peacefuljeffrey

Vibes comin' your way, man. I hope for your son's recovery and the recovery of your family as well.

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

Are you required to have a permit for it? If so, does this mean that you are in violation of the law, even though you don't have any ammo for it, and have no intention of hurting anyone with it?

Basically- yes. I would need an owner's permit to legally have it, buy ammo for it and shoot it at a club. Over here, you need to supply some proof of purchase to get a permit. If my great-uncle ever had any papers for that gun, they are long gone and his will said nothing about it, much less about leaving it to me.

Quote

What kind of gun is it? If it is a WWII firearm, it should be safe to shoot with modern ammo. Firearms don't really degrade with age, unless you've let it get rusty or something.

I can only wonder if you feel an awful feeling knowing that your government would consider you a criminal if it knew you had this gun -- even though you yourself know that you are not a violent criminal and plan never to use the gun, much less in anger against a person. This, to me, is the big lie of gun control: that everyone is safer when no one has guns -- even those who are no threat with them to anybody. The other part of that big lie should be very evident: despite the law against possession, here you are in possession of a gun they don't even know you have! The law is supposed to be protecting everyone in society from people who have guns, right? Well if YOU have one and the law couldn't prevent or correct that, what about all the people who ARE criminals, who DO want to hurt and rob others, who have no harder of a time getting guns than you had? Kinda demonstrates the worthlessness of such laws. They disarm only those not inclined toward hurting others.

Doesn't this expose the idiocy of gun-control and gun bans like in England and Japan and Australia and Germany and Brazil and NYC and DC and Chicago and...

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Quote

Quote

Quote

I guess my non-american logic fails here- that disabling an attacker can be worse than killing him simply doesn't compute.

That is a bad idea.

First of all, hitting your attacker in the legs is difficult, and increases your odds of being hurt by him, should you fail, which is likely. Shooting things out of people's hands only happens in Hollywood movies.

Read the first post again. I'm an expert shot.
And, if you noticed Turtlespeed's post, a precedential case already exists for such an incident. If I killed the attacker, his family's lawyer could use it against me. If I just wound him, I might somehow use it against him. So if I ever become an expert shot, own a gun, have a family and find myself with a knife-wielding madman charging at us, I'd still try to wound the guy.
Of course, if I was just a mediocre shot and put in such a position, I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who was obviously a threat to me and my family, liberal way of thinking and all...

---

Would you please list the benefits to society that leaving this kind of psychotic criminal attacker alive gives us? C'mon, give us a compelling argument as to why this guy deserves to live and be given another chance to pull the same shit on a different family that doesn' t have the benefit of a gun for defense.

Most people answer this by saying that they just feel it is wrong to kill, and killing should be done ONLY when it is "ABSOLUTELY" necessary. I don't have a tremendous problem with that, but sometimes it seems as though they are putting the life of a criminal scumbag on the same level as ordinary, honest, law-abiding and peaceful citizens -- as though we'd be losing the guy who was gonna cure cancer or something if you killed the knife-wielder. Puhlease.

----Jeffrey

P.S. Just to show I'm not utterly humorless, I really did enjoy the first post. I chuckled quietly to myself so as to not alert my coworkers.

Quote

Quote

Quote

I answered that I'd blast his knees

Dude, you in the mafia or something? Kneecapping...WOW! That's horrible.

Sure is, but I'd be stopping the bastard without killing him and doing him a favor, since he'd probably never be able to run at anyone with a knife again and so his chances of being killed someday by a conservative or a southerner would be somewhat diminished...

---

Fine, if you enjoy getting hauled into court by the same criminal scum who tried to rob/kill you and your family to answer some bogus frivolous lawsuit in which he seeks $10,000,000 from you for pain and suffering and medical expenses. Why does someone who would attack you deserve for you to use the gentlest possible effective response? By law, you are entitled to end the threat. You are not entitled to pump bullets into a wounded attacker who cannot continue an attack. But nothing says that your first shot cannot be lethal, or that you can't pump two or three out rapidly before you see whether you stopped the attack.

Besides, I take umbrage at the liberal attitude that it is somehow better to wound the guy lightly to stop the attack so that he can live to try the same shit again on some OTHER victim, who may NOT be armed to save the lives of himself and his family. It's like when a person declines to file charges against someone who harmed him, for example, a woman who is too embarrassed to have her rapist charged. What she is effectively doing is giving him the open opportunity to victimize someone else. I believe that our social duty, if we are victimized, is to endeavor to nullify the threat that attacked us not just for our own sake, but for those future victims.

