birdlike

How so? Americans believe in gun rights. You're the minority, and since the 2000 loss the Democratic Party has steered clear of the subject. And even if a majority didn't, the Bill of Rights isn't subject to the mob. Excellent point, that last. And yes, if anti-gun-rights is the majority opinion, someone needs to explain why the anti-gun left politicians in the U.S. are not ramming every gun control law they can think of down our throats--which would be willing throats, because supposedly a "majority" believe in gun control, and in no alleged right to own guns. But instead, those anti-gun left politicians that we know desperately want to enact gun bans won't go near the subject, and the only reasonable explanation of it is that they fear the unpopularity they would invite come the next election if they did so. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders because the facts are simply quite the opposite of what you think. You left an awful lot of stuff in my post simply unanswered. We can see, every time you post, how much you ignore, and the easy conclusion is that you have nothing to say that can address our points. I asked you things like why haven't these millions of people already started having millions of explosive-temper moments and used their guns to kill? I pointed to Vermont, where no one has to have a license to carry a gun legally, and the fact that Vermont consistently ranks among the lowest crime states in the U.S. Why won't you address these issues? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21670/Crime-Statistics-Murders because the facts are simply quite the opposite of what you think. South Africa is a poor example, it is not a first world country and fighting and killing is part of the history there. Why is South Africa a "poor example"? Because you don't want to grant that no country with a gun BAN in place should ever have a murder rate higher than a country with extremely easy access to guns, which is how gun-banners like you characterize the U.S.? I mean, please explain why the concept of banning guns becomes implausible just because you say a given country is not developed enough. They ban civilian gun ownership in South Africa. So since the country is what, bound inextricably to violence, we should not "count" them as a failure of gun control? How do we know that if we did their kind of gun ban in the U.S., it would not fail to curb murder just as it fails to curb murder in South Africa? Maybe it's not the notion of whether it's a first-world or third-world nation that governs the likelihood of a gun ban's success, hm? Besides, your link to the murder rate doesn't help -- we know nothing about who engaged in what kind of study of what statistics to arrive at that chart! For all I know, that shit could be 100% made-up! And another reason we can't rely on your numbers is that we don't know the methodology for the counting. Maybe they are relying on statistics compiled by each nation's government (which is common, because what researcher is going to keep his own statistics on the murder rates in various countries? For example, I have read that certain government statistics on murder do not count murders unless they have been solved. That would mean that if the government didn't bother to solve half the murders, their stats would be half of what they should be. Some governments count seven dead in the same incident as "one murder". So your citation of these statistics is meaningless. And you have failed to explain why it's "only fair" to leave non-first-world countries out of the critical comparison. Every time we point out that a country with a gun ban still has a ridiculously high firearm murder rate, you say, "Oh, but you can't compare the U.S. with that country!" WHY NOT? A gun ban is a gun ban is a gun ban. If it's alleged by you that when a government bans guns, it means the criminals who want them will be prevented from doing so, saving us from the risk of being murdered, why can we show you places where the gun bans don't stop the criminals? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What about South Africa? Strict gun laws, and ASTRONOMICAL CRIME RATE. You simply cannot correlate having the right to have guns with a high crime rate. You also cannot correlate having strict gun laws with having a low crime rate. The state of Vermont allows anyone with a clean criminal record to carry a gun without so much as a permit to do so. VERY low crime rate--among the lowest in the U.S. Why are you having such a ridiculously hard time understanding these facts? Why are you asking "what is to stop them?" If millions of gun owners were going to need to be "stopped from shooting people in the heat of the moment," we'd be seeing that already. You carry on like there are hundreds of thousands, or millions, of criminal shooting deaths in the U.S. The idea of this is patently absurd. Besides, are you really equating the average, normal person with the kind of psychotic who, because he gets angry, goes and shoots people? Are you implying that I might just unexpectedly and inexplicably "lose control" of myself and "in the heat of the moment" just go on a fucking MURDER SPREE? I wish you had the capacity to see how ludicrous that sounds. But I guess that if you did, you wouldn't be alleging this nonsense. I cannot reconcile the ideas you've expressed here as rational. There you go again, falsely imputing--because of your failure to understand--that I somehow am "living in fear." You go ahead and believe that if you feel you must. It won't affect me in the slightest. But it'll still be 100% wrong. You seem to be the one in total fear: you carry on as though every ordinary person is just a bubbling cauldron of explosive violent murderous rage just waiting to get its hands on a gun. You ask constantly what's going to stop the murder tide of al these millions of gun owners from happening. WHO is the one who lives in fear? As the sarcastic saying goes, "I have a gun: why would I be fearful?" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That's kinda like being a professional driver and having a seatbelt tattooed across your gut! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

