bmcd308

>>It goes back to the old "yelling fire in the movie theater" analogy.>That is quite a leap you are taking>It will take drastically more than that to make it unidentifiable with the original weapon.

>>how they are designed exclusively to cause harm, as is the case with firearms.

>>Assume that there was a cheap, easy way to uniquely identify a round from any given gun. Would you still be against it? If so, why?

the EOS 1D That's the cheap one, right? ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

Actually, I didn't mean to sling mud, nor do I agree that the passages you quote are "rhetoric" as opposed to fact, with the possible exception of the second one, and I will allow that opinions may differ as to whether their hearts actually bleed. The Supreme Court Justice reference was meant to cause you to reflect on whether the Justices of the SC were actually performing their duties to uphold the Constitution or if they were allowing the pressure of the moment to influence their decisions. I think we can both agree that they are, we are just likely to disagree about whether that is a good thing. Warren Burger loses some credibility with me because of his reference to "Saturday Night Specials", a racial epithet that was intended when coined to make white folks afraid of black folks with guns. Its etymology is from the phrase "n****r-town Saturday night", a racist phrase about the goings on during weekend evenings in poor parts of town. The term SNS has lost much of that baggage over time, but only because it was a catchy and convenient term. In fact, the whole idea that items of personal protection should have to be expensive is somewhat classist, anyway. In fact, lots of gun control has historically been based on racism and/or classism. Right here in Tennessee, we had a law during Reconstruction that said that the only arms you could carry in public places were Colt Army and Navy revolvers. These revolvers were quite expensive, and few blacks could afford them. Confederate Officers would have had to supply their own, however, so a good number of wealthy white folks already had them. As to Franklin, he was peripherally involved in drafting the Constitution and was actually an Anti-Federalist, if memory serves me correctly. As such, it is safe to say that the Bill of Rights would have been a compromise designed to protect what his camp would have considered the absolute minimum "essential liberties." With regard to the airbag analogy, demand for cars is fairly inelastic in terms of units. While demand for a particular car is elastic due to the large number of competing manufacturers, the demand for all cars is farily inelastic - after all, pretty much everybody needs one. That analogy does not play well with firearms, because demand is elastic. Higher prices lead to fewer total firearms sold. The hoplophobes know that and think it is a good thing. I know it too, and I think it is a bad thing. As for the line that separates what we can own from what we can't, I will say that at the time this country was founded, an individual could buy the most terrible weapons of the day, canon, and mount them on ships of war. Is it practical for a pissed off person to nuke a city? Not right now, so I'm not sure you have to worry about it. There is a concept that I believe in called "discretion of force." Some weapons, such as a nuclear missile, offer very little discretion of force to their operator. There is a delay between decision to fire and impact, and there is incredible risk of unintentional damage. Hand grenades are similar. In the 5 seconds between spoon launch and explosion, a lot of stuff can change in the target area. I use that as a personal rationalization for not allowing people to own nukes and hand grenades. But that is the same type of slippery slope we are talking about now, so I recognize the inconsistency in my own views. >>yours rights stop where mine begin. Your rights are no more important than mine.

With the possible exception of the night in highschool that a couple of cheerleaders had way too much tequila, I really can't think of anything wrothwhile that Satan has ever done for me. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

If you agree that there was no National Guard at the time the Constitution was written, then you see the magnitude of the problem the citizens of this country are facing. Supreme Court Justices are among our most trusted government officials, who take the strongest oath to uphold the Constitution and who should be of sufficient character to take that duty seriously. Let's hear from those who wrote the Constitution, so we can see if they actually meant to write that "Given that firearms are a privelege of the elite class and that it is necessary for government to have a monopoly of violence in order to properly subjugate the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be steadily eroded by legislation over the next 300 years." Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764.) Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Historical Review of Pennsylvania, (1759.) Richard Henry Lee: "A militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms..." Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788.) Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776,) Jefferson Papers 344, (J. Boyd, ed. 1950.) John Adams: "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self defence." A Defense of the U.S. Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88.) James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist #46. Thomas Paine: "...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thoughts on Defensive War, (1775.) Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, (1788.) George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788.) BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

I, on the other hand, found the one that was done on my here in Tennessee invasive and offensive. Why should I have to prove I am "worthy" to exercise a right given to mankind by God and guaranteed to me as a citizen of this country? When the government gets to require me to have a license to exercise a right, it is not really a right anymore, is it? It become a privilege granted by the government. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

I sort of can't believe that you are not kidding, given what I have read from you in other threads. But assuming you are serious, I will try to lay it out. First, it will dramatically increase the cost of manufacture of firearms. This will lead to higher retail prices. This will lead to fewer people owning them. This is the only and I repeat ONLY impact that this legislation will have. How do I know this? Because I know what ballistic fingerprinting is. BF means that they fire a round and keep a database of the marks the breechface leaves on the case and that the barrel leaves on the bullet. But remember that every (yes, every) time a gun is fired, it permanently alters the shape of the breechface and barrel. It is not a slam dunk for a ballistic fingerprinting expert to definitively say that two bullets were fired from the same gun even if they were fired in succession (i.e. test bullet is the very next time the gun is fired after the crime bullet). In order to get around it, all you would have to do is either fire the gun a few times to change its "ballistic fingerprint" or, if you are really slick, take a file and put a scratch on the breechface so that it will leave a different mark. Or replace the firing pin so that it will leave a different mark. Or use an abrasive cleaner to clean your barrel so that its lands and grooves are a few thousandths different. Or.... Ballistic fingerprinting is nothing more than a scheme by freedom hating people to try to exercise more control over everyone. They have found, in the bleeding heart left, a sympathetic group who do not question the real value of their proposals who will promote them with good intentions. And unfortunately, there are so many members of the bleeding heart left in the media who are willing to repeat the nonsense over and over that, after a while, it starts to sound reasonable, even to people like you. We live in a country where people are free. If you f**k up, we have jails and electric chairs. But until you f**k up once, the risk that you will f**k up is a risk that the whole society has to bear. That is the price of freedom. Please read Chile Relleno's sig line sometime. Our boy Ben was right. Hope this straightens you out and makes you want to vote libertarian but that you go against your conscience and just vote for the more libertarian of the electable candidates until such time as a libertarian is an electable candidate. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

If it is a .223, it will easily penetrate a car door. It is a very small bullet going very fast. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

The picture of W is fake. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

This rings true in a good number of skydiving situations. My first standup was my first jump off radio, and I set up short and landed on the runway. When I realized I was going to land on the runway (at about 30 feet, because I had no idea how to tell where I was going to land when I was higher), I gathered my courage and did it right. Second standup was a couple of jumps later, when a bad spot put the whole load of us into a freshly cut cotton field. As I flew over one of the other jumpers on the load and looked down at the four inch pungi sticks protruding from the ground, the other jumper yelled "Stand this one up!". Excellent advice, that I took. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

Pay someone who knows how to do it for you. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

I thought this was pretty neat. DULUTH, Minn. – October 4, 2002 – A Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) was deployed near Dallas, Texas, yesterday, when the pilot of an SR22 deployed the system after experiencing control difficulties. This marks the first time a certified aircraft has successfully landed under an airframe parachute canopy. According to FAA reports, the pilot radioed to the tower yesterday afternoon that he was experiencing compromised control of his SR22, and had decided to deploy the CAPS. The aircraft landed in a wooded area between Lewisville and Carrollton in northern Texas. The FAA also reported that the pilot was uninjured in the incident. “Saving the life of pilots is the reason we chose this route”, stated Alan Klapmeier President and one of the company’s founders. “Cirrus Design pioneered the use of this innovative safety measure in its planes to help set the course for all personal aviation. Building CAPS into our aircraft was done to contribute to the overall level of safety in personal air travel and protect the general aviation pilots of the future. Although our first measure of safety is prevention, we are delighted that CAPS worked to save this pilot. All of us at Cirrus Design can feel good about that." The company that supplies the parachute to Cirrus is BRS (Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc.), of St. Paul, MN. President and CEO Mark Thomas as was quoted by Aero-Net News stating, "This is a very exciting day for BRS. This is why we do what we do... and it solidifies Cirrus's amazing vision for making aviation as safe as they can. This time, that foresight averted a catastrophe and they need to be applauded for their vision." CAPS is standard equipment on all Cirrus aircraft, which are the only certified aircraft to employ such a system. Cirrus Alone in Providing Parachute Protection When Alan Klapmeier and his brother, Dale, founded Cirrus Design in 1984, they were committed to designing and manufacturing the safest general aviation aircraft possible. That philosophical decision was grounded in personal experience. As a young man, Alan Klapmeier survived a mid-air collision in which another pilot was killed. As a result, he was determined to find a way to make flying safer. “Even under the best of circumstances, crises can happen,” said Alan Klapmeier. “Our goal was to design an aircraft in which they didn’t have to be fatal.” Cirrus has spent over $10 million to develop, test and implement the CAPS, and is the only company to manufacture certified aircraft with an airframe parachute as standard equipment. It’s a decision that was derided by much of the aviation industry. “A lot of people thought we were nuts,” said Klapmeier. “They believed the parachute was an unnecessary expense that added weight to the aircraft to boot. To make things worse, they thought competent, macho pilots didn’t need it and wouldn’t use it anyway. Yesterday, Lionel Morrison proved them wrong.” Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS) of South St. Paul, Minn., supply Cirrus the parachutes and helped them design and certify CAPS. The system uses a parachute that is located in a canister behind the aft bulkhead. The parachute is connected to Kevlar harnesses embedded in the fuselage, coupled with 48-foot-long suspension lines. When the system is deployed, a solid rocket motor extracts the pressure-packed parachute assembly from its canister. The parachute achieves full-line stretch in about 1.5 seconds and fully extends in another few seconds, lowering the aircraft and its occupants to the ground. The system is designed to be used as a last resort, when all other means of controlling the aircraft safely have been exhausted. Possible situations when it could be appropriate to use the CAPS include mid-air collision, control impairment, mechanical failure, pilot incapacitation or loss of orientation or fuel exhaustion over hostile terrain. The safety features on Cirrus aircraft don’t end with the CAPS. Both the SR20 and SR22 feature seats tested to 26gs, incorporating a four-point harness on all four seats to meet the most stringent FAA requirements. Similarly, the Cirrus roll cage and composite airframe construction increase energy absorption and provide greater structural integrity offering up to 3g-rollover protection to the pilot and passengers. All these features contributed to yesterdays successful deployment and landing. Cirrus Design Corporation is based in Duluth, MN, with additional facilities in Hibbing, MN, and Grand Forks, ND. The company, manufactures and markets general aviation composite aircraft, incorporating advanced technologies that result in high levels of performance, safety and comfort. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

sweet ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

Haiku advice for Skybytch: Track Skybytch track hard Floaty-ass bitches dump quick Or fall right on you. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

Twenty-four block pool I forget which one comes next Another funnel. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

I bet her city side isn't bad, either... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

Once again, I find myself agreeing with billvon. You gotta let go. No, you're not evil for wanting some payback. But you'll find over time that the desire for payback fades, and you really want is to be happy. The sooner you let go, the sooner you can find your own happiness outside the realtionship. BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

I don't remember who the comedian was, but I saw one once who talked a good bit about interacting with aliens. His advice was to memorize the following phrase and say it promptly when you encounter an alien: "There is nothing in my ass that will save your dying planet." BMcD... ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

How often do you flip through weightlifting magazines thinking about sex? ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

I personally know a pilot who did exactly that. Please remember that pilots carried guns on planes routinely until very recently. Also, a taser is not an effective tool for CQB. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

Excellent analogy. This is almost exactly the same thing as engaging in a confrontational felony. Do you actually believe what you are saying, or are you lefty pacifist types just trying to get the reasonable people here riled up? ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

x = 1/2 a t^2 x=distance covered a=acceleration t=time a is determined by the difference between gravity and drag. If gravity = drag, then a=0 (TV). When you change your body position, you change your coefficient of drag, which changes your acceleration. EDITED TO ADD: Your velocity at a point in time is determined by the product of acceleration and time. So to answer your question in two parts: 1. In a vacuum, yes. After 6 seconds of freefall, your velocity will be half ow what it would be after 12 seconds of freefall. 2. As a practical matter, no. The above only holds true in a vacuum. Drag is a function of velocity, so as your speed picks up, your drag picks up also, such that you actually approach terminal velocity slowly. In the equation above, think of a going down over time slowly until it reaches 0 as you reach terminal. Drag increases with the square of velocity, so you are accelerating much more (your vertical speed is changing more per unit time) early in your freefall. BMcD ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com

Yo, Adrian. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com