DrewEckhardt

So don't buy something brand new. Canopies which can be relatively safe in 250, 500, 1000 jumps are very dangerous now. Buying one you'll "grow into" puts you at risk for death and injury (which gets real expensive even with health and disability insurance) is not the right choice. Get a used main and used container. Both will depreciate about $1/jump. If you want a smaller main sell what you have and buy another used canopy. Repeat as desired within the safety limits laid out by Brian Germain's Wingloading Never Exceed Formula. When the container is too big for your desired main size, sell and replace it. Regardless of how many canopies you go through you'll have spent about $2/jump on depreciation. If you do a good job buying and selling it'll be less. Some time you'll arrive at gear sizes you'll want to keep indefinitely and can get something flashy in your colors. Also note that if you're an odd body shape/size and can't get a used container which fits it's possible to put a new harness on a container (often about $400) where used + modifications are less expensive than new. If you do buy new accept that you'll take a bigger loss selling it. Your wife will be less unhappy about the budget hit than she will taking care of you after you break yourself. Also look at less popular rigs like the Sunrise Wings. The markup is less.

No. The term "assault weapon" was coined by Josh Sugarman as a political tool to gain more support for gun control. "Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." Legally the distinction between "assault weapon" and "not" is about cosmetics and small things that annoy people who want to use the guns for recreation which are either irrelevant for those bent on mayhem (there aren't many drive-by bayonettings) or readily worked around. For instance, some one with a California legal AR15 incorporating a soldered or pinned and welded muzzle brake would need to invest in a second upper half to use it for high power and 3-gun instead of just unscrewing it. Here are a few pictures illustrating the differences between "assault weapon" and "not" under California law. first: not. The magazine can't be dropped with your right index finger and since it no longer accepts a detachable magazine under the law's definition it's not an "assault weapon" second: not. Goofy ergonomics were applied in place of the pistol grip so it retains no features from the list that would classify it as an "assault weapon" third: not. No evil features. Less attractive than an AR15 because it has double the price tag, more recoil, and is more expensive to shoot because the bullets have twice the metal with corresponding increases in powder charge and case capacity. fourth: "assault weapon" because it's on a list of names that make it one, even if assembled into an otherwise legal configuration.

This means that nationally people split evenly among the two, essentially 50-50 +/- a small margin of error. For instance, here are the last few winning presidential candidates' popular vote shares: 2012 51.0% Obama 2008 52.9% Obama 2004 50.6% Bush 2000 47.8% Bush 1996 49.2% Clinton etc. Politicians come down on the right side of that margin of error by motivating people at the fringes to show up and vote, like the Evangelical Christians with their young Earth.

The part I looked at was 100% accurate and the rest politically irrelevant although the next time I get bored I might read some for entertainment value. http://conservapedia.com/Gun_control For the most part I've always viewed the Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same counterfeit coin, the inevitable result of a first past the post electoral system producing two choices nearly alike where they agree on everything significant (and offensive) - spending as much as the rest of the world put together on a military, support for other corporatist interests driving up essential costs like housing/health care/education faster than inflation producing a decreasing standard of living, a punitive tax system (Bush 43 made America's tax system the most progressive out of the OECD 24, Reagan contributed to Romney's 47% of non-income-tax-payers with the earned income credit expansion, this is very much a bipartisan effort), laws against recreational drugs apart from alcohol (with carbs, obesity, and hangovers) and tobacco (with cancer) with the resulting war on some drugs (While the drunk asks for a hand out that he'll eventually get to buy his fix, the coke/meth/heroin/whatever addict can't make ends meet that way so I need to worry about them mugging me), etc. Deprived of a choice in significant issues (for example everyone not downsizing to a less expensive home or involved in selling real estate and mortgages would do better in a world with 8% interest rates that can only go down and half the home value over one with 3% loans that can't go down without becoming negative in real terms and double the price tags, property taxes, and down-payments; and that situation only exists because of government intervention in the mortgage market with the GSEs and federal reserve purchase of mortgage backed securities) only the less significant remain with gun control the biggest among them for me personally. As a man abortion isn't a personal issue and as a working guy I can afford to fly the women in my family to free states and countries if needed; as some one saving for my retirement I'm likely to be disqualified by the inevitable means testing of Social Security so cuts don't matter; the kids have under graduate degrees so school funding doesn't matter; I'm happily married to a woman so gay marriage is also a theoretical concern; etc. After Obama's promise to vigorously pursue gun control laws including a meaningful ban on some of the guns I like to own I got comfortable overlooking everything else which doesn't affect me personally. That also has the nice side effect of reducing the amount of propaganda I need to sift through when voting. Do you people think I can donate money to the national GOP and have that spent on winnable fights with candidates that I'd support (with geography based districts and left-leaning Demographics I can't elect people to represent me, and could not get a proportional representation ballot initiative passed) or do I need to take the trouble to find candidates I'd like in contested winnable races elsewhere and make direct donations? Is it safe to donate to the state Republican party, do I need to exercise the same due diligence, or is my money best spent at the national level?

I don't know about that. None of the people I know who made a visit to the orthopedic surgeon are dead or disabled and only one made a return visit. Lesee.. one, two, three, four, five died from bad judgement without a surgical intervention before then. I prefer when jumpers who listen and learn from other peoples' mistakes, but when they don't I hope for enough of an injury to be a learning experience with no permanent damage because things are likely to be much worse later in their career at a higher wing loading.

1. Dress for success. Skydivers whose nickname starts with "big" (like "Big Ben") or who refer to themselves as anvils need baggy suits sometimes with wings built in to bring their drag in line with their weight. You have the opposite problem and need a slick skin tight suit as opposed to the relaxed fit student suit you've been borrowing. Increasing your weight will also help. A weight vest/belt or pockets on your first rig for lead weights will give you some pounds that are useful skydiving but don't impact the rest of your life like what you get from beer and cheeseburgers. You could also get your normal sized coaches to wear baggy free fly suits, although for more than a 2-way flat jump people will want their regular suits with grippers. 2. Be more flexible and bend in half like a yogi.

I quit picking up extra money with small consulting projects in the mid 1990s when I realized I wasn't allowed to keep even half that money 31% federal 6.2% FICA 6.2% employer's share of FICA 5% state 1.45% Medicare 1.45% employer's share of Medicare 51.3% total

Would you be happy to be limited to travelling only as far as you can go on a bike in a day? You don't have a constitutional right to happiness.

Nope. You could move to a more urban area close to jobs that you could walk to, bike to, or reach via public transportation. I've never lived anywhere over the last 22 years where I wouldn't want to bike to work. Doing so might require downsizing, perhaps as far as a studio apartment (shared with one or more unrelated people if your industry does not pay high enough wages). When I lived in Boulder, CO I had a town house instead of a house and yard out in the boonies from which I'd need to drive. In Seattle, WA I shared a studio apartment with my wife and cat. They can get a different job. We don't have a right to 3 bedroom, two bath ranch houses. A good spouse sticks it out.

I support the right of insane people (including Christians, Democrats, and vegans) to own guns until they've been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution as defined under 27 CFR 478.11 where 1) The determination was by a court 2) The accused had adequate notice to mount a defense 3) The accused had the right to respond to charges 4) The accused had the right to legal counsel

I don't know about that. If there's a 20 year mandatory prison sentence for being in possession of one, then it will surely discourage a lot of Rambo wannabes. It would, for example, be difficult to hide it if you took it to a range to test it. Some one risking a life sentence or execution for each murder won't be dissuaded by the additional penalty. People who don't commit murder don't commit murder regardless of what weapons they own. Since 1934 only two out of the 240,000 machine guns legally owned by private citizens have been used in crimes, the last by a corrupt Ohio police officer who decided to use his MAC sub-machine gun to murder an informant.

1. Regan was senile long before 1994 2. Before then if Regan had faced Obama in a presidential election he'd have lost as the more liberal of the two. Where Obama granted amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants who came here before age 16 but were still under age 30 Reagan let all 3,000,000 who'd made it to American soil continue their stay. Obama only got long term capital gains taxed at 60% of the ordinary income rate for rich people while Reagan managed equal tax rates for all forms of income. Obama merely preserved the Bush 43 cuts while Regan expanded the earned income credit. Etc.

Boulder, CO. Nearest skiing/snowboarding is 45 minutes away; turbine DZ 15 minutes; there are 40,000 acres of open space for 80,000 residents; it's definitely cycling friendly; and although it gets cold over night average daily highs in the einter are 45-50. It's not cheap but compares well to other places that people want to live.

My right to own an AR15 ends when......................... You are convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or through due process (you receive time to prepare a defense, are allowed legal representation, etc.) are adjudicated mentally defective.

E-code lamps tend to have a much sharper cut-off mine with less light above it than US spec lamps so the same height, brightness, and adjustment with our lights tends to shed more light on drivers headed in the opposite direction I switched to E-code projectors after upgrading from a Toyota built in 1969 to a 1998 Audi and finding its stock US DOT head lamps were two steps backwards that had me afraid of running off the road. The E-codes put a lot more light on the road but make it harder to read non-retro reflective signs naming cross-streets installed on traffic light supports in the middle of the road because the cut-off is sharp and hockey-stick shaped.

Sure for any gun I'll have with me in public in a populous place like a shopping mall. Applicable in all 50 states. No registration required if I want to keep it at my home, take it to privately owned firing ranges, and/or use it on less urban places under government control like BLM land. Relevant analogs are street cars (guns I take shopping with me) and race cars/dune buggies/fork lifts which aren't registered and don't take operating licenses. Provided that's _ANY_ gun including automatic weapons and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Just like a car or truck where I can have one which goes 200 MPH or totals 65' in length with attached boat trailer. With no artificial restrictions, like I can't own one made after 1986 so the price tag will be $16,000 not the $800 police departments pay. No special requirements for transport across state lines - just take it and go. With a test so simple I can pass after 15 minutes of study and no additional test required for my lifetime provided that I don't move between states. Many people suggesting that guns should be treated like cars don't mean it literally like I do. Naturally I wouldn't accept such a thing without an increase in the sorts of guns I'm allowed to own and the ability to carry any gun I want in every state everywhere in public.

I think you should have to pass a test and have a license in order to be able to own one, and then it should have to be registered. Oh wait..... There's no problem with that when every one over 16 with acceptable vision can take the simple test, the license has a negligible cost, they can own any vehicle they can afford, and the license + registration are only required to use the vehicles in public in populated areas (off-highway vehicles like race cars and dune buggies are exempt from both requirements).

Irrelevant. The majority of Americans believe that access to objects which may lead to death must be controlled. When 88 deaths from mass shootings in one year are a call to action, the 5000 annual non-occupant (like 3-4 Sandy Brooks every week of every year) deaths caused by motor vehicle drivers should be a call for over 50 times the action. Starting with a ban on Suburban Assault Vehicles is a fine idea, where a Suburban Assault Vehicle has one or more of the following features: 1. Steering wheel or column mounted shift levers which facilitate high-speed operation 2. A high-capacity gas tank which can hold over 10 gallons to fuel sleep deprived cross-country trips 3. A military-style "trailer hitch" or chassis provisions to which one may be attached 4. Black paint which renders them less visible to law enforcement or are included on a list (where examples would include the Porsche 911, Chevrolet Corvette, Cadillac Escalade, and Ford F350). Members of the AAA should examine their consciences, do what's right for the children, and accept these reasonable restrictions as part of living in a civilized society.

Because it will cost more. In Johnson county the median home value is $212K which makes for about $7K in interest on a new conventional 30 year loan at 4% with 20% down. Median household income is $75K which puts those people in the 6.45% bracket for a $451 tax increase assuming a new mortgage. Missouri only has a 6% marginal tax rate, but it starts at $9000 with no standard deduction so that couple would be paying $4275/year in taxes with the mortgage deduction if they moved there versus the $3892 they'd pay without it in Kansas (Assuming no children or other deductions - I just dumped the numbers into online calculators. Obviously assuming that income earned in Kansas would still be taxed at the Missouri rate). Including depreciation and assuming a typical 10 company holidays plus two weeks of vacation the driving costs at the standard IRS rate (It could be accurate - when I did the math I arrived at a $0.54 incremental cost for each mile I drove assuming I got 150,000 of my own miles out of my car and sold it for a few thousand in parts value) will run $4000. $383 more in taxes + $4000 in driving costs = $4383 more. This ignores transaction costs (6% split between listing and selling agent) which will run $12,700 on that median house which is more than the total tax savings over the life of the loan in nominal dollars (much more once you take the time value of money into account). It also ignores non-monetary costs. Averaging a legal 65 MPH, 15 miles one-way to work will cost them 111 hours a year more in their cars. I can get a _lot_ done in my workshop in that time and would consider it about the same as an extra three weeks at the office each year or 75% drop in vacation time in the hypothetical 10 holiday 2-week situation. Just be thankful you're not yet paying a 9.3% marginal rate like you would in California (plus 1% state disability insurance up to the cap). Eastern Kansas is almost Missouri and starting from Missouri (I grew up outside St. Louis) I'd move to Colorado (spent 15 years there from age 18 on) which charges residents 4.63% of their Federal taxable income and doesn't make up for the moderate income tax with high property taxes (I was paying $1500 a year on a property I sold for $266,000 when I moved out which is 0.6%). The climate and snow sports are _much_ better.