---Jeffrey

The only time I was ever out of the U.S. was when I went to England for a semester as a senior in college. Yes, I had a good time, but the English way of life is not for me. I remember thinking that everything was sort of like back home in America, but not quite as good. The cars and roads: not quite as good. The food and restaurants (and variety): not quite as good. The movie theaters: not quite as good. The amenities in the typical household: not NEARLY as good. In particular, many homes seemed to have mini-sized "cookers" instead of your typical kitchen stove/range/oven thing. Washing machines are smaller too. (Maybe not as a rule, but, the small versions of everything are quite common, but when was the last time you saw such a thing in any house or even apartment in the U.S.?)

For me, what I think makes America the indisputable best country in the world is no other country takes freedom and rights so seriously and tries as hard to guarantee them. Yes, we have had problems. Yes, at our inception we did have slavery. Yes, we took a long time to guarantee blacks equal rights. But there is no other country with a Constitution anything close to ours, guaranteeing SO much freedom to the people. Many other places (like England and France) say that the power is inherent in the government, to give to the people. Here, ultimate power is the people's, and we give portions of it to the government to keep order. But we always retain the right -- and the duty -- to take it back if it is abused. Look at England: there are literally several MILLION cameras keeping tabs on the public in all areas. It is not "like" 1984, it IS 1984. The presumption is "everyone must be watched because at any time the average citizen could and will turn criminal." If that's not the premise, then how do they rationalize having all the cameras keeping the population under surveillance? Are they admitting that crime is so incredibly prevalent that it necessitates a constant watch? I mean, go read 1984: everyone was kept under constant video surveillance! How eerily familiar,and people just lay down and took it. I can't see living like that, but we're headed that way already.

So yes, Freedom, and our attitude toward it, are what make America the best country of all. In that respect, no other country even comes close. All have curtailments that we would not countenance. The only area we could improve to be like some others is to ditch this idiotic idea that prohibition of drugs is solving any problems whatsoever. I don't do drugs and never have, but I know for certain that we have huge problems not because of their use or abuse,but because we keep them illegal.

Peace,
---Jeffrey

Lately the hot sauce I use a lot is one called Louisiana's Pure Crystal Hot Sauce. I get it at the supermarket (Publix). It's good.

I remember when I was a teen, all it took to make something very spicy to me was three or four DROPS of standard Tabasco sauce! Now I can take soooo much more than that!

I work with a woman from Thailand who can easily eat things three or four times as spicy as I like them. She taught me to make chicken curry with curry paste, fish sauce, coconut milk... I made some recently and it was SOOO hot! I had to eat a ratio of chicken to steamed rice of 1:4 in order to keep from burning up! It may not be a bottled sauce, but does the curry sauce I made count?

---Jeffrey

Hmmm. Some of you have already hit my biggies: I love A-1 (have since I was a kid), and I also love Worcestershire sauce, and I also love basil pesto (Buitoni makes a good one). If you like A-1, try Pickapeppa. It's a Jamaican sauce very much like A-1 but it's a tiny bit spicy.

I'm very big on cucumber yogurt sauce. It's the kind of stuff you get on a Greek gyro, or souvlaki or best of all falafel.

I make it with plain nonfat yogurt, lemon juice, minced garlic, fresh ground black pepper and finely chopped cucumber. It's the freshest tasting stuff, so delicious on the falafel balls (which are good themselves). Easy to make, too. Try it!

---Jeffrey

Glad you had a good time! WOW! You got your A and also are now in the Pink Mafia? Busy weekend, ey?!

If you come back and want that ride to SoBe, shoot me a message some time, 'cause the offer stands. We had a beautiful day for jumping today, after the weird noon-time fog lifted! I got to jump the new Monkey's Fist handle I made myself so it was a good day for me, even though I had to leave for work soon afterward.

Peace,
---Jeffrey

Quote

I should've used word atheist and not atheism.

However you are not right about that claim / denial part.

So-called strong atheists believe there are no gods, and that means they say gods don't exist.
Some even clearly say that it's impossible that gods would exist.

I know there are weak atheists that are closer to agnostics as they are only sceptical about gods but 'cos both call themselves atheists, I don't want myself to be mistaken for them.

I disagree. I can call myself an atheist and that doesn't mean I am STATING or INSISTING that god doesn't exist. It is simply my belief that he does not. This is the same as a person believing in god saying, "God exists." Would you say that this person -- although he surely cannot prove god does exist -- is "denying" the possibility that god does not exist? Of course he's not. Belief in the existence or the nonexistence of god are on opposite sides of the middle. Neither really claims to "know" the truth. It's just a statement of what one believes is the truth.

Yes, some people get arrogant and insistent that they are sure. The truth is, they can't be sure, now can they? That kind of person is not the kind to engage in this sort of discussion because he will never yield to possibilities other than his own beliefs.

---Jeffrey

Glad to meet ya, new skydiver!
Get ready for a lifestyle change. I know mine changed a lot after starting to skydive.

If you're a reasonably likeable person, I think you'll have no trouble establishing friendships at a dropzone. Like others said, it's tough at first for the regulars to know what to make of a new tandem passenger, but if you've made it clear that you're not just a "had to try it once" tourist, if they're anything like the folks at my DZ here (Skydive South Beach), they'll welcome you, teach you, and befriend you. Me, I plied my new skydiving friends by making a sort of habit of bringing home-cooked food out. I'd make beef jerky (that is the big friend-maker here), beef stew, hummous, spinach dip with tortilla chips, homemade salsa... Since I love food, I brought out enough to share, and it brought everyone together for a bit (for a reason other than skydiving). I'm not saying that you need to cook for everyone to make friends, but I found it was a lot of fun to do.

A newbie around seems to bring out the magnanimous parts of people, and with me, that meant everyone giving me tips on safety and technique. I've had help from no fewer than seven different people about packing my parachute! (And now I'm getting better at it!)

You just joined a family! Congratulations -- you picked a good family. Now pick an AFF instructor and get freefallin'!

---Jeffrey

Quote

i would guess that people jump barefoot for 1 of 2 reasons (or a combo of the two):
#1 for the cool feeling -- ya know, wind through your toes
#2 because they don't consider landing off, having a reserve ride, landing on pavement, etc.

???? any comments

Maybe I'm reading too much into your response... I don't know. It seems to have a condemnatory tone to it. Rather like if I said, "Why do people opt not to wear their seatbelts? 1) Because they find the feeling of unrestrainedness liberating or 2) Because they enjoy imagining their wife's face as she stands in the doorway with her two daughters and their little brother as the state trooper tells them all that daddy is never coming home again.

I think I take a bit of umbrage at the suggestion that I have not considered landing or having a reserve ride, because it seems presumptuous. I have considered these things. I am aware of what's going on around me and my skydive. In fact, I had a learning experience today and almost DID land off, which would have been in a baseball field or one of the adjacent cane fields. Nothing that would have torn up my feet. I don't know what you mean by mentioning a reserve ride, because I don't know what difference it would make. My reserve is bigger than my main by a bit and it's not like it's a round or anything. Now, landing on pavement is a possibility, yes, but I figure that I'm more worried about what'll happen to my hands then. If the landing on pavement will be trouble on my feet won't it be likely I won't stay full up on my feet? In such a case, I'd probably be sprawling forward and might tear up my hands (not to mention my rig). Hands and feet heal, btw. Meantime, 56 jumps, 51 of them barefoot, have not seen any of the gloom and doom come to pass, so I continue to be comfortable (in more ways than one) with the idea of jumping barefoot.
Blue skies,
---Jeffrey

Okay...
What do I do since I sleep realllly well and often don't feel like rising from my fun dreams? Should I put a microwave oven near my headboard, charge my cellular phone and camera there, and possibly move my Sonicare toothbrush nearer as well?

I'm serious, I sleep so soundly, I suppose it is a blessing. But sometimes it keeps me in bed so long that I end up feeling guilty for not having used the day!

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

But I belive Im not the norm. I would like to belive that if my live, or those if my "family" (those close to me), were in MORTAL danger I could defent them/myself.

Well, it's good that you believe that you aren't the norm because the statistics about "the norm" show that more guns kept in the household are used against one's own faimly members than trespassers. But you're right, you're probably exceptional. Arrh, not meaning to disrespect you or anything man, but this isn't the best argument for guns.

Benny, have you ever wondered where you first "heard" about this supposed increased risk to family members due to having a gun in the house? Most likely, it trickled to you from its source: the long-discredited and debunked "study" by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who was funded by the very anti-gun, agenda-driven CDC.

There is no truth to that claim that you and your family members are in more danger from your own guns than intruders are. The only way that would be likely would be if you or someone in your family is mentally imbalanced and has some higher-than-normal likelihood of attempting to kill other family members!

This "study" attempts to scare people into giving up guns or not getting guns, by somehow making the perverse leap of logic that, assuming you are not a psychopath nor is anyone in your family one, having the option of a gun to use in response to an invasion is not as good as depriving yourself of that option. To me, that's like saying that you're in more danger of dying in a fire if you keep a fire extinguisher, since you may use it when you'd be better off fleeing the house. Well DUH, like anything else, it would take an ad hoc determination of whether there was any chance of fighting the fire or if there's no chance, in which case you'd flee and rightly so. But just because there might be some cases in which standing your ground with the extinguisher might get you killed, that's a reason to not keep one at all??

Kellerman never released his data for peer review. NO one was ever able to replicate his results. On top of that, the claim of "how many times more likely" you are to get hurt because you have a gun has varied every time that study has been cited. I believe it started at "43 times," then was down further and further each time I've heard or read it. (Interestingly, the same goes for the number of "children" killed with guns per day.)

Congress got so pissed off about the CDC's unabashed anti-gun activism in the guise of academic study that it punished the agency by cutting its budget by exactly what it spent on the anti-gun stuff.

Kellerman studied a handful of cherry-picked locations in the U.S. (picking the ones that make the problem look its worst), counted drug-dealing acquaintances as some of the tragically killed people who suffered because they had a gun, and worst of all, counted ONLY KILLING an attacker as a successful defensive use of a gun. That means if a homeowner successfully drove away home invaders who would have robbed and killed him and his family, simply by showing he was armed and saying Get Out!, I have a gun!, that did not go into the "score one for having a gun for defense" colum. Now that's utter crap. Since when is it not a successful defensive gun use unless there's a dead body of an attacker to show for it? What if a woman sends the break-in rapist running? Woundings were also not counted.

Sorta makes it easier to be able to claim that you'll hurt a "loved one" more often than you'll use your gun to defend them.

I see, though, that the old lies, heavily debunked though they are, still surface. The truth has not yet reached those who heard the lies long ago. Some have latched onto the lies and are even unwilling to accept the truth. It would not surprise me if somewhere down the road you again quote that fallacy in another gun debate.

---Jeffrey

Yeeeeah. That was me. You like-a my compass? Not just a mini compass, but a "small mini compass," huh? I hadn't realized it was so puny!

You were doing the AFF grad jump, right? You're that Mark? Congratulations, it was good to see someone with less experience than I have! LOL! I'm so used to be "the" newbie. I walk around there feeling awful humble sometimes. Did you ever see Roberta's jump videos? I saw a couple during the boogie: her skills are awesome, all those freestyle moves, it's beatiful.

Too bad they nailed ya on that double beer thing, but hey, tarmac's tarmac. If it means anything to ya, I was watching your flare and landing and they were both very good. You stood it up, after all, and in my book that counts for a lot (and think how you'd feel if you stumbled your grad jump!). Keep learnin' and havin' fun.

Peace,
---Jeffrey

Quote

I jumped barefoot for a season a while back (mid-80's) and loved it until I had to wade through some irrigation ditches after landing out in ZHills. I was shitting myself stepping into those ditches, wondering what the hell I might step on that might bite back! Anyways, I gave it up after that.

I jump in Tevas unless it's too cold.

Being a "nothing-but-barefoot" skydiver, I find it amusing and perplexing that some people do the "I swear I never will" thing when it comes to barefooting, but none so much as the responses like this one, where nothing bad actually happened, and that's what caused the skydiver to say "never again"?! I don't get it. How is not having a problem of the very kind you were afraid you'd have a reason to NOT jump barefoot anymore?

Well, anyway, everyone should do what makes them happy as long as they're comfortable with it. Me, I'm comfortable with barefoot skydiving. My landings have been happy, forgiving ones and I have confidence in them. Plus, the LZ here at SoBe is nice and big for the students and inexperienced jumpers, lots and lotsa grass.
---Jeffrey

OMG most of my experience and learning has been protracted over my 54 jumps, and some has been with a coach and most has been on my solo jumps.

I'm usually last out of the plane, opening relatively high (5000ft.) and flying on my belly 75% of the time. So there's less for me to worry about (like who's above me -- no one).

Kim at my DZ (SoBe) has often been the one to spur me to try new things. I'll be in the plane and she'll ask me what I'm gonna do on this skydive, and I'll be like, "*shrug* Idunno, practice the turns and barrel rolls and loops and tracks that I've been doing, I guess."

So she was the one who first told me to try barrel rolls, and she was the one who first told me to try standing up. I tried standing directly from my belly by tucking like I was starting a back loop and then pushing my feet down (like she said). Boy, you never saw someone cork so wildly!! I did manage on one or two jumps to stand for a moment (like literally three seconds) and it was cool feeling that downward acceleration!

Then I found out that I should learn to SIT-fly as the basis for so much more. So last weekend I began trying it, and lo and behold, it happened pretty easily. I won't say that I'm in great control, or that it looks pretty, but I first did half a back loop, put myself butt-down, and then gradually brought my heels down under me, arms out and back. If there were video, which there ain't, it'd look like I'm for the most part, sit-flying. Yes, altitude awareness is key. I remember looking over and saying, "SIX? I better get back on my belly!"

I think that the advice I've seen here seems pretty good. Check with a coach for the final word, and shell out the money for a few coached jumps. They're worth it, all the way. Have a blast!

P.S. I bought Brian Germain's (Big Air Sportz) book and video pair, "Vertical Journey." They're great fun, in addition to being very informative on the subject of freeflying safely and happily. A bargain I picked up at the SoBe boogie last week, for $15 each. (hard-to-beat price)

---Jeffrey

Appreciate the plug! SoBe is my home DZ -- I'm not connected with the business, but now that I'm a regular there it all feels like family.
While I'll grant that SoBe is in the boonies (sugar cane country and not much else), it truly is a beautiful place to jump. The new old hangar is now set up for packing and hanging out, and we're not cooped up in a tiny space any more. The boogie last week was really a lot of fun (but as I'd never been to one before, I can't compare it with others). The sunset on the last day of the boogie was astronomically beautiful. Two clouds split at the sun and looked like an eagle's wings! The sky went blue yellow red down toward the horizon, in startlingly sharp contrast. We saw two flocks of birds in formation out over the lake, silhouetted against the fading light. There was a really cool finale event that you will probably not find written about anywhere here in order to protect the 'innocent.' Guess you hadda be there for that part. (I'm not gonna shoot my mouth off about that any more than what I've said, so don't ask.)

SoBe is filled with cool people who really care about each other and others. I definitely feel like I've found a home there. Your drive from the Orlando area would be, I guess, about 3 or 3.5 hours. My feeling is that it's worth it. Sunset load is all about smilin', there.

I should mention that I'm a pending-A-license skydiver with 54 jumps. The landing area for students is pretty nice and huge, and even the expert area is not small. While it's true that you don't have an out west of the DZ, there was a successful rescue a few weeks back. (I was not there, but I saw the canopy being dried out later that day.) If you can keep the gators at bay long enough, someone'll get to you.

I don't speak officially for them, but SoBe has started off with a bang, and we'd all welcome visiting jumpers and their families.

---Jeffrey

That's not what I was thinking of. It doesn't serve for me to give a long description of how I'll do it, because you may go about making Monkey's Fists in a very different way. Suffice to say that I plan to make most of the knot except for the two sides that are done when you make the last series of turns. I will have spliced together two different colors of paracord (melted the tips together) and I will arrange the cord so that the splice is hidden just where the axis of the turns changes direction for the last series. Two opposing sides of the final knot (which has six sides, as you know) will be of the secondary color. I'm pretty eager to start work on one. (Well, heck, I'm eager to finish it; working on it is kind of a drag!)

Reminds me to tell you about the two knotted hammocks I made. Neither could be used when completed because there were not enough rows of knots to spread the belly out beneath my butt! Everything changed when it was under weight-tension!

---Jeffrey

I'm skeptical about it, but I've never been to a show or had it attempted on me.

I guess I've put myself in a near-hypnotized state in various ways, but not using a hypnotist.

I have a fraternity brother who was picked from the audience back when we were in college. He was featured in the college newspaper story about the show, but said that he had "gone along with it," even though not hypnotized. I have since wondered if that means that many people just play along 'cause it's funny.

I guess I just don't believe -- partly because I don't want to believe -- that we can be programmed by others and have subroutines run in our heads (money on fire, etc.) that get triggered when someone says a word, etc. That's an uncomfortable thing for me to conceive of. I don't like the idea of my will being tampered with. I probably would not want to be hypnotized, yet part of me thinks I might like it in spite of that. I like a floaty, relaxed feeling. (Might this be part of why I skydive?)

---Jeffrey

Quote

Personally, I don't think any of us really have fucking clue what they were saying other than that the people should have a reasonable right to have arms, given the need for a well regulated militia. They probably meant it as a way for states to protect themselves against the federal government, not so much for individual sake. But that's just my opinion. Listen, all of you would I assume agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, right? The question then is where is the line. Some people think it's perfectly reasonable that they should be allowed to own ak-47s, some people don't. We'll never cease to argue over what gun is too big and what isn't, but the courts have said that the government does have the right to restrict.

See, here's part of the problem: on the one hand, the anti-gun hoplophobes (those phobic about weapons) want to ban those guns that are too powerful and big, and on the other hand, they want to ban those guns that are too small and concealable!!!!!!

What does that leave us with? They keep narrowing the middle! If you don't believe me, witness the push to ban the .50 caliber rifle, which they're now tarring with the epithet "sniper." There has never been an instance of someone in the U.S. being killed criminally with one. Big crisis, then, right. We gotta ban these evil death-machines which are responsible for, so far, zero deaths. The guns weigh like thirty pounds. They' realllly the gang-bangers "weapon of choice." Terrorists too.

Then they want to ban the so-called "Saturday-night specials." The term itself comes from racist origins, derogatory toward blacks. The 1968 laws banned the import of any handguns that did not meet "sporting use" criteria, and a point system was developed that combined things like caliber, height and length. If a handgun is smaller than X, and so on, it doesn't have enough points (I believe this is how it works) and it can't be imported. So a lot of personal defense handguns have to be manufactured here in the U.S., like what they have done with Interarms making the famous Walther PPK. Can't import 'em, but you can license them to be made here -- gee, what a USEFUL RULE! So I guess it keeps people from getting killed with imported guns, and they feel so much better about getting killed with domestic copies of imported guns. (This is the logic of gun control.)

So too big, too small -- soon to be "too average": coming soon to a gun control bill near you.

You cited something about the Miller decision, with which I'm familiar. Big fallacy, that. Anti-gun people quote Miller as though it proves that if you can't show utility of a given gun for militia purposes, that means the gun is not protected for you to own. It kinda bent the meaning of "militia being necessary..." It was saying that certain GUNS could be possessed, as long as you could demonstrate they were useful in a militia.

Miller had been prosecuted for possession of a sawed-off shotgun (oh horror of horrors -- i.e. big fuckin' deal, so it was sawed-off). The court claimed that such a weapon had no militia purpose, and so Miller's appeal was denied. Trouble was, MILLER HAD NOT SHOWN UP FOR HIS TRIAL, and so there was no rebuttal, during which of course it could have been shown that such shotguns as he had possessed had indeed been used by our military forces in combat -- thereby demolishing the court's uninformed opinion.

Miller died and there was no rehearing of his appeal.

So the Miller case is hardly the bulwark of the anti-gun hypothesis. It can't be. It is fatally flawed. Nothing was proved. Inaccurate and false statements were made, and since the defense did not rebut them though it could have, the statements were erroneously allowed to stand.

Get the book Supreme Court Gun Cases, like I plan to. I've already read excerpts that show it provides plenty of documentation where the USSC backs up gun ownership, and gun use in self defense.

---Jeffrey

Quote

I want one...navy blue and forest green. Do you take visa?
FallRate

Perhaps you weren't paying attention...
I have royal blue, colonial blue, black, green, silver, white, red, neon orange and soon will have neon yellow again.

I'm sorry I don't have your colors available, but the spools cost $50 apiece. I also have not worked out the details of the dual-color Monkey's Fist. I'll let you know when I have. I plan to charge $25 for the ones I make. I think that's about what I've heard they sell for. Mine are meticulous and are worth the price.

P.S. Thank you for offering to be my first customer.
Peace,
---Jeffrey

Pilot first, skydiver second.
I was a kid in junior high school when Mom gave Dad an intro flight as a gift. He got his license, but took his time (about 2 years) doing it. I used to sit in the back of the 172 for some of his lessons.

When he got licensed, he taught me to fly, takeoff, land, etc. I could do those things before I had my driver's permit.

As a sophomore in high school, in the summer, I went to a sleepaway camp upstate New York called Sky Life Flying Camp. I got 10 hours of instruction, but as I was two months shy of 16, I was not allowed to solo, though my instructor was ready to let me.

I did more flying with Dad, and he paid for some more lessons when I was a senior in high school. I was a lazy idiot, though, and did not do the book work for the written examination. So Dad stopped paying for lessons. I took a few more in my junior year in college, and I soloed once that year. Then another long hiatus because I was so lazy about studying. That was in 1991.

My mother died in 2001, and without the money she left me I would not have been able to afford flying or skydiving. I believe there is no better use for that money than in bettering myself and my life, so I have tried to use it to do fun things and to learn things. So far, so good. I got my private pilot's license on September 21, 2002. I now have about 115 hours.

My skydiving was along the same lines, except it was strictly expense that made it so protracted. I did a static line jump on L.I. in '91, and then another in Duanesburg that year, then finally AFF-I as well. Then lack of money put it off until I did two more SLs on L.I. in '96.

Fast forward to 2003 and the money Mom left me, and I did AFP in August and now have 54 jumps. My A-license is done but pending and I have to fax in the paperwork.

Dad came down in October '03 and did a tandem with my instructor, Dave Cole. He got the video, and he had a really good time.

Flying is a great precursor to skydiving, because of how much pilots come to know about flying patterns and handling winds and weather data. I was thankful for my flying background when I started skydiving.

Strangely, my brother was in the army for four years, Airborne, Air Assault, 10th Mountain, OCS (2lt) but he has never skydived apart from his Airborne training jumps. I tried to invite him to come with me and Dad this fall but he ended up declining and claiming it was about the money...

---Jeffrey

Quote

Well, we can "what if" until the snow here melts. However, historically despots have ALWAYS managed to find enough troops to oppress the rest of the people for them - even professional soldiers, who find it hard to disobey orders. Even in such civilised places as the home of Beethoven, Bach and Schiller, and the home of Pascal and Voltaire.

Didn't the Branch Davidians have a bunch of weapons? How did they fare against the government?

Oooh, lookie! Sophistry! Yum!

Can't we point out that your initial statement is invalid, given that apparently, the oppressive King of England was unable to somehow muster the necessary forces to keep the American Colonies under his thumb forever? I mean, that essentially disproves your theory.

And this thing about the Branch Davidians? Would you please control for some of the variable before suggesting, inanely, that this proves your point? For example, let's give the Davidians enough members and equipment to accurately stand-in for the American people, and let's adjust the ratio of Davidians-to-Feds to more like 100,000-1 or something. THEN see if the Feds still prevail.

But let's not have more of these bullshit analogies that are so laughably easy to dismantle, okay? They're weak enough to make me wonder if you have ANY good arguments at all on this subject.

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now the Supreme Court, which is the Constitutionally appointed interpreter of said Constitution, has said in the recent and distant past that the "well regulated militia" part is the key. What part of "well regulated militia" does the NRA equate with every day redneck or gang member for that matter?

It doesn't matter how anyone interprets "well-regulated militia," since the language construction of the amendment does not in any way, shape or form make the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which shall not be infringed) dependent on service in a militia.

It simply says that since everyone knows a militia is good for maintaining a free state, we're not going to allow anyone to fuck with the right to keep and bear arms.

Can you not reconcile what I just wrote with the way the actual amendment is written? It really is a match. Honest explication of the sentence structure of the 2nd will confirm that.

BTW, there is a new book out by David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook and Alan Korwin called Supreme Court Gun Cases which exhaustively cites USSC decisions that have a bearing on guns, their possession and use, and self defense. It blows away the lies that "the supreme court has settled the gun issue and you must be in a militia to have gun rights."

---Jeffrey

Quote

Show us a pic, I have no clue what you are talking about!

I'd be happy to. I haven't done an attachment before, so I hope this works. This is the Monkey's Fist I just finished. I'm going to have our rigger attach it to my pilot chute as soon as I can.

Someone else asked why I wouldn't just buy one for $15-20. The reason is that I have the cord and the knowledge to make my own, but more importantly, the idea of having some part of my rig actually hand-made by me is gratifying.

If I can put together a durable frame and cut down the time it takes to make these, I plan to start churning them out to sell to other skydivers. I currently have spools of paracord in royal blue, colonial blue, black, green, neon orange, silver, white, and red. I am low on neon yellow (which is the coolest of them all) but will get more. I also have plans to make bi-colored Monkey's Fists, which I have not seen anyone else producing.

Peace,
---Jeffrey