JohnRich

I hate paying a monthly service fee for my cable TV DVR (digital video recorder). I'd like to record TV shows for later viewing, using a box with a hard drive. I don't want to use my old magnetic tape VCR, or a DVR that requires loading DVD discs upon which to record. Tivo seems to be the only game in town for TV recording to a hard drive, and they require their own monthly subscription fee, with no option to record without it. Is there a hard drive recorder that records for free after you buy the darn thing? I know the subscription fee allows you access to channel guides and such which let you pick shows to record based upon name, etc. But I don't need that functionality, I want to do it with just a channle number, date and time, for free. Just like the old VCR, but without having to juggle different tapes around all the time. What's out there for me?

What's worse: 1) Someone who uses a death video to make a mesage for religion? or; 2) Someone who brands all people of all religions as fear-mongerers, money-hungry, self-righteous, egotistical and close-minded? I see a lot of hate being spewed here in this forum by the anti-religious people, but I don't see the same coming from the religious folks.

That's how it starts, and then the next thing you know, they're coming for your egg nog too.

John, here is a serious question; who has ever tried to take your guns away? I own 3 guns, two pistols and a shotgun and not once in my life has anyone tried to take them away from me. I remember in the 92 election I was told that Bill Clinton was a "gun Grabber" and he would take my guns away. He was re-elected in 96 and still no gun grabber showed up at my door. I was also told that Obama would take my guns away. Well so far no and I don't think it will happen after he is re-elected. You seem to be obsessed with a problem that does not exist. How would you categorize me? I own guns but I have not done any shooting in years. I used to go shooting with my buddies at the dropzone after jumping but that was years ago and I have never needed a gun for protection. My dad is a collector and he has all kinds of cool stuff. I support legal gun ownership but I have no problem with reasonable restrictions to keep guns away from dangerous criminals and troubled teenagers. So how do I fit in to you variety of gun-o phobe? Plenty of politicians in this country would still love to take away our guns. They have succeeded in small ways, (i.e. "assault weapons") and in some places (D.C., Chicago, etc.) And they've succeeded in big ways in other countries (Britain, Australia, etc.) If you ignore the fact that they are trying, and just presume that it will never happen, then it is much more likely that it WILL happen. If you want to ensure that it won't happen, then you have to resist the attempts of those who are trying to do it. Just because they haven't come for your pistols or shotguns doesn't mean they aren't trying. They've come for so-called "assault weapons", and they've tried to ban many handguns and other types of firearms. Furthermore, just because they haven't come for yours yet, doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about them coming for other peoples guns. Shall I repeat that quote from Reverend Martin Niemoller, about "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew"? As for the 2nd part of your message, you don't sound like a gun-o-phobe at all to me.

Make a beer bottle jump yourself. Video it. Then you've got what you want, without having to depend upon youtube for it.

When a round canopy is at line stretch and opening, I was told when I was new to the sport that the canopies don't really open because of air filling the inside and pushing outward. But rather that the high speed air flowing past the canopy all around it, with the ambient still air inside, causes it to be sucked open from the outside. Sort of like aerodynamic lift with high speed air on the top of a wing, and lower speed air on the underside, causing the wing to be sucked upwards into the lower pressure area. What's your knowledge on this?

I usually change the channel or hit the mute button. Oh wait, that's "advertising". Never mind...

Rumor has it that Rosie O'Donnell was making an AFF jump, got blown off-airport, and had a bad landing. Photo attached.

That was a 9mm, this thread is about .327 magnums.

The size that will hold your line groups securely. If in doubt, ask a packer, rigger, instructor or old fart.

I didn't say I agreed with everything G-Don said, I simply complimented him on being "well-reasoned and well-spoken". Unfortunately, I can't say the same about your posts. The only thing I notice from you is that you repeatedly invent your own reality, and that you don't have any valid arguments to rebut my messages, so all you do is attack the messenger. "Play the ball, not the player". Your one warning. - John "pants-not-on-fire" Rich

Nope - I do not fear them. Thank you for your well-reasoned and well-spoken posts. You even made your point without saying "Liar liar pants on fire!"

Oh my, that certainly looks like a prohibited personal insult to me. I don't think the little winky-face gets you out of that one. Perhaps you should be more specific about what it is that you think I said that is untrue. I'm afraid you've provided nothing to which I can respond, and therefore the allegation is meaningless. It's already been pointed out. A week ago you defended yourself against accusations of hypocrisy by saying that you did not use the term gun-o-phobe as a derogatory word because it simply meant 'person who is afraid of guns'. Now, however, you've revealed that you actually use the term gun-o-phobe to convey the meaning of elitist, authoritarian, criminal, security monopolist, dysfunctionally unwordly ideological chameleon. As well as fearful to the point of general cowardice. JohnRich, hypocrite and liar The linked article said that, not me. "Gun-o-phobe" is limited strictly to the irrational fear of guns. I've said nothing beyond that. Where the root cause of that irrational fear comes from is their business. If someone is deathly afraid of snakes and you call them a snake-o-phobe, then that's a correct attribution. It says nothing about where their fear of snakes comes from and what causes it. That root cause may or may not be something negative about their character, but calling them a snake-o-phobe doesn't make any judgement about that. You, on the other hand, presume to know what's in my heart, and you've got that wrong. The next time you call me a liar, you should append it with "...pants on fire" for extra emphasis.

