wolfriverjoe

FFS. Read before you post. He doesn't read the links that he himself puts in a post. Why do you think he would read yours? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It would be foolhardy to say, "We should pray for those people, their eternal soul is in God's hands now." You have to say that they are condemned to eternal hellfire, even though that's usurping the power of God. You should read your book again. But... But... Then he wouldn't be able to judge and condemn people. Then he wouldn't be able to feel superior to them. You want to take away all the fun. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, first off, the security was apparently in full uniform. Not a CCW. And I don't disagree that an individual business owner should be able to decide whether or not to allow patrons to carry. Wisconsin has a pretty simple rule. Carry into bars is legal (unless the owner 'posts prohibited'). Consuming alcohol while carrying is illegal. There's also a ban on 'possession of a firearm while intoxicated' (not just for CCW but for anyone - is most often enforced on hunters). I know a married couple that the husband chooses to carry, so he's the designated driver when they go out. How many would be enough? I don't know. Maybe one? The idea of a shootout across the dance floor between multiple CCW holders and an active shooter is pretty "Hollywood", IMO. The mantra of "Run, hide, fight" applies pretty well, even when armed. There are reports that there were victims hiding in the bathrooms for a considerable time after the attack started. (based on texts sent by the victims). As I have suggested after some of the previous shootings, the best choice for an armed individual is to (if unable to escape entirely) take shelter in an available room, lock or bar the door if possible, get as many as possible of the others behind some sort of cover or concealment, and get into an off-axis position to shoot anyone entering the door. Ambush the attacker when he enters. It virtually eliminates the possibility of the armed citizen accidentally getting shot by another or the cops, and definitely increases the chances of everyone in the room surviving the incident. I don't disagree that better mental health services would be a strong plus. But I do want to know exactly what kind of "increased background checks" you think would help. Access to medical (mental health) records? HIPAA kind of gets in the way. Banning anyone on a "watch list"? Not a whole lot of 'due process' there. Requiring B/Cs for all transfers? Most of the recent shooters passed them to acquire the guns used. As I said in the other thread, I'm willing to listen to and possibly agree with implementing measures that will have an effect. But so many of the suggestions fall under the "do something, do anything" category. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

A rigger is "certificated" not licensed. Good point. Thank you. And thanks for the above clarification on the "possession" aspect too. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, to be a bit pedantic, if he is licensed, then he's a rigger. If he's not licensed, then he's not a rigger. It's part of the title of the rating. As was noted, riggers are issued cards. In theory, they are supposed to have that card in their possession when "exercising the privileges of the certificate." I'm not sure if they are required to present that card upon reasonable request (pilots are). Care to expand on your question? Is there a situation where someone is performing the duties and tasks of a rigger and you suspect they don't hold the rating? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It was not a gun free zone. There was an armed off duty police officer working security. He engaged the shooter, exchanging rounds. It did not stop the mass murder. I'm not against guns, or against CCW. I just don't understand how this part of the story is getting ignored in this thread. Well, the off duty cop (apparently a Marine vet also) was the only gun in there. It's a felony for a CCW holder to carry into a bar. And if the shooter was familiar with the place (apparently he was), then he would know that there was armed security. Apparently he had been "escorted out" by them in the past. That makes initial target selection pretty simple. And any ambush situation gives a hell of an advantage to the attacker. So with the element of surprise, rifle against pistol, it's not a big surprise that the security guy was ineffective. Actually, if the security guy got any shots off at all, that's rather impressive. But he was (again, reportedly) a Marine. Note: after proofreading this, the "was" in the last sentence may appear to be mocking the guy. That isn't the intent. It's to emphasize the training and experience Marines usually have. And to get back to how stuff is reported in the news, there was a recent shooting in Houston. A shooter with a rifle killed a person and shot up a neighborhood. There was another "person with a gun at the scene", who was originally portrayed as an accomplice. There have been reports that he was on the scene when the shooting started, pulled out a pistol and shot back with minimal effect. Again, surprise and a rifle against a pistol make for long odds. But none of the "big" news outlets really bothered to correct the story. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It does. There was one in Colorado at a church. A security guard shot & killed the shooter There was one in San Diego at a school. A janitor retrieved a pistol from his car and stopped the shooter. There was one in Paarl MS where the principal of a school retrieved a pistol from his car and stopped the shooter. That's off the top of my head. There are a lot of others if you search them out. You don't hear about them because the body counts don't go high enough to make the news. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

^This. Big time. You didn't get hurt. You didn't really "Fail." These skills build on themselves. You simply didn't demonstrate enough skill in that lesson to enable you to move forward to the next one. I have very simple requirements for a "successful jump": Land safely. Learn something. Have fun. Everything else is icing on the cake. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

So I'm paranoid? How so? HRC & BHO have both recently praised "Australian style" gun control. That means registration, confiscation & destruction. Again, I don't see it likely. But I'm not willing to offer those that want it easy ways to track purchases between private parties. And which part of "the right to keep and bear arms" wouldn't be infringed by "summarily denying purchase"? That's the part that gets me. Let's 'summarily decide to search' people who end up on the Terrorist Watch List. Or maybe just throw them in jail. If you want to deny someone a right listed in the BOR (or really any other right), you need to follow due process. I don't know if "repeatedly admitting being a terrorist" (I haven't seen that part, but I haven't looked very hard) would be a valid reason. Lots of people claim lots of things. For instance, bikers tend to be violent people. Should the cops be able to say "Anyone who is part of a patched bike club can't own a gun"? I'm willing to listen to any idea that would actually have an effect. I'm rather sick and tired of people saying "Do something, do anything!" And the end result being rights restricted, but no reduction in violence (and then people say "it wasn't enough, do more). I'm not willing to "shrug my shoulders and say 'Oh well.'" But I'm also not willing to give up rights for appearance sake. And I have thought about it. So I'm paranoid and not thinking, huh? Ya want to have a real conversation, maybe think about that. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Bolding mine. What other rights would you be willing to deny someone based on "hits from the FBI"? Search? So that if the FBI investigates someone, they can just go and search their home? Freedom of speech? So when the FBI investigates someone, they aren't allowed to speak about it? (already part of the Patriot act). I'm not against B/Cs for purchase of guns through a dealer. I am against requiring it for all transfers (like California, Colorado & Washington require). There have been too many incidents of the government keeping records of B/Cs that were supposed to be destroyed. And too many candidates who like "Australian style" gun control. I don't think banning/confiscating/destroying will happen here, but there are powerful people who want it to. Besides, name one prominent "mass shooting" incident where the guns were purchased without a B/C. Sandy Hook doesn't really fall under this because shooter killed his mom and stole the guns. San Bernadino could be one, but CA requires B/Cs for all transfers, so obviously that worked well. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Interesting arguments about how racist Trump is (or isn't). However, his record as a con-man is pretty well established. His history with casinos in Atlantic City shows that pretty well. Take out huge loans, skim a bunch off the top, dump personal debt onto the portfolio and then declare bankruptcy. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I don't recall any mention by HRC during the primaries in 08 about Oama not being a natural born US citizen. It did come from Clinton supporters, but not HRC or her staff. I do remember thinking that it was likely a bunch of crap, because if it was legit, then HRC would have been all over it. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It's arguable that he should have received a longer term of incarceration. Mr. Turner, however, did not "win" anything. I'm not sure people realize what a harsh, life long penalty it is to have to live as a registered sex offender. It will be virtually impossible for him to find a decent paying job. He will be restricted as to where he can live. In Illinois, he would not be allowed in schools or public parks, or forest preserves. He could not have unsupervised contact with children. Every time he moves, he'll have to re-register with the police, or be subject to arrest. If he moves from one state to another and fails to re-register, he's subject to federal prosecution. In other words, life as he knew it is over for him. Forever. Maybe that's what he deserves. That's a topic, perhaps, for another thread. But he did not get off lightly. Living permanently as a convicted, registered sex offender is a tough life. That's all very true. But 6 months in jail (out in 3 with good behavior) is a pretty light sentence for 3 felonies. Max sentence for 2nd offense OWI in Wisconsin is 6 months. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Would you consider the devastation caused by acid rain meaningful? Do you think it's been reversed? How about CFCs and the ozone layer? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

And of course, even though he was born in Indiana, because his parents came from Mexico, that makes him a "Mexican." Interestingly, Curiel's dad emigrated in the 1920s, before Trump's mom. And became a naturalized citizen. Point #3: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/judge-gonzalo-curiel-donald-trump-university/ "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

