wolfriverjoe

It would be nice. So many are preventable. I doubt it will happen.

No, there's a lot of truth in it, even if the attribution isn't correct. A bit sappy, but I like it.

Not really. The floor was there when I went to bed the night before. I can test and demonstrate that the floor is there without actually seeing it (observing someone else in the room, dropping an object over the side, observing the fact that I'm not falling through the sky or laying down in the basement). There are objective tests and demonstrations that will show the floor is there. You know, a 'preponderance of evidence' that the floor exists. That can be shown before I step out of bed or even look over the side to see it. God and the Bible? Not so much. In fact, there's a ton of evidence that "God's Word" is inaccurate. Genesis & Noah are the two most obvious.

So presuming that the Bible is the 'word of God' ISN'T a preconception? It's funny how you bounce back and forth between the idea that the Bible is the "word of God" and "laws put in place by man" depending on what you do and don't obey. Or want to force others to obey.

But that's not until July.

'Cuz the religious types con people into believing in 'life after death'. Telling them you can 'be in heaven for eternity' (that's forever and it's a mighty long time). Of course, to get there you have to do what the 'high priests' tell you to do. Which usually means give them money. And the flip side of that being if you don't do what they tell you, you burn in hell for that same 'eternity'.

First off, my post was at least mostly sarcastic. You should know that, we've gone back and forth enough times (note - I think you knew that). Second, the 'language' issue is a huge one. "Interpreting" the Constitution has a few different facets, presuming one is doing it honestly. Deciding what the founders meant. Deciding if what was appropriate then is appropriate now. Deciding if altering the original meaning is appropriate, and what it will bring in the future. Fortunately, we have a fair amount of background info from when it was written, and can refer to that to try to determine what the 'original intent' was. The other two are a lot harder. That's why, in theory, the Supreme Court justices who are making most of these decisions should have a LOT of experience in doing so, and a lot of previous decisions as lower court judges. Or at least they used to have that.

Right. "Well regulated" "Militia" "Cruel and unusual punishment" "Foreign entanglements"

Car crashes. Heart disease. Cancer. The idiots have been posting videos purporting to show various officials admitting that the Covid numbers are false. There was a fire, a terrible flood, locusts. It wasn't his fault!!!!!

Correct. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Hope for what? "Eternal life"? Going to heaven? Being saved from 'eternal damnation'? Or simply the reality that death is the end of life? It's absolutely amazing the lengths and depths of insanity people will go to in order to escape that. Not gonna happen. Jay has claimed that there's 'a preponderance of evidence' for the existence of God. Yet, when asked to produce even one shred of this claimed 'evidence', he either falls back on the Bible, or is silent.

They sue at the drop of a hat. You think they wouldn't file a bunch of lawsuits to shut you down? It's all copyrighted. They'd have a pretty strong infringement case.

Well, the Bible does say that for a man to lay with a man is an abomination. I'm not aware of it saying anything about a woman laying with another woman, either for or against.

The problem with this idea is that the student progression is already established. What you're quoting from the SIM is for people who are switching methods because they have to. While I agree with Rob that a training method that incorporates a variety of methods would be ideal, it's not how it's done in the 'real world'. Either AFF or S/L-IAD will get you to your A. Never forget that the A isn't the end, it's just the beginning. Either will start you off on a big, docile canopy appropriate for students. While the majority of accidents do happen on landing, student injuries aren't super common. Switching around between methods, and particularly DZs will hurt more than help. You'll spend a lot of time & money repeating stuff and demonstrating skills you've already shown to someone else. I believe you are overthinking it.

YOUR model. You keep forgetting or ignoring that not everyone believes the same as you.

Bounce

Nothing. Unless you call spending donation money on political activism "free exercise of religion". And that political activism is simply another way of forcing that religion on everyone. I have no problems with religious organizations using their money to further political purposes... As long as they give up their tax-exempt status when they do so.

Yup. You pick and choose which laws to believe and follow and which to ignore. Tell me again about 'proclaiming righteousness'. FWIW, the dad of the guy fired from Liberty U founded a group whose PRIMARY PURPOSE was to tell other people where they were falling short and how to do it right.

So why do so many religious types quote the Bible when condemning homosexuality? Saying that it goes against God. Of course, they ignore all the other stuff Bill mentioned.

Not that it doesn't happen. But since those folks don't run around proclaiming their righteousness, and condemning those who believe differently, it's not a big scandal and blatant hypocrisy when it does become public.

Yes you did. You may not have meant it that way, you may not have realized it. Taking away guns, and presumably not allowing them to get more, takes away their rights. Just like locking someone up takes away their rights. Generally when "law enforcement" 'confiscates' guns, they don't give them back. There's a ton of stories about that. To order someone to surrender their guns to a family member or friend (or lawyer or whoever) for a specific amount of time is a bit different from what you posted. That sounds more like when I meant when I wrote 'the gun'. The background check would be 'any time a person comes into posession of a gun'. So, for someone who already has several guns, who has passed a background check recently, would they be required to pass another one? IIRC, Iowa has a 'purchaser's card', that shows a person has passed a background check and allows them to buy multiple guns. It alleviates the multiple checks, and the fees that come with. I'm in favor of that idea. A seller, or 'giver', or 'loaner' or whatever simple checks the card (presumably they can verify the card with a phone call, but I really don't know the details) and then can be reasonably sure they aren't selling, giving or loaning a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. And any time? What about if a hunter loans a gun to a friend to go hunting with (accompanied by the owner)? What about a family member borrowing a gun to take to the range (not accompanied by the owner)? I'm not opposed to the idea of background checks in principle, but some of the details are a bit difficult to work out. I've heard (read) a variety of issues that the mandatory background checks in California have raised. From dealers charging an exorbitant 'transfer fee' to do an 'intra-family' gift, to insisting on acting as the sale agent (purchasing the gun from the selller and selling it to the buyer - for a profit). And, of course, the simple fact that virtually ALL of the mass shootings that have happened have been done with guns that were purchased with a background check (the Sandy Hook guns were stolen by the shooter from his mother, whom he killed, but she went through the checks). Interestingly, the "Kenosha Kid", Kyle Rittenhouse, got his rifle via a straw purchase.

Interesting. Does the background check apply to the owner, or to the gun? By that, I mean is there some sort of check that then permits the person to buy guns for a set period of time? There are states that have this sort of thing. Or is it a fresh background check for each purchase? That's how it works now for purchase from a FFL dealer in most places. The idea that a court could revoke the right to guns separately is a bit unsettling. If somoene is so mentally ill that they shouldn't posess a gun, then they probably shouldn't be free to roam around in public. There are already committment procedures in place. Many places have a '72 hour hold' where a person can be locked up on the word of a cop and a doctor. Would you have a set of standards in place to take away guns? Or would it be at the judge's discretion. Yes, I'm going down the 'some judges would take guns away from anyone who makes a threatening statement, while others wouldn't take them away until they killed someone' path. And your 'for starters' comment is troubling. While I agree that there could (and maybe should) be other stuff put in place, one of the biggest reasons the 'gun lobby' opposes any restrictions is because they always seem to be 'for starters'. Look at what was proposed for "Brady 2". If there hadn't been a big pushback in the 96 mid-terms, after the AWB was passed, there would be a LOT more restrictions in place.

True. No matter what, it was a trap. And, again, kinda funny how it only applied to humans. Did, for example, cats 'fall from grace'? They certainly can be pretty evil. Don't get me wrong - I really love cats, have had a number of them throughout my life and they're great companions. But they can be rather greedy, devious and vicious little beasts.

Well, that's free-fallen. Somewhat different from the 'fall from grace', where God put the 'tree of knowledge' in front of Adam and Eve, then told them not to eat the fruit. Kinda like putting hats with bricks under them on the sidewalk. No way someone won't come along and kick it. So God gave the choice of living in ignorant 'paradise', which is basically slavery, and dying while 'having knowledge', which they really didn't. And, of course, it was the woman's fault that we 'fell'. Said 'fall', of course, putting us right back in the same sort of slavery, where we have to kowtow to this 'God' fella, doing what the "high priests' tell us or risk spending 'all of eternity' being burned constantly. 'Cuz, you know, "God loves you". If you stop and think about it, Q actually is more plausible.

I'm about your size. I flew a 190 Triathlon after student gear. Jumped that until about #200 and went to a 170 Sabre2. Haven't changed from that, and I'm a bit above 600 right now. No real plans to downsize. I've thought about demoing a 150, but the couple times I was somewhere to do that, it kept being unavailable. No big worries. I'm about your age, too. So the idea of a nice, gentle, reasonably slow canopy is a good thing.

Please, professor. Pee Wee Herman makes a better speech than Trump. For that matter, so would Mel Tillis, if he were still alive. (Helpful hint: Mel Tillis had a pretty severe stutter, which disappeared completely when he sang)