N/A

Thanks, you guys. I haven't been at this long enough to have had to do this before, so I didn't know except for roughly what had to happen. I thought I had to send the rig out. Very cool that I can jump it without the CYPRES if need be. I'm not afraid of doing so any more than I'd be "afraid" to drive around town without my seatbelt on. I just think it unwise and since I paid $1000 for the thing, might as well have it functioning! Gonna get on it soon, now that my USPA renewal got here in record time! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Wow. That's an amazing story, and a scary one! I'm very glad that no one was seriously injured, but more glad that you state the priceless lesson this very close call taught you. I was very fortunate when I was learning to skydive (as though I'm not still learning to skydive!) that I had some guys around me who took MY safety seriously, and were my surrogates until I learned how to do it myself. I had some instructors and buddies around who had no fear about telling me, DO NOT JUMP TODAY. Imagine what it takes to tell an overconfident new jumper that he drove for an hour to waste gas and not even skydive, and these guys had those kinda guts. For all I know, I may be alive today but for them. (One of them gave me a quick, "Be safe!" right before a jump, and because of it I did another gear check before loading up, and found I had misrouted my chest strap! It's great that you posted this in the effort to get others to wake up to that "gut feeling" and start to HEED IT. You won't reach some of the know-it-alls and macho schmucks, but you WILL REACH SOME, and your words today may save lives. Another lesson I would roll into this one is, "If you have to RUSH to make it onto the plane, LET THE PLANE GO WITHOUT YOU." I swore to make this my personal rule and I still abide by it. Why is that rule important to me? Because I don't want to learn the hard way what it can cost me to forget something crucial because I was rushing. Blue skies, everyone.

N/A

Would a mod please change the thread topic to reflect the correction to the battery size, please? It should say "CR2330". Thank you!

Thanks for the reminder. I re-read that in the manual when I was verifying the battery size needed. I don't think it was a kindness you didn't deserve: what the heck were they thinking, designing the thing with tiny gold springs that fall out with zero retention as soon as you open the device for a routine battery change?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Shoulda set this up as a poll and asked if people thought it was real or not. I definitely think it was entirely acted. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm nowhere near being a camerflyer but you can bet that I want to be, someday. I've never met Norman Kent but I know of him by reputation, and he is a living legend. Those are very cool.

Ron, I think that was 2006, not 1996. I never tire of seeing this one quoted. What I tire of is that the anti-gunners NEVER ADDRESS IT. They whine and cry that the more guns, the more crime. When you point out that each year grows the number of guns by a MILLION and yet crime remains level, even goes down sometimes, they say nothing! It's unreal! Another gem that the anti-gunners never go near to addressing. The simple fact is, THEY KNOW THEY ARE WRONG. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