You can't stop bad guys from getting guns. When bad guys start shooting their guns, good guys with guns stop them. So what's the liberal gun-control solution? Take guns away from the good guys! Even Obama likes good guys with guns protecting him and his: Headline: "Obama glad 'men with guns' protect his girls" Story: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-glad-men-guns-protect-his-girls/376821 Of course, he's not so sure about good guys with guns for everyone else. He is proposing to seriously cut the budget for armed airline pilots. But at the same time, believe it or not, he is deleting from the budget a prohibition against the government knowingly selling firearms to Mexican drug cartel members, despite the scandal about the "Fast & Furious" operation. So, guns to protect his children? Absolutely! Guns for bad guys? I don't want no stinkin' rule against that! Guns for airline pilots? Meh, who needs 'em? After all, he's got his armed good guys on Air Force One to protect him. Screw the rest of you guys.

If you're under the impression that I DO want the "clearly mentally messed up" to have guns, then you're mistaken. If the definition of your term means people who have been adjudicated to be dangerous to others, then I support the current law prohibiting them from having guns. And this is not a good reason to take guns away from people who are normal and law-abiding. We shouldn't punish the innocent because of what the criminals do.

Indeed they are. However, when people of your persuasion have knee-jerk opposition to any effective implementation of such prohibitions, the prohibitions become meaningless. Still waiting for you to outline for us what those "effective implementations" are...

First of all, I've never used the word "demon" to characterize anti-gun folks. From our respective encounters with armed criminals, I learned that it is not guns that are to be feared, but violent criminals. McCarthy just fears all guns, and that makes her a gun-o-phobe - she has a phobia, an irrational fear, of guns. That's not demonizing her, it just describes her actual mindset. And that puts her in the category of "dysfunctionaly unworldly", because she's naive about violent criminals and guns - she seems to think that if guns are just banned by legislation, then the violent criminals won't be able to shoot anyone anymore. Wrong! She has a fairy tale view of how things work. She's also of the "authoritarian" bent, believing that only the government should have guns.

Hey, I didn't write the article, and I've made no claim that it's perfect. But it does do a good job at describing many types of gun-o-phobes. You sound a little bit like "The Elitists" and "The Authoritarians", whereby guns are okay for you, but not all guns are for everyone else.

Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective. That's your specialty, that you've been wailing about for years. I would think you should have come up with some concrete suggestions by now, other than your as yet non-existant future crime prediction machine. Felons are already prohibited from gun ownership. People adjudicated to be mentally ill are already prohibited from gun ownership. What'cha got for us? It seems that this story has hit a nerve, as many of the gun-o-phobes here are piling on. But there's still a few we haven't heard from yet. Bring it on.

Oh my, that certainly looks like a prohibited personal insult to me. I don't think the little winky-face gets you out of that one. Perhaps you should be more specific about what it is that you think I said that is untrue. I'm afraid you've provided nothing to which I can respond, and therefore the allegation is meaningless.

Oh, never mind. I got confused about which forum I was in.

The flaw in that kind of thinking is that it presumes that passing laws which limit gun ownership is actually effective at preventing criminals from getting guns. It isn't. The law-abiding gun owners are not the ones you have to worry about, and the criminals don't follow the law. So banning guns doesn't change your situation. There will always be armed criminals. Disarming the law-abiding does not change that. And you have the absolute freedom to not carry a gun if you don't want to do so. I know of no-one trying to force others to carry guns. It's a personal choice. It's freedom. These folks seem to fit the accompanying article's description of "The Fearful". See my first statement, above. The law-abiding guns owners are not the people you need to fear. And if an area is inhabited by criminal gun owners, then taking guns away from the law-abiding doesn't change that, and you would still have reason to fear those areas. Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding. Self defense story: 71-year-old former Marine presidential helicopter pilot thwarts two armed robbers: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/ Would you deny this ex-Marine the right to carry a gun for self defense? And since you mention that owning a gun might embolden criminals to commit crimes that they otherwise might not contemplate... How about the effect of concealed carry laws on the criminals? Might the possibility that their intended victims are armed, persuade some criminals to NOT commit crimes such as this one?

It's a constitutional right, and therefore, no state can usurp those rights. Thus, states can't choose to ban gun ownership outright, just as they can't ban free speech or freedom of religion. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate guns within states. The federal gun laws are supposed to be only in the context of "regulating interstate commerce", where they do have authority - controlling how guns cross state lines. They've gone way beyond that... So when I sell a gun to someone in California, the feds require me to send the gun to a gun dealer in CA, who will then make the legal transfer to the new owner, with the background check, etc. The states have their own gun laws, so there are many variations from one state to another, and thus, it is a "local" issue. In the California gun sale example, CA law requiree that I first get permission from the state attorney general (AG) to ship the gun to their state, and describe the gun to them. If the gun arrives at the gun dealer without the pre-approved AG permission, they can't accept the gun. Most states exercise "preemption" for gun laws at the state level. That means that individual counties and towns within a state are not allowed to make laws more restrictive than what the state has. Many do anyway, because there's no real punishment for violating the state preemption. The idea there is to prevent a patchwork quilt of varying laws that would ensnare innocent citizens in their daily travels, and turn them into criminals because they didn't keep up with the dozens of different laws for the various areas through which they move. So, generally, gun laws are uniform state-wide, and you only have to worry about the variations when crossing state lines.

News:Bill to end gun registry passes vote The Harper government's bill to end the long gun registry has passed the House of Commons, marking the end of a long political battle over one of the most controversial law-enforcement measures in recent memory. The bill passed easily, by a margin of 159 to 130, as the Conservatives used their majority in the House to secure its passage. It now goes to the Senate where the Conservatives also have a majority. The Senate hearings are expected to take several weeks before the bill is passed into law. Once that happens, RCMP officials will begin deleting information in a massive database that provides details to police on what types of firearms registered gun owners possess...Full story: National Post Another failed gun control scheme bites the dust!

News:The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate "There is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves. "In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories..."Full story: JPFO.org This is a good look at the psychology of gun-haters. I suppose it would be against the rules to name names and categorize resident gun-o-phobes here into those categories, but I think we've got at least one of each!