But it does not imply that religion offers any beneficial value. Actually, it does. The idea that there is this omnipotent, untouchable being who metes out punishment and rewards for behavior is a big benefit. If a King or other ruler becomes unpopular, there is a revolt. Which pretty much destroys the society. But, while revolting against religious authorities isn't unknown, it's far less common. And the idea of revolting against God is impossible. So the society believes that they have to do certain things or "God will punish them." Things like not stealing from each other, not killing each other (within the group), leaving the other guys' mates alone, that sort of thing. Stuff that is normal human nature, but bad for the society. Religious prohibitions on this sort of behavior was probably vital for humans to move anywhere beyond tribal groups. Rewards for behaviors that don't benefit the individual, yet are important for society to flourish are also an important effect of this. Tithing/taxation is one example. That doesn't change the existence/non-existence of God in any way. Just addressing the evolved tendency for people to believe in a God. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I suspect you're misconstruing the science. I suspect you're not even familiar with the science. I've read about the research to which I think you're referring. Like I said, I don't think it implies what you believe it implies. I think it implies that we have a predisposition toward faith. What do you think it implies? Not exactly. It strongly implies that societies function better when there is an omnipotent "God" who can be used to reduce selfish behaviors that damage the society and increase ,altruistic behaviors which benefit it. So that sort of belief is reinforced. And "selected" on an evolutionary scale. Sort of like the fear of snakes is instinctive in some regions, and the fear of large predators is instinctive in others (ever see a kid that was afraid of dogs for no apparent reason?) It has nothing to do with the actual existence or lack of of any God. I find it rather telling that every society has a "creation story" and worships the God (or Gods) behind that creation. Most often, this story was told "by God" to the "enlightened ones" in the society. And as long as the societies are truly independent, the stories are totally different. The difference between Norse mythology/theology and Christianity are good example of independent creation stories. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a good example of the derivative nature of societies that interact. If God is real, then why did he tell each group a different story? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

And the reality that any TG undergoing hormone therapy develops muscle mass appropriate to the assumed gender identity is completely ignored by the critics. So you are saying that a man, taking supplements to become a girl magically weakens and reduces muscle mass. Sure. No. Nothing "magical" about it at all. Science. Post above me beat me to the actual scientific explanation. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

He didn't "dodge" the draft. He refused. And paid the price. He didn't run off to Canada. He didn't have his rich and influential daddy find him a cushy spot in the National Guard. He didn't use a college deferment (not that any of these options were really available to him). He publicly stated that he wouldn't go. And was tried, convicted, and sentenced. He appealed the conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was overturned. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

And the reality that any TG undergoing hormone therapy develops muscle mass appropriate to the assumed gender identity is completely ignored by the critics. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Clearly Joe is smart. Guys named "Joe" usually are. At least that's what I believe. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Falling straight through the formation... Without taking it out. I left from the camera step, and didn't leave early enough. So as we came off the hill, I ended up almost directly above the 4 way round that was formed (either launched or 1st point, I don't remember). I could feel myself falling into the dead air above them, and I remember thinking something like "Well, that was dumb." Did a half flip and ended up directly in the middle on my back. Didn't hit anybody, just ended up floating on the column of air coming up through the middle. Went dead spider, dropped down, flipped onto my belly, drove out from under the group, popped back up and made my slot. And yes, I have it on video. 2 perspectives actually (inside & outside). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I agree, but there are people who worshiped their ancestors so you could say that those particular gods did exist. Well, I thought that many of the "ancestor worshippers" actually worship trees or rocks or other things like that, things that the worshippers believe their ancestors' spirits now inhabit. So while the ancestors certainly did exist, the current form in which they are worshipped leaves a bit of a credibility gap. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

So did you tell him? Nobody expects a gorgeous woman to actuallyknow anything about aircraft, let alone how to fix them, let alone work for a... Oh, I don't know... Helicopter company? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I too hope all is well with you and yours, but being "protected by the hand of God" is an unsupportable premise from a logical perspective. Surely if he wanted to have protected you, he wouldn't have put you in the situation to begin with. Well, no. That's the thing about the "Hand of God" premise. In this particular case, Ron's truck is probably totalled. He and his wife are "scraped and bruised." But because it could have been a lot worse, and because a whole bunch of people who happened to be Christian (which isn't all that surprising in that area) stopped to help, then "God stepped in." Just like when a couple hundred people die in an earthquake, but one "miraculously" survives, it's a "miracle" and "God saved that person." Apparently, the idea of God preventing the disaster in the first place just doesn't seem to occur to anyone. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo