bigbearfng

"At an alarming rate" in this case would be "ever." As in, if this ever happens, it's at an alarming rate. It should not happen at all, but there are a number of elephants in the room that nobody really wants to talk about at this time because it's just a little too soon. I'm still felling stunned and shocked, but I'm more than willing to listen about the elephants in the room....please continue.

Yup, definitely have to sort out the BS; but when I was a 50 jump wonder, here is where I got the detailed info to feel confident enough to ignore the 1000 jump wonders that still swore by the 45 degree rule.

so you've withdrawn THIS offer? "Tell ya what...you can ride my back like a pony, that'll be close to the unicorns Labrys wants. Try to hang on during a flat spin. Would be a new experience for me, too. Never done an intentional with someone on my back before. Might be kinda fun in a butterfly/pony way." That was never an "offer," Robin. Twas a joke that many folks in the wingsuit community understood. S'ok. I understand why you won't/can't get down on the offer I made. No shame in being afraid of a flatspin. Most intelligent people are. I'm just a newb compared to the rest of you in here.... But I've done enough wingsuit jumps and had my silly ass in more than a few flat spins so your remarks implying that you seriously think his offer was anything more than a joke-well I'm afraid you shot down your credibility with that one without even realizing it.......(first real spin scared the livin shit outta me and made my ass dizzy!!!) And I'd really like to know what the tandem manufacturer's have to say about it? Wouldn't they pretty much have the final say????

And in this BP case we obviously don't know all the circumstances involved. And that includes you....... Hmmm, Looking at the fact that you recently registered here, with no info filled out whatsoever- And has only posted to this thread.... Yea, I have to call troll also. Or someone with an ax to grind that randomly searches for places to spout their one sided rant on the internet....... I do appreciate getting to see the other side of things that I may not have seen otherwise by looking in SC. However I guess we shouldn't feed the trolls.

Here's the scenario for you to digest- I see a guy walking down the sidewalk in a residential neighborhood at 10 at night with a knapsack on his back I detain him pat him down and check his bag. (Allowed to check for weapons within reach of him for officer safety if you want to pick at that also.) I do find something in the bag and arrest him. On the face of it-it's getting tossed out of court. However-if this neighborhood has had a recent run of burgleries in the evenings, and this guy may even match a description of someone seen in the area of a recent burg-then it's a good detention and bust when I find burg tools and stolen property in his bag. So it may appear to be fishing-but if current circumstances rise to reasonable suspicion, then it's not fishing-it's doing a good job and not being lazy. And in this BP case we obviously don't know all the circumstances involved. I do understand the concern for not trampling constitutional rights-and at the same time do the job and do it well. And you have to admit he was baiting and probably hoping they would "treat him like a King" so he could sue.......

So according to your view/interpretation, if the BP observes enough to reasonably suspect a crime is staring them in the face (other than citizenship status) they have to ignore it? They are LE-if they smell drugs/see blood dripping out of the trunk, they're supposed to ignore that?

OK, let's take another look at this.... Border patrol not only check illegal immigrants, they also check for anything illegal coming in; wehter it be drugs, assholes with kids they're molesting or whatever else comes across the border. They are law enforcement. So if I've got a guy that won't roll down his window, my first reasonable suspicion would be that he doesn't want the smell of drugs (or even explosives) wafting out of the vehicle where I or the dogs could smell it. Make sense so far? So I would not have had a problem with the BP insisting on searching that car. So I'd say they showed an amazing amount of restraint!!!!! And the guy is just a baiting asshole that I sincerly hope was reamed by his CO; as he most assuredley deserves.

Understand, I've NEVER said we should ban guns in general or even handguns. That said, in this very particular case, had the previous ban on high capacity magazines had remained in effect the shooter would not have been able to purchase one in his local gun shop. It would have forced him to either find a different source, which would have slowed his plan, or do without, which, again in this particular case probably would have meant fewer bullets fired and fewer people hit by them. As to any sort of DMV-style solutions to removing handguns from people thought to be incompetent; I'm all for that. However, as stated MANY posts ago, strict 2nd Amendment proponents would never allow such a thing since it pretty much means all gun owners would have to be de facto licensed. I'm not opposed to that at all, it's the exact same way we handle any one of a number of things; cars, airplanes, nuclear power . . . unfortunately, the strict 2nd Amendment folks have a conniption anytime the thought of a license is even mentioned so that's just not going to happen. Thank you- Actually the DMV style would not have to deal with "a license" to own a firearm. As the system currently stands, if your background check when you attempt to purchase shows that you are a convicted felon, declared legally mentally incompetent, not a US citizen/citizen of the state where you are purchasing, then you're denied. So a person that checks negative can go forward with the purchase, no license required. Of course Ca. now requires a firearms certificate to be shown that you took a class on firearms safety, but again that is not a required licensure. As it stands already-if someone already owns a firearm (again I'm familiar with CA. so other states may very well be slightly different.) and is then convicted of a felony/domestic violence/domestic restraining order/legally declared mentally incompetent-then they forfeit the constitutional right to own a firearm-with specific provisions/requirements for reinstatement. And hey-ban the magazine or the firearm-sorry it's still "ban the object", and doesn't deal with the "crazy". And the fork-you missed the point /not assasination it's death-and I only personally know of one death by fork, but they were just as dead whether by fork, knife, gun poison etc.. Again, I'm just trying to constructively throw some actual ideas out there.

Very valid points-thank you. I was thinking more along the lines of the DMV example. You already have a drivers license. Now they have to have a current retest that you failed before they can pull it. As for a psych test and who would administer it-that's an important question/issue. And yes even then it wouldn't be perfect- I've worked with deputies that passed the psych same as me, that then ended up doing some atrocious things. You would have to be a mind reader and all knowing to make it a perfect system. And again, very valid points-would it deter people from seeking treatment? What would the effects of an H&S5150 on your record be? How long ago was it? I am just trying to genuinely address what was brought up-and attempt to infuse some reality to the knee jerk reaction of-"ban the object".

Well, uhm, actually . . . in this case it turns out to be both and what's ironic is that the "tool" so many people have touted as being able to stop this sort of crime wasn't used to stop it and the specific gun part that goes on to this "tool" (a high capacity magazine) had been previously banned and it was ONLY because this particular crazy person had to reload that the event ended. It would have ended earlier if he had to reload earlier. Sorry guys, facts are facts and in this case it looks as if the previous ban on magazine size was, in fact, a good idea. And here's the kicker, it wasn't ended by a CC holder, but instead a middle-aged woman that grabbed the fresh magazine he was swapping in. Dear Quade-it seems you just can't get past some things. I was really appealing to you for some constructive feedback, I figured you or Kallend could have had some type of constructive critizism, ideas to apply the current DMV method of identifying persons that are not safe to be driving to firearm purchase background checks, I would of appreciated it. Fact is a determined person can kill some one with a common kitchen fork. If you can legally deal with the person, then it doesn't matter about the object-as brought up before if the "looney" gets a hold of anything from a semi-truck to fertilizer then the results are even more catastrophic; and you can't reasonably "legislate" away the semi-truck or the fertilizer. So I was trying to address the concerns on how to identify the "crazy person" which you have totally ignored and keep going back to the "object". OK, as the saying goes, you can't reason with a two year old, I'm done here.

Sorry but I have a pretty hard time listening to any "suggestions" from across the pond. A country where you can't even defend yourself or your family-thats just inherently wrong and I can't fathom that mindset.

I'm asking for a workable solution to the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. By all accounts, even the NRA is for that as a general goal, yet the current system is badly broken. How would you actually fix it? As for keeping guns out of the hands of "crazy people"......... There would have to be an assessment system established. It would have to be open to input for evals. It would have to be determined to be legal, constitutional and grant due process. Pretty tall order I know-it would be challenged by ACLU and who knows who else-probably everybody. The only "similar" that I can think of that currently exists pertains to driver's licenses. (please leave out all the talk about guns vs cars for the moment!!!!) In California if a person (I believe it was originally drafted with elder drivers in mind that are starting to get senile) is believed to be a hazard on the road, anyone from their doctor to a relative or police officer can submit a referral to DMV for full retesting of that individual. Then the DMV retests and evaluates them and makes the determination as to whether that person should still be allowed to have a drivers license. Just throwing out an already existing "eval system" as a possible start of something that might address the concerns from both sides. Thoughts???????? Well I was thowing out an idea for a possible system to flag the "crazy people" and get them in the system so they would be denied the ability to buy a gun. I'm trying to constructively suggest a system. You're asking for a fix. Kallend? Quade? Suggestions of refinements with this/things I'm overlooking? Thoughts?

I really was attempting to be constructive in my post above about how to declare someone not competent to own a gun. I saw this post of yours and I'm afraid I can't help myself... By your reasoning then-it's reasonable to prevent men from raping/just having a penis is clearly an issue for some men. So do you take it away from them?

First I believe his actual point is that cocaine is already illegal, but it's still pretty easily available. As for keeping guns out of the hands of "crazy people"......... There would have to be an assessment system established. It would have to be open to input for evals. It would have to be determined to be legal, constitutional and grant due process. Pretty tall order I know-it would be challenged by ACLU and who knows who else-probably everybody. The only "similar" that I can think of that currently exists pertains to driver's licenses. (please leave out all the talk about guns vs cars for the moment!!!!) In California if a person (I believe it was originally drafted with elder drivers in mind that are starting to get senile) is believed to be a hazard on the road, anyone from their doctor to a relative or police officer can submit a referral to DMV for full retesting of that individual. Then the DMV retests and evaluates them and makes the determination as to whether that person should still be allowed to have a drivers license. Just throwing out an already existing "eval system" as a possible start of something that might address the concerns from both sides. Thoughts????????

Video of you wrapping the saran wrap????

Double dam amazing! I'm agreeing with Bill too!

Yea OK I'm bored today-it's raining, can't jump and off from work.... "Politically Correct" I see as not an "apron" as you call it, but something that started with supposedly the right intentions (avoiding intentional insults) that has now turned into the ridiculous. Yup, dating myself now-but it's gotten so I have a hard time keeping up with what's "correct". I remember growin up (yes in a very mixed area) when negroe was the acceptable by all. Then that was "not PC" and it was black, then african american. Used to be mexican, then chicano, then hispanic, then latino/ mexican american......I'm sure it varies by region also, but I feel it's gotten pretty difficult and ridiculous to keep up with it all. So when folk say enough with the PC bullshit I tend to agree. Just call it as you see it. If your suspect is white, black pink or purple just say so! If that newb is a digit say so and start a bounce bingo!

Watch any freaking comercial from Zales or what ever store is selling the latest in diamonds. It says the same freaking thing. I give you really over priced hunk of carbon and well......we get to have some fun for a while. _______________________________________________ You mean this one? sorry-file was too over max size....

Gawd I loved this one!!!! __________________________________________________ Don't know the author of this...received it from a friend.... "The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports. It's an armored booth you step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on your person. They see this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It also would eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial. Justice would be swift. Case closed! You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system . . . "Attention standby passengers, we now have a seat available on flight #6709.”" ________________________________________________

And if you go to family reunions to meet women................

Go jump with airtrash.

+1 I understand a lot of folk want to come up with a system for this, however keep in mind at a larger DZ the numbers of jumpers of which so many are visiting and some don't even speak the same language. Plus hasn't anyone heard that just getting skydivers to a dirt dive is like herding cats!?

He actually said that shit!!??? If there was a DA anywhere out there that had the balls to file aid and abet charges on these type of assholes I would volunteer to be the one to cuff and stuff em!

I know asking a neo-con for evidence is asking too much, but perhaps you could provide a citation. ___________________________________________ Dude! this has nothing to do with "neo-con" or anything else political! Everybody else here understands it's the privacy provisions that are putting folk in the middle of the lawyers legalese catch 22 BS again. And yes as above, when you call the hospital and ask how your family is doing, the staff is apt to not tell you anything for fear of their jobs. Probably going to make it even harder to ID john/jane does too.

But a police officer also has to have good reason for doing so and in this article they did not. "in this article they did not" Hmm yea, the press always writes accurately about skydiving incidents too...... +10 with the above-need more REAL INFO.....