chutem

This is a poor argument with comparison to gun control. The participant cost of the "sport" should never be a reason to limit the safety of those innocent and uninvolved who might be killed as a result of it. Your "sport" should not come at the cost of somebody else's safety. Ever. That's why things like street racing are outlawed. Sure, it costs more to go to a track...so what? You want to participate, you pay the price of admission. Are you sure you're comfortable with the only people able to exercise constitutional rights are the ones that can afford to pay a fee?

Homemade guns are legal. So, even less illegal guns.

Maybe I'm picking nits, but it seems kind of important. Do the guns become illegal when posesed by someone who does not have a legal right to posses firearms? I suggest that there are very few illegal firearms in the US. (example home made guns or those converted to automatic fire) The problem is illegal firearm possesion.

There is no ongoing burden of proof. You just wouldn't be covered when you got lung cancer from smoking after claiming you don't smoke..... They aren't coming around doing lung tests. If you want to add drinking to the list go for it. People who claimed they didn't drink wouldn't have their liver transplants covered when they drink it to death....that's all it means. --------------------------------------------------- I've been on chantix for 4 months now. Even my farts are smoke free. I'm sure I read somewhere that you are a pilot. Based on this I'm sure it's safe to say that you have not acted as PIC in 4 months. How long after stopping chantix do you have to wait prior to acting as PIC? Edit- I'm not so sure it was you who mentioned being a pilot, if not my bad. My wife quit smoking not long ago and we looked into chantix then, it's kind of scary stuff. She ended up doing it on willpower alone. It was rough for awhile.

No imaginary friend in the sky for me.

The reason the average person doesn't is because they can. The uncertainty of if a criminal's intended target having a gun in itself is a deterrent. Is it? Isn't the argument that criminals can get any weapons they please and therefore you HAVE to have the biggest, badest assed weapon possible to stop them? Oh God! Anything smaller than a .40 simply will not be sufficient . . . unless it's a .223 with a 30 round magazine. Well, can't the criminal have an even bigger weapon and assume only a small percentage have the balls to stand up to him? See, it's an arms race. Unless, of course, you choose not to participate in the paranoia. One does not need a bigger weapon, just shoot first and/or have better aim.

I did not see an R rated movie untill I was 16 years old. There were no VCR's and no Showtime or HBO on TV. Video game violence consisted of "space invaders" or a couple of very crude tanks battling on the tv screen with the Atari game console. Technology has definitely changed these things. Of course step back a generation and the same scenario plays out again. When did it start/where will it end, does it really have any affect?

That's 9 drinks if I count right (per the op).

I will use violence to protect myself and my family from those who seek to do us physical harm. I have presented a weapon to stop a man from breaking through the wall between his apartment and mine with my family at home. I have no doubt it would have ended much worse if I had not been able to convince him that his life would end now if he did not back off. He had his head and one arm/shoulder through the hole he made yelling about killing someone when I put a stop to things. I find it intersting that I had to take the phone from my wife as she called information to get the police number while yelling "you need information to get the number to 911". Property on the other hand, the threat of deadly force is ok to protect property. Bad guy leaves with or without property=not getting shot. Make me fear for myself or family and all bets are off. I'm sure some will find fault untill they have been there themselves.

I see, googled that one and saw it from the "shooters" prospective. (precision vs acc.) Thanks it shows precision not accuracy. (they are different) but yes b/c it shows to the thousandths place

Cool I get to learn something. Is it 5 sig figs as the .000 shows acurracy to onethousandths?

Got any idiots from the US over there that you'd consider trading back for him as I assume a refund is out of the question?

Don't know squat about chem.... 52.000 would seem to have 2 significant figures as 52 is the same as 52.000. I have no idea if this might apply to your situation. Someone who does will be along shortly.

Yes, in two ways. 1 It would be safer to break in somewhere else. 2 If you are looking for guns there is probably one here.

It sounds like simple logic that 99% of 182 skydiving accidents are at near or outside the envelope as probably near that percentage of 182 skydiving ops in general fit that scenario.

Ok, you are retired. Are you a retired FAA employee? If so in what capacity? I am very interested as I fly small planes and as everyone who does knows it doesn't take much to be near max gross. Full fuel and three puts you there in many 4 place small aircraft. Why would the FAA approve this stc? http://www.182stc.com/ 150-160lbs gross weight increase with nothing but paperwork. If you would prefer this can go back to the other thread. In your opinion would it be safer to have less fuel reserves to fly at a lower weight? Do more small planes go down running out of fuel or flying near max gross?

" The well publizized incident because it made it to some tv show...Frontline? or was it 60 min? Anyways it left the FAA with a lot of egg on it's face, so I have to be very carefull how I respond to some things..." Do you work for the FAA? If so in what capacity? This is the second time I've read you making it sound like you do without saying so. In the other thread you were talking of the danger of operating at near max gross. and it seemed most thought this was ludicris.

People are missing a problem here. If you look at this the other way the newspaper published the location of gun free homes for burgulars. Picture this "hey bubba is 123 first street on the list"? "NO, ok lets see what they got".

Put him in Jail.

Dude, If Dave's description is anywhere near the truth you owe him a major apology. Changing e-mail and names really makes it sound like some kind of scam. Did the e-mails he claims were sent to your original e-mail addy get there? Unless you paid in cash there is still the chance for merchant to be screwed. I don't know Dave and have no dog in this.

I'm well aware that which way states lean on gun control is known by the feds. I'm not so sure they undestand how strongly some states feel about this. I'm curious to see how far some states will go to defend what they see as their constitutional rights. I do agree that it will make little to no difference.

Quick and probably way to simple math puts the 2012 deficit at $3809 per person in the US. (1.2 trillion/315 million) I would happily agree to pay this increase for myself and my family if everyone else in the US does the same and the gov could agree they will not up spending with all that new cash coming in. I'd consider it an investment in my childrens future. Problem solved we can all go on with our lives now.

They do. the best legal action for a state to take would be to sue the fed govt in federal court seeking to declare a specific federal statute, regulation or executive order unconstitutional. There will undoubtedly be more states' legislators looking to jump on this bandwagon. This tactic will largely fail, because legally it puts the cart before the horse. They really can't do this preepmptively; they must wait for specific federal action first, then respond by challenging its constitutionality. I'm seeing this as a way to attempt tp influence the feds crafting of new laws that are sure to come. State governments making sure the feds know they are serious about this subject. The other benefit in gun friendly states is the ability to say to voters "we did everything we could to fight the feds".

I'll chime in as well, you're way off the mark here. The 'max' weight is not the weight at which the aircraft will barely fly, it the max weight at which the aircraft will perform within the published standards of the POH. Check out this STC to raise the max weight for 182p and q models. http://www.182stc.com/ It gives 150 to 160lbs increase in max weight with no changes to the aircraft, just paperwork, all fully FAA approved. It must have been really dangerous to fly these aircraft "near" the old max weight.

We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.