texascrw

Sorry to hear about Bruce. I met him in the early eighties at an accuracy meet in Seagoville. Jumped with him again later at Gainesville. He always kept things interesting. BSBD

Sorry, don't have a picture of a split slider. I looked on ParaGears website, they have it listed, but no picture. If someone there has a 2012=2013 #77 ParaGear catalog, there is a picture of one at the top of page 191. They have carried them for years, so should be a picture in one of the older catalogs, if someone has one sitting around.

Actually, you do have another option. Instead of $300 for a removable, you can order a split slider from Para_Gear for $105. It breaks apart faster than pulling on a collapsable, great visibility, and you can loosen the chest strap to spread the canopy. I really like it for filming people under canopy. No slider above or in the front of the camera, plus nothing behind your head. I hook it back up myself before giving my rig to my packer. As far as drag, I don't know, since I don't swoop my Pilot and don't worry about it. They will make them out of ZP or F111 in just about any color you want. Just measure the outside dimensions of the slider on the canopy you are going to put it on and give them a call. I had mine in less than a week. Best of luck with whatever you go with.

Thanks for sharing, Wendy. Looks like everybody had a great time.

Para Gear still advertises them in their catalog. Any size or color you want for $105. I think that is the way I will go. I used them in the 80's and 90's and never had any problems. Just pay attention when you put them back together before packing. OK, let us know how it works out. Last stop before ordering it, be sure the manufacturer of your canopy approves of the change. I jump a Pilot, so will give Rob at Aerodyne a call and run it by him first.

Para Gear still advertises them in their catalog. Any size or color you want for $105. I think that is the way I will go. I used them in the 80's and 90's and never had any problems. Just pay attention when you put them back together before packing.

Find one post where someone actually said that a gun by it self without anyone holding is deterrent. Just a gun sitting in a safe or on a counter is what you are saying someone said here, so please back it up. You made a statement I have called you out to back up what you say. I hope you are not in a hurry, especially if you are expecting a rational answer. The best you can hope for is a snide remark, Kallend's way of showing us all how witty he is, or a braying of the usual bullshit repeated from the liars at the Brady Campaign or some other group of gun hating half wits.

They are only a deterrent if someone is there to use them. A burglar is not afraid of the gun, he is afraid of the homeowner with the gun. That's only the case if the burglar is certain that nobody's home. If the burglar doesn't know whether someone is home, but knows that the homeowner owns a gun, then the potential deterrent does exist. (For the record, I think it was a suck-ass thing for the paper to publish that info; and I agree it does invite either burglary and/or harrassment of lawful gun-owners. It places lawful gun owners at a comparative disadvantage, for there's no database of illegal gun owners to publish.) Andy, I agree with you. Over the years I have read several articles where they had interviewed burglars in prison. The one thing they all agreed on was, an armed homeowner was the last thing they wanted to confront. They felt their odds of survival were much better with the police. Unless they did something really stupid, the cops would just arrest them. Dealing with an armed, scared civilian was a different game. Say the wrong thing, or make the wrong move, and you could find yourself splattered all over the wall. The main reason they tried to break into homes when they thought no one was there. Self preservation at work.

You do know that the information published in the newspaper is PUBLIC record and anyone (including burglars) can access it, right? No, I doubt that you did know that. You do remember when the paper published the names that they stated they had obtained the information by filing under the Freedom Of Information Act. Which means that no one(including burglars) can just waltz into the courthouse and get the information. I doubt you will find too many criminals filing to get information at the courthouse. No I doubt that you did know that, or managed to forget that fact. And the gunowner did the correct thing by locking up their gun when they left the house. Other than what I plan to carry that day, I always make sure my guns are locked up before I leave the house. Always. And the police reported that it appeared the burglars targeted the gun safe, which logic would dictate they came for guns. I wonder how they knew there were guns there? We can probably be safe in thanking the irresponsible dickheads at the newspaper for that. And a gun in the house is not a deterrent, a homeowner in the house with a gun is a deterrent. It is not a great leap of thought to imagine that the burglars knew their was a gun and waited until the homeowner left. Criminals, like most people, have a strong sense of self preservation and usually see the wisdom of waiting until a gunowner is gone before breaking into their house.

They are only a deterrent if someone is there to use them. A burglar is not afraid of the gun, he is afraid of the homeowner with the gun.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-bill-to-nullify-new-federal-gun-laws/article/2518133 Seems the idea of another worthless federal gun law isn't going over in Wyoming. Good for them. Will be contacting my representative in Austin to see if we can get the same thing here.

Well I wouldn't be too hasty there Mr Vance.... I can't actually recall a war that the USA has won of it's own volition, so even with the raping of Her Majesties Armed Forces currently be carried out by Cameron and his cronies I'd still fancy our chances! They must teach a different version of history over there if you think we have never won a war without major help. Do you remember the American Revolution and the War of 1812? At the time, your army was considered the finest in the world, and we handed you your ass twice. And yes, we did get a little help from the French, but I think they were mainly doing catering. If you want to try again, fine with us. This will be another reason to tell Feinstein to keep her grubby hands off of our weapons.

Wendy, you are correct about getting Dacron lines for a Pilot. I ordered a new Pilot last year and they put Dacron on for me. Rob Fischer is the guy to talk to. As far as getting non-cascaded center A's and B's, I don't know. Talk to Rob about it.

How can this be? New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. We all know that if you pass a law, then it can't happen. I can't wait to see what kind of asinine new law Bloomberg comes up with now. These people never learn and have no common sense.

Believe me, no matter which of those you post a picture in, we will love it. Whether anybody is ever able to guess who it is or not.

1. Chicago's gun ban was overturned June 2010. 2. It's always been trivially easy to get a gun in Chicago - just drive 20 miles to a suburb, go to a gun shop, buy the gun, drive 20 miles back to the city. (There are 2 gun shops within 2 miles of my house in the suburbs.) As you pointed out in another post, most of Chicago's murders are gang and drug related. You don't see those people lined up at suburban gun stores filling out paperwork to puchase guns. The last thing that type of scum wants is a gun that can be traced back to them. Assuming that they could even pass the check, or that a store would even want to sell to them. They acquire their guns from theft or other criminals. Shame there isn't a bounty on them like we used to have with coyotes down here. Would make for an improved quaility of life for you and the rest of the law abiding citizens of Chicago.

I don't think we can afford Wall Street bankers either. They trash the economy and walk away with huge bonuses. I don't think we can afford misguided, liberal politicians either. They want to trash our rights and walk away with our guns.

I could be wrong, but with all the animosity of the last four years, and as divided as Congress is, I will be surprised if she gets much, if anything passed. It is a waste of time and will not have any measure of success against nut cases. It would be nothing more than a 'feel good for the moment' fix. Then, when that doesn't work, they will pass something else equally ineffective and silly. They never learn.

I have heard this and I have no problem with someone carrying when they feel they need to. Whether from a direct threat like this or because you want to be prepared for an unexpected event. The problem I have is when the same person that armed themselves because they felt in danger, wants to make life more difficult for the rest of the law abiding community. And after seeing the list of firearms on her wish list, it goes way beyond her call for banning assault rifles, not that I agree with that either. Some of the stuff she is after are some of the most popular handguns for self defense. There is no logical reason for her to say I shouldn't carry a Glock with a 15 round magazine, if I want to. The number of rounds in the magazine is not going to be a deterimining factor in whether I go mad with power. That is determined by the individual, not the number rounds or type of weapon. After having been in a situation that had the potential to be dangerous to her well being, and then arming herself, I have often wondered why she never worked to help other people in California get a CHL? She must have thought arming yourself had merit, so what about all the people that lived in high crime areas? They run a risk of danger every time they walk out their door. Don't they deserve the same option as Diane? California has always been one of those states that the only way most people could legally carry is if they have the political connections to get a permit. After having been out on the sharp end, I would think she would have been trying to change the laws so all the honest citizens would have the option of defending themselves. And before anyone says her situation was unique, I would much rather deal with the crazies she had, than walk through Compton, Cal. or Camden, NJ at night. Everyone should enjoy the same rights, not just some.

Quote Chuck, You are missing the point. In her mind, she is going after the 'right' people. If you think about it, who are the only people that will comply with the law? Law abiding citizens. So, if you write a law that only the law abiding will obey, that must have been your target group, not the mass murderers and crazies. It is a logical conclusion then that she wants to disarm the honest citizens. As for her reasons, who knows? Maybe she hates guns, other than her own, or something else. I haven't sent Kallend $19.99 yet for one of his crystal balls, so I can't read her mind. Maybe we will get lucky and none of this worthless trash will get passed. If it does, then people will have to make some hard choices. Depending on the law, turn in guns, register guns, bury guns or just stand your ground and say no. I hope it doesn't come to any of that. Fred

You just don't understand. It is only the 'common folks' that need to be disarmed. The 'elite', or the government, are the only ones that need to be armed. They are the only ones enlightened or wise enough to be trusted with guns. Don't worry, they will watch out for you.

I use two of the UPT semi-stowless bags and have been very happy with them. And one is on a Pilot, but not the same size as yours. The cost when I bought the last one a few months ago was around $135 including shipping. To find the correct size for your canopy, measure the bag you are presently using. They will match the dimensions as close as possible. The packers at my dz say it is easier to pack. Mike McGuire at UPT is who you want to talk to when they open back up. Good luck.

As I stated, after rereading your post, you did not come out and say that you agreed with publishing the gunowners data. I have no problem with admiiting when I am wrong. However, I noticed that you neglected to answer the two questions I had for you. First, what exactly did you mean in that post? And second, what is your opinion about publishing the gun owner's data? Do you think it was the correct thing to do? A simple yes/no answer on the second question would be sufficient. And as you have pointed out before, I must have a comprehension problem. What do you mean by weaseling at the end? My pointing out that I liked the idea that you think Feinstein is a loon also, is just what it said. It was not meant as a way to ingratiate myself to you. I would have said the same thing even if I had never responed to anything you have posted. To be honest, I was very surprised that you weren't a groupie for her, considering the far left leanings that you both have. Again, you were correct, and I was wrong in my thinking of what you meant. And now we are waiting to hear what you meant exactly by that post and your feelings on the other question.

Well, I'm back. And as promised, here is what you said: "But but but Having guns in the house is claimed to DETER criminals. Gun owners need to make up their minds what their story is." And after looking at it again, you are correct, you didn't come out and endorse the publication of the gun owners information. In fact, it really doesn't say much at all. About anything. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to exactly what you are saying. And please tell us, in plain language, whether you think publishing the gun owner's information was the right thing to do. You actually gained a point in my book when you made the comment that indicated you think Feinstein is a loon, as I do. That seemed totally out of character for you. Considering most of the comments you make. I would have imagined a poster size picture of her over your bed. The world is full of surprises.

I am leaving for a while, but when I return I will backtrack and find the post. Your response to gun owners being upset at having their names and addresses published was to remark that since guns in the home deter crime, they shouldn't be upset. If you were being sarcastic, I missed it, and apologize. It would seem to me that you didn't have a problem with the publishing. So thought you endorsed the idea. Just tell me where you stand on the subject and we will go from there.