martlet

I love mine. They're about the only pair I've had that my contacts don't blow out in.

Not so. In every jurisdiction I've encountered, a person can't retain the property of another simply because it ended up on their property. She doesn't have to let you retrieve it. She could retrieve it herself. In some courts, she could also be held liable for damage to your property if she chooses to remove it herself. Either way, police should be called to protect yourself

I noticed the same with my Vigil II. It stayed on, so now I just shut it off before I leave the DZ. It's an easy solution. I like knowing my Vigil won't shut off while I'm in the air.

What is good to put on your booties to save wear and tear?

Got it Friday, Jumped it Sunday. Now rain.

Mine is a pain. If I'm not wearing gloves it's easier, but still not great and requires both hands. I suppose that's better than flying open during free fall, though.

Congrats on your 11th jump! Honestly, as others have said, I wouldn't buy any gear until you've progressed a little more in the sport.

I'd have to agree. As a low timer, I learn from someone with every jump. I've gotten great pointers from jumps with people who had not many more jumps than me. I've also seen jumpers with much higher jump numbers who were all over the place. As everyone knows, people just don't progress at the same rate.

Staying at the Rose Hall Hilton in Montego Bay. It's nice. Not as nice as other places I've stayed, though.

Sounds like fun. The Army doesn't like it when I smoke dope, though.

That's what I did. She eventually did a few tandems and took an AFF class herself. She never went past that one class, but she still likes tandems. She was pretty anti, but never told me I couldn't do it, only that she wasn't happy about it.

N/A

I'm going to Montego Bay for the weekend. Are there any places to jump near there? I can't find anything through searches. I'm just wondering if I should bring some gear.

I voted "no". It should be legal, not taxed. Why the heck do we have to tax everything?

Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that. Then I guess that establishes my previous statement to be accurate. RIF Whatever floats your boat. You know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. OK, not much point in discussing this any further. Any further? You haven't "discussed" it at all. What's to discuss? Your assertion that the SCOTUS doesn't understand the Constitution is absurd and unworthy of ny discussion. Reading is Fundamental. [url "http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3499005#3499005"] INDEED! Comprehension, my child. It's all in the comprehension.

Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that. Then I guess that establishes my previous statement to be accurate. RIF Whatever floats your boat. You know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. OK, not much point in discussing this any further. Any further? You haven't "discussed" it at all. What's to discuss? Your assertion that the SCOTUS doesn't understand the Constitution is absurd and unworthy of ny discussion. Reading is Fundamental.

Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that. Then I guess that establishes my previous statement to be accurate. RIF Whatever floats your boat. You know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. OK, not much point in discussing this any further. Any further? You haven't "discussed" it at all.

Uhm, not in Westchester County, New York. Sure you can. There are tons of pre-ban models floating around.

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight. Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that. Then I guess that establishes my previous statement to be accurate. RIF

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight. Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all.

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement.

I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? It's almost as though you don't have a point, but just argue for the sake of being contrary.

They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable. When it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court's opinion on the Constitution outweighs yours by quite a lot. Sorry. Again, that doesn't negate my statement.

They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable.

You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Some of them. It's disheartening that so many of them, and you, choose the path of the sheeple.