It is quite diificult to to talk to right wing gun fanatics as they/you have your attitudes set in concrete. Now sherlock, All gun free zones that i have been in. eg. Airports and conventions etc. have metal detectors, these stop other wepons such as knives at the same time. Sherlock, have you never voted? In the U.S., polling places tend to be "gun-free zones," as well as most schools, and bars, and post offices. I have never in my life been to a post office that was guarded by an armed guard, and posted with metal detectors. Have you? No? Then I dare say that you've been to "gun-free zones" that were not thusly guarded. A "gun-free zone" is any place that says it is a "gun-free zone." Our whole point is that it is pathetic wishful thinking that calling a place a "gun-free zone" establishes that badguys cannot bring guns into them and slaughter innocent people. You really think that a determined psycho would not be able to approach a metal detector, with planning aforethought, and be able to shoot a metal detector guard--even an armed one-- in the face before the guard knows he has a psycho to defend against? And then maybe a few more people before the first additional officers arrive? Come on, now, it's that hard for even a balanced mind to imagine. What is stopping you from citing us some examples of this very thing. Surely with a 232 year history of gun ownership in the U.S., and now 80,000,000 gun owners with 300,000,000 guns, if this were a persistent problem, you could find examples to cite for us left and right! Why are you asking as though we are waiting for this kind of thing to start happening? We've had all of the ingredients in place for it to happen for quite a long time already. Still, you ask, "What's to stop it from happening?" as though still waiting. This is like waiting for the predictions of "blood running in the streets" after concealed carry becomes law. It's been law for decades now, and still the anti-gunners are acting like, "Any minute now [tapping watch]... Wait... Any minute now the blood'll be... you know... Any minute now." It's been 21 years in Florida. CWL holders committing crimes are an insignificant, infinitesimal statistical *blip*. I certainly do. Would YOU risk walking into a bank and demanding all the cash, knowing that seven people in line behind you have guns they know how to use, and so does your teller, and so does the manager, and so does every teller down the line? Would YOU risk robbing a liquor store knowing that the counterman has a gun he knows how to use, and so do the two stockboys, and so do the five customers roaming the aisles? Ditto. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No. Then I am lying when I quote you as having said the following: "However in general it stands that when within a country the rate of gun ownership is high, the rate of gun related deaths is high as well"? Since the rate of gun ownership can't be high, low, or in between "without a country" (whatever that would mean) I took you to mean that you were comparing parts of a country "within" a country that have high rate of gun ownership with those parts "within" the country that have low rates of gun ownership. Maybe the discussion would benefit from you being clearer about what it is you mean. It's just a thought, worth considering, hey? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Edwards said that he's willing to take a test for paternity. I want the bluff checked. Is he counting on the idea that we won't demand the check simply because he dared us to do it and claimed he doesn't fear it? CHECK HIM OUT. I want to know if he's compounded the initial lies with another whopper about whose kid it is. What does it matter if the child is his? He comitted adultery and admitted it. The reason it is relevant is because first he flatly denied the allegations of the affair (called it "tabloid trash") and now that he admits the affair, he calls the allegations that it might be his daughter untrue. How would we know? It wouldn't be an issue, you are right, if he were not a known liar making a tough-to-swallow denial. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oops how embarrasing. I must have been using "conservative math" (kind of like "conservative spelling"). Don Maybe you were under liberal "sniper fire" as you did the math, then. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Do you really think that just because you casually slip in the invalid notion that execution following a fair trial and jury verdict is "murder" that it would go unchallenged? You can call it murder all day long, but an execution that follows a fair, legal trial and conviction on the charge of murder is... not... murder, by any definition, unless you throw out all etymological standards and just capriciously say "it's murder because I don't recognize any actual academic definition of that term and choose to apply it to legal execution on my whim." I don't agree with the state being able to MURDER, either! But the prosecution of crimes is done by the PEOPLE, through the system that represents them. A JURY made up of those PEOPLE is who decides, and is free to decide against, a person being executed. You make it sound like "the Government" just gets to flippantly say that it wants to murder a given person and that's the power you are guarding against letting the government have. Well, that does not accurately reflect the reality we're talking about, here. It's funny but you always seem to have to distort what we're actually talking about in order to score your points. Then make the execution painful. Evidently your objection to capital punishment is not run-of-the-mill: you actually seem to oppose it because it is not cruel ENOUGH! That's pretty novel. But there are solutions for that; as I said, just make execution something horrifically painful, and it'll be "punishment" enough to satisfy even your bloodlust-- Jeanne, was it? Yes, but how hard does anyone keep taking second and third and fourth looks at the convictions of lifers? They are not the cause célèbre that the capital cases are. No glory for the ACLU or SPLC attorney who gets a lifer released. I empathize with rape victims, but I think that knowing that the perpetrator will stare his own premature death down should suffice. (And as I said, I think we should notch-up the suffering. To eleven.) I can't think of much more horrifying than to think that you are about to be strapped down by people who loathe you, in front of more people who loathe you, and forced to have your life end unnaturally. Then you should, by rights, be anti-liberal, because traditionally the same people who oppose capital punishment also are the lenient soft-hearts who want to give rapists and murderers "a second chance to become productive members of society." Do you think it's conservatives who favor letting vicious criminals back out? The gun owners and conservatives who talk constantly about wanting to throw the switch themselves, and about using lethal defense against carjackers and burglars and armed robbers? Surely you don't think it's the conservatives who put "life in prison" on the books and then promptly made that term ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MEANINGLESS as we watch "25 to life" turn into 18 years with time off for good behavior? And even IF we legislated that "life means LIFE"--no parole, no nothing. Go back to what I said about the non-violent drug offender knifed to death in prison by the hardened repeat-murderer. Who compensates him? Even while in prison for life, they still murder more innocents. That's why I feel death is the only sure thing--the only safe thing--to do with murderers. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

First, you have to accept these things: - cops just live to send the wrong people to death for crimes they did not commit - the accused would not have legal counsel to guard against this "ramming through" - a jury would not have to be convinced, and the same with a judge, to get a conviction and a death sentence That's a lot to have to accept in order for your point to be valid. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The same goes for the 1 innocent person who is killed by a murderer that we should have put to death. As long as the murderer's next victim is not your relative, you don't mind letting him go on living. This example of yours certainly goes both ways. See my other example, about someone in prison for something minor, who is exposed to a high concentration of depraved, violent people, including murderers, and has to hope he doesn't get murdered in prison because you insisted that was where we should warehouse the most vile killers we have. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Do you not give children credit for being able to understand the difference? You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree. But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong. Execution is not murder. They are both killing, but they are not equivalents. Skydiving and committing suicide off a building are both falling, but are they the same? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But that's just the thing. Anyone dangerous who's warehoused in a prison after murdering represents a clear danger to anyone with whom he comes in contact. Example: How would you like it if your nephew got sentenced to 36 months for some bullshit pot arrest, and then because he looked at the wrong mofo the wrong way in the joint, he gets shanked in the yard and DIES IN PRISON WHILE THERE FOR POT, because some SHITBAG MURDERER WAS ALSO THERE, BUT WAS GIVEN LIFE INSTEAD OF EXECUTION? Then there is always the issue of guards who are just doing their (dangerous) jobs, and get killed by prisoners. I see it as safer all around--for the guards, for the other inmates (who may not be such bad people, depending on what they got bagged for), for society in general. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Edwards said that he's willing to take a test for paternity. I want the bluff checked. Is he counting on the idea that we won't demand the check simply because he dared us to do it and claimed he doesn't fear it? CHECK HIM OUT. I want to know if he's compounded the initial lies with another whopper about whose kid it is. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire