Hooknswoop

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    6,738

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Hooknswoop

  2. Quote

    Most non GM DZ's require you to be a USPA member so you have the 3rd party liability insurance.



    Then DZ’s can require 3rd party insurance. USPA membership would be one way to satisfy that requirement. I do not see a reason why UPSA requires GM DZ’s to require membership except that skydivers would not see the value in membership and would drop their memberships if they could. If the value is there, people will pay.

    Derek V

  3. Quote

    No one is forcing you to buy a membership



    “Require introductory or regular individual USPA membership of:
    1. all licensed U.S. skydivers (a skydiver is considered a student until licensed)
    2. non-resident foreign nationals who do not have proof of membership in their national aeroclub.”

    Derek V

  4. Quote

    >So you think the DZO's and gear manufacturers should have more, equal or less
    >control over the USPA than individual members?

    Probably somewhere between "equal" and "less." They are all members, but there are fewer of them.



    If USPA membership was not mandatory, this would be possible. USPA would also have to respond to the membership since if they didn't, people wouldn't send in their dues. As it is, USPA can do whatever they want and you still have to send in your dues. The game is rigged.

    Derek V

  5. Quote

    I cant imagine how bad it would be with no oversight at all.



    You just described what it is like with no oversight at all.......

    Quote

    So what's the better alternative?



    Have USPA serve its members. Make membership voluntary. Eliminate the GM Program.

    Derek V

  8. Quote

    The actual pressure on the surface of any object due to falling because of gravity as compared with remaining in place as in a tunnel are in fact dramatically different. The wind pressures on any surface , buoyancy, are almost one hundred times greater in a tunnel.

    This goes back to the Wright Brothers and the first wind tunnel.



    I bet you fly much better in the sky than in a wind tunnel, yes?

    Derek V

  10. Just so we are clear, please clarify any of these that does not accurately represent your position;

    1- The CO background check is enforceable.

    2- The law would be effective at reducing gun violence if enforced.

    3- CO is still enforcing the law the prevents felons from buying or possessing firearms, and could enforce charging whomever sold them the firearm with failing to get the background check, but have chosen not to.

    4- CO law enforcement is derelict in their duties because by choosing not to enforce the law, they are not reducing firearm violence.

    Derek V

  11. Quote

    Because people like you do everything you can to make sure it is not enforced, so you can claim "see? It doesn't work!"



    How can ‘people like me’, influence law enforcement to not enforce a law? Especially if they believe doing so would save lives?

    Derek V

  12. Quote

    >Well of course, but why did they chose not to enforce it?

    Thank you for confirming that it is enforceable, and they are just choosing not to enforce it.



    I do not believe it is enforceable. I asked the question that way in order to avoid that part of discussion and try to keep moving forward.

    Why would it cost more money?

    If universal background checks are so important and effective at saving lives, why wouldn’t law enforcement move money from somewhere else?

    Derek V

  13. Quote

    Because they decided not to enforce it.



    Well of course, but why did they chose not to enforce it? By “they”, I mean the entire Colorado law enforcement men and women.

    Derek V

  15. In my example, it was 2 people that know each other. In your example, a ring operation, it is 2 people that don’t know each other.

    1- They could,have conducted this sting operation without the background check law. So nothing changed.

    2- You should come to Colorado and show the law enforcement community how to do their jobs.

    Derek V

  16. Quote

    Exactly. And if that changed, they'd start doing the background checks. Because they don't want to go to jail.



    And the only way that would change so that they would get caught is with a regristry. Without that, they can’t get caught (that is what I mean by unenforceable).

    Derek V

  17. It isn’t about funding the Colorado universal firearm background check law. This law didn’t really change anything. Selling to a known felon was already illegal. The people selling and buying knew they were breaking the law already.

    People selling to someone they didn’t know were already getting the background checks done.

    People selling a firearm to a friend were not breaking the law, but now would have to do a background check, or be breaking a new law. They don’t bother. Why? Because why? Not going to get caught and since both people can legally own firearms, law enforcement doesn’t care if they got a background check done or not.

    Dumb law that didn’t actually change anything. That is why no one is being charged under it.

    Derek V

  19. Quote

    So why go to the trouble?



    I can’t say a firearm has saved me, but it did save my wallet once.

    I’ve never needed a seatbelt, AAD, airbag, smoke detector, fire extinguisher, or for at least 20 years, a spare tire. So why go through all the trouble for any of these just in case items? Self reliance I suppose.

    I have answered your questions. Here’s one for you. You mentioned giving an inch. What happens when they outlaw your 12 guage? I mean, you don’t need a 12 guage for home defense. A 16 guage would work and less risk to neighbors.

    Derek V

  20. Quote

    Where are you?



    Colorado passed the magazine limit law. What is the result?

    Magpul left the state, taking jobs and tax revenue with them.

    You can go to another state and buy as many 30-round magazines you want and bring them back to Colorado. Since they are not stamped with a DOM, there is no way to know if you had them before the law or not.

    You can go into gun shops and buy 30-round magazine kits and in about 10 seconds, assemble a 30-round magazine.

    So, net result? Loss of jobs and tax revenue. Good job, idiots.

    Where am I? No, I do not hunt. I haven’t bought a firearm in probably 5+ years. I don’t have a large collection. Yes, I carry a firearm. I also have several fire extinguishers, check my spare tire regularly, wear a seatbelt, have 2 smoke detectors in the house (just had to replace one), have an AAD in both of my rigs (one speed cypres and one vigil), and wear a helmet when riding one of my motorcycles. I do not believe the pro-gun control is about saving lives. It is about gun control. More gun control laws are not going to solve the problem.

    Derek V

  21. Quote

    I don't know all the specifics of the Colorado law, but an effective universal background check law would require the gun owner to hold onto a piece of paper that shows the background check was performed. For some amount of time people will be able to claim they boight the gun before the law was in place. Over time that claim will become more and more spurious.



    So by your own words, the Colorado universal background law is not effective since it does not include a requirement for firearm owners to prove the background check.

    Yes, sting operations would work, but require intelligence on who to target, then more resources to conduct the sting. How prevelant are serial illegal gun dealers? How much money and law enforcement resources should be used in these operations vs. other law enforcement activities (ROI)?

    I guess you know better than those in Colorado that enforce the law and those that prosecute the law......

    Derek V

  22. Quote

    I'm just pointing that your posts rest on faulty logic. It's tough to have a discussion with someone who doesn't understand basic logic.



    No, you just keep saying my posts rest on faulty logic, but not how.

    Derek V

  23. Quote

    Do you really believe a background check would not leave a digital/paper trail? Crazy



    How in my example would I get caught?

    Let’s say I bought a firearm from a friend without doing the background check. I’m driving, get pulled over and my vehicle gets searched and the firearm found. How would law enforcement know we didn’t do the background check on that firearm?

    You keep saying I am wrong and not explaining how I am wrong.

    Derek V

  25. Quote

    By the dealer only? Interesting. You'd think the Fed's would slurp that up before giving me the nod. That would then be a record showing that I got it playing by the rules not from my cuz.



    Right, that would equate to a national registry. That is why no one knows how many guns are out there. Just the number of back ground checks. They may not have bought a gun or have bought several with 1 background check.

    Derek V