mistercwood 287 #101 April 10, 2013 QuoteIn much the same way the NRA receives monies from gun manufacturers, yes. (as well as other industry organizations for that matter) Neither organization sells those items though. I can understand advertising cash, and even just general donations with both organisations. The concept being put forward that I was curious about was whether there was a direct link outside of that - you buy a canopy, manufacturer gives $x to USPA, you buy a gun, manufacturer gives $x to the NRA. I actually had a poke around the NRA website for extra info. I'll be honest, I could only stomach a couple of their "news" pieces - that was some of the most blatant, over the top propaganda I've seen in my life. Good production values though, I'll give them that.You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #102 April 10, 2013 QuoteWe also have weapons. They are closer than the cops. Always. Your refusal to see the real world won't change things John. I'm never going to understand your fear of one specific item. Maybe it's something deeper in you that you should consider. Refusing to see the the way the world works sounds problematic to me. What an amazing non sequitur to get to that from closing a loophole in background checks! I agree with Wendy. Just because you can't make your house into a fortress doesn't mean you shouldn't lock the doors.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #103 April 10, 2013 QuoteThere are alot of sex offenders out there thats for sure. You find them in law enforcement,in politics,in church,in schools,in the boy scouts,in the athletics departments,the boy scouts,ect..... I bet there are even a few college professors who are sex offenders in hiding as well. Professional skydivers too, I'm sure.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #104 April 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteAs WMW wrote, just because you can't make your house impregnable doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors. Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #105 April 10, 2013 Quote Quote NRA Store Nope, no guns there. Tell us more lies. Let's say I have a friend who's started a wedding photography business. A colleague later mentions to me they're looking for just such a person. I talk up my mate massively, tell them how awesome and wonderful he is at photography, how happy I've seen his other clients etc etc, and they go and buy a package from him. Next time I see him he buys me a beer, and says if I get him more bookings there'll be more beer to come. I like beer. It is now in my best beer drinking interest to "sell" my friends services to prospective customers whenever I get the chance. It really isn't that hard to see what he was getting it, is it? wow. that's a bit of stretch, man. from that you get the nra selling guns?If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #106 April 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs WMW wrote, just because you can't make your house impregnable doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors. Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #107 April 10, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote As WMW wrote, just because you can't make your house impregnable doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors. Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off. No, YOU make assumptions about what I think You're as bad as Marc Rush in that way. Do some research before spouting off.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #108 April 10, 2013 >When did the NRA start selling guns? They don't. They just get $1 whenever Ruger sells a gun. Pretty good incentive, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #109 April 10, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote As WMW wrote, just because you can't make your house impregnable doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors. Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off. No, YOU make assumptions about what I think You're as bad as Marc Rush in that way. Do some research before spouting off. Completely false. Look at the exchange above. I never said you would disagree that "making everyone wear oven mitts" was a ridiculous idea, in fact that whole post was agreeable in nature. I was reasserting (for the wider audience) the existence of a line that could be considered going to far. You called the post "nonsense" and responded under the assumption that my oven mitt scenario was in opposition to changing the current BG check arrangement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #110 April 10, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote As WMW wrote, just because you can't make your house impregnable doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors. Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off. No, YOU make assumptions about what I think You're as bad as Marc Rush in that way. Do some research before spouting off. Completely false. Look at the exchange above. I never said you would disagree that "making everyone wear oven mitts" was a ridiculous idea, in fact that whole post was agreeable in nature. I was reasserting (for the wider audience) the existence of a line that could be considered going to far. You called the post "nonsense" and responded under the assumption that my oven mitt scenario was in opposition to changing the current BG check arrangement. You claimed that "the line" had been crossed towards your "mitt" scenario. That is nonsense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #111 April 10, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote As WMW wrote, just because you can't make your house impregnable doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your doors. Locking your doors is a good idea. But somewhere between locking doors and making everyone wear oven mits at all times so that they can't pick the locks there is a line of misguided idocy that's been crossed. What nonsense. The current BG check arrangement is like locking the front door while leaving a sign in the yard saying "Pssst - the back door is wide open" You're making ASSumptions about what I think concerning the current background check situation and ways it could be improved vs. what I consider to be absurd proposed (and in some case enacted) measures. As you like to say, do a search before you spout off. No, YOU make assumptions about what I think You're as bad as Marc Rush in that way. Do some research before spouting off. Completely false. Look at the exchange above. I never said you would disagree that "making everyone wear oven mitts" was a ridiculous idea, in fact that whole post was agreeable in nature. I was reasserting (for the wider audience) the existence of a line that could be considered going to far. You called the post "nonsense" and responded under the assumption that my oven mitt scenario was in opposition to changing the current BG check arrangement. You claimed that "the line" had been crossed towards your "mitt" scenario. That is nonsense. Laws have been passed that I think do cross the line into misguided idocy. Again, it's your assumption that I'm talking about laws regarding background checks when I say that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #112 April 10, 2013 How much do dz's give to USPA when newbies buy their first jumps? Pretty good incentive huh?? That's generally part of the purpose of large member groups and such - increase activity in the sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #113 April 10, 2013 >Professional skydivers too,I'm sure. Yep,professional skydivers,recreational skydivers,cheerleading coaches,musicians,anti-gun activist,pro-gun activist,firemen,actors,lawyers,professional athletes,amature athletes,men and women,ect... Point is that sex offenders are a very diverse group, and there seems to be alot of them,so many that the system has a real tough time keeping track of them. Many times when they catch sex offenders,they get less punishment than someone gets for drug possesion in some states. So I can see how some offenders could find their way into situations where children are present. Hell, recently in oregon they arrested a guy( who was registered as a sex offender back in 2007) for raping an unconscious minor he met at the cheerleading accadamy where he was working as A COACH yesterday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #114 April 10, 2013 >How much do dz's give to USPA when newbies buy their first jumps? Imagine if UPT gave USPA $1 for every Vector sold. And further imagine that USPA starts posting incident reports that all say "a Skyhook could have avoided this fatality" no matter what the fatality was. Would you start buying all UPT rigs? Or would you question USPA's motivation in pushing Skyhooks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #115 April 12, 2013 >Do you think only the high priced mercenaries are capable of doing the job? Not at all! This guy, for example, was probably a great deal: ============== Accidental shooting injures Butler student in El Dorado The Wichita Eagle Tuesday, April 9, 2013 El Dorado police are investigating a shooting where a private security officer reported that while he was handling a gun on duty, he accidentally fired it. The round went through a wall, causing a minor injury to an 18-year-old college student. ============== I bet they got him at a discount. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #116 April 13, 2013 >private security officer...... Was this guy ex US infantry,recon,Navy seal,Delta force,Para rescue,Air force special commando,ect? Was he even ex military? I know a couple of security officers who were never in the military at all. I also know ex army rangers,navy seals,and marine recon snipers who work as plumbers,electricians,and EMT's. Besides,there is always a risk of harm from everything, or any activity in school. Hell just recently a kid in san diego was killed by a softball to the chest in gym class. When I was in high school we had 5 kids die and several more permantely disabled playing high school football here in washington state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #117 April 13, 2013 I know you feel we need more laws to keep guns out of criminals hands,but they do not even enforce the gun laws we already have on the books. Last year over 40,000 people were caught lying on their background checks,and only a small percentage were prosecuted for this. You will not stop criminals,or emotionally unstable people from getting guns no matter what laws you legislate. The use,sale,and trafficking of drugs is illegal in almost every country in the world,and yet even in places like russia and china where individual rights are much weaker,and the state more poweful, they have street drugs. The genie is out of the bottle when it comes to firearms,and they are here to stay until people find something easier and more effective to use in there place. The handgun replaced the sword,and the rifles replaced the arrows and the spear. You can take the humans out of the jungle,but,so far the jungle has not been taken out of the humans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #118 April 13, 2013 Quote Was this guy ex US infantry,recon,Navy seal,Delta force,Para rescue,Air force special commando,ect? Was he even ex military? So do you believe that in these units no one has ever had a ND?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites