and I laughed my ass off! Mobile only link. I don't know how to fix that. If someone can, that would be awesome!

Careful.. Once the mods wake up they might see this blatant PA and call you on it. Oh wait. You're on the same side of the argument as the mods in this forum... You get a pass. Guys! Quit giving Kallend a hard time. He's never been to a range] Wrong. And probably started shooting before you were born. What you started shooting before I was born doesn't count. See attachment. Grow up, kid. Haha after you, grandpa!

Careful.. Once the mods wake up they might see this blatant PA and call you on it. Oh wait. You're on the same side of the argument as the mods in this forum... You get a pass. Guys! Quit giving Kallend a hard time. He's never been to a range] Wrong. And probably started shooting before you were born. What you started shooting before I was born doesn't count. See attachment.

Careful.. Once the mods wake up they might see this blatant PA and call you on it. Oh wait. You're on the same side of the argument as the mods in this forum... You get a pass. Guys! Quit giving Kallend a hard time. He's never been to a range so he wouldn't be familiar with the atmosphere, but he IS the smartest person he's ever met. He really does have a brain. A brain with a 12 year old mentality. That's not a p.a. Btw. That's a compliment.

Fupa?

See attachment. A little Duck Dynasty comedy.

I personally know of three people in the last year alone to become new gun owners. This was before the big gun hype too. I know of zero in my entire lifetime to own a gun one day and not own one the next. How many do you know that have given up their gun?

uh... the .223 (5.56x45) is not "also known as a .22 caliber" except maybe as a joke amongst people who prefer the .308 (7.62x51) The .22 LR (5.6x15) is "also known as a .22 caliber" The .223; 22-250; .22 short; .22 long; .22 long rifle; .22 WMR. All .22 caliber. .30-06; .308; .30-30; .300 magnum; .338; etc. all .30 caliber Caliber is only the diameter of the bullet in inches. In other words a .223 is just that, .223 inches in diameter. Obviously a .22 rim fire and a .223 center fire are entirely different rounds. They are however, both .22 caliber. Edited to add: your post got me to thinking so I looked into it a little. The .223 and .22lr are apparently both .224" in diameter. At least from what I've read. The internal bore diameter for the .22lr is .217" in diameter and the .223 is .219" in diameter.

Also keep in mind that we're in a fairly unhealthy economy. There are many many gun manufacturers in the U.S. Browning, Remington, Winchester, Marlin, Ruger, Savage, Smith & Wesson are only a few of those many manufacturers. If we stopped the manufacture of firearms, which would also stop the manufacture of ammunition then think of the countless people that would suddenly lose jobs. In an economy with horrible unemployment rates already, I don't think that would help. In fact it may even add to crime as people will find a way to feed their families one way or another. With or without a firearm. To answer your previous question about shotguns. Yes, they are considered firearms. They just aren't talked about as much in the political arena because they're not an AR and typically don't look as "mean" as an "assault rifle."

I think you hit the nail on the head about causing blood pressures to boil. One thing I want to put out and this isn't meant directly at any one particular person but more so everybody against guns. Not gun control, but guns as I think a lot of people still have the misunderstanding that the gun is the problem when in reality it's the person behind the gun. I've been lurking around SC for quite a while now, making a few posts here and there but SC isn't really my cup of tea. I'm more of a Bonfire person. I finally decided to speak out because guns are a subject in which I'm very passionate about. It literally is a way of life for me and has been since a little child. Just like skydiving is a subject that we all have in common. Im sure we'd all agree that the wuffos just don't understand us. I'm sure most of us would fight to keep skydiving allowed and the various disciplines within the sport. Some of those battles have already been fought and are currently being fought I'm sure. From the age of 4, when my dad bought me my first firearm (.410 shotgun) I have owned several and gun safety was drilled into my head beginning even before that. Surprisingly, I don't currently own an "assault rifle" although I am issued one. I just want you guys/gals to understand that for a lot of people, if our gun rights are taken away, even if the right to own certain types of firearms (excluding full autos by civilians) are taken away then a LOT of people are going to hurt that shouldn't have to. I do understand that innocent lives shouldn't be lost just so people can enjoy a way of life but at the same time, applying certain restrictions on certain firearms won't make that difference. The restrictions need to be placed on the person and I'm all for that. As long as they're reasonable. My definition if reasonable was posted a few posts above. To all the people I have argued with tonight, please don't take any of it as disrespect toward you. I'm sure each of you are very well meaning, warm hearted people and I would love the opportunity to jump with you someday. After I get current again.

I agree with you that there should be more control on firearms. ALL firearms. I also agree the standards should be tightened, but not to the point it's virtually impossible to own a firearm. Currently, it's not illegal to own a fully automatic weapon by a civilian. However, the standards are so strict that it is nearly impossible to do so by the average civilian and rightly so. I really don't see the need for a civilian to own a fully automatic firearm. Which is the true definition of an assault weapon. I feel one way to tighten those standards would be to implement some sort of registration process for each and every firearm to a specific owner. Much like registering your vehicle. Contrary to popular belief, that isn't currently the case. Firearms won't show up into NCIC until they are either reported stolen or lost by the alledged owner. Even then it only happens if they either remember the serial number/OAN (owner applied number)or have it stored away somewhere. When an applicant attempts to register their firearm they must then pass the background checks including fingerprints sent to both FBI and Interpole along with a psychological exam by someone certified to give such exams. Basically the same process a police officer applicant would have to pass. If that is what you mean, then I agree. ETA: this is something that could be put into place now with no "Grandfather clause". If you pass, you get to keep your firearm, if not then you don't. Also, this would apply to anybody in possession of a firearm, not just someone who owns one.

That's not what I meant about warrant less searches and seizures. I meant if you're removing the right to keep and bear arms, why not remove some more rights while we're at it? I mean after all, it would make Leo's jobs much easier on the war against drugs. Another problem we seem to face. Which is also one of the biggest reasons for violent crimes.