I can speak my mind. I can say whatever I want. There are no banned words because such would be a “prior restraint” of speech. Perhaps more significantly we don't limit technology which could be misapplied to commit criminal acts and cause civil damages when it has permissible uses. We don't limit the number of subscribers to web sites because it would be a real problem when one like youtube was used to incite millions of followers to commit violent illegal acts. We don't limit word processor file size because they may be used to produce documents like Ted Kaczynski's 35,000 word manifesto. We haven't banned color copiers and printers because they might be used to print counterfeit currency that some people would accept as real. We haven't banned digital recorders that could be used for illegal surveillance or unauthorized duplication of copyright materials.

My rights are way more important than things you think might keep you safe.

How much do you think the U.S. military should be cut? I'd start at $500B a year or $5T/decade ($5000B) the way Congress people talk. To put that in perspective the Economist reported that taxing capital gains as ordinary income would yield $240B/decade or $24B/year (that surprised me). This is 20X better for our deficit. Both Bush 43's Medicare Part D and Obamacare projections are 1T/decade with such military cuts 5X better. That way we'd still be spending more than #2 (China), 2.7X #2 in NATO (the UK), and 6.5X the nearest first world country with the same land mass (Canada) not including other defense spending like DOE protection of nuclear assets and other homeland security like the TSA.

Yes although I'd support a constitutional amendment banning them for everyone along with lethal and permanently debilitating chemical and biological agents. In practical terms when something is so dangerous you can't trust individuals with it the same thing holds for a government comprised of individuals. I like the moral purity of such a restriction too - it means no animals (together in government) are more equal than others (those outside it). It says "arms" which is an all-inclusive term. The STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty was about nuclear bombs not small arms like shoulder launched surface to air missiles, rocket propelled grenades, and machine guns. In the Founding Fathers' time the term included everything up to the pinnacle of current technology: cannon armed warships. Letters of marquee and reprisal (allowing private citizens to seize enemy nations' assets) would have been relatively meaningless without that (privateers played roles in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812). It covers current technologies the same way the First Amendment does. The prohibition on "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" still applies when news purveyors publish via radio waves, web sites for on-line viewing, and downloadable digital podcasts for later consumption instead of orating atop soap boxes and publishing with human-powered printing presses. Keep and bear are separate. Except when applied against a large group of opposing foes and/or their assets. If the Soviets parachuted in Red Dawn style and started seizing Kansas farmland an ICBM launched from every Mid West spread that could afford one to the heads of those supply chains in Eastern Europe and political centers behind them would end that fight. Nope. Or grapeshot at a group of people, or a canon ball at a ship. The NRA is a revenue generating organization and revenue is the product of customer count and revenue per. Maximizing that requires a large number of customers and something like "hunters" gets more than "strict constitutionalists" and "pure libertarians". "hunters" are too mainstream to threaten legislatively. Sport utility rifles are not. There should be few million sport utility rifles not covered by The National Firearms Act of 1934 in private hands which Obama has said he'll "vigorously" pursue. Not too many people have spent a few hundred thousand dollars on one WW2 Sherman tank. Ergo the NRA focusses on things like semi-automatic sport-utility guns. I let my membership lapse and joined JPFO plus GOA when I saw the NRA-ILA endorsing anti-gun Republicans over less unfavorable Democrats. They seem to have noticed that's a loosing strategy and come around so I joined up again. I also decided that as a man abortion isn't a personal issue for me (I can afford to fly women in my family to free states), as some one saving for my retirement Social Security isn't something I care about given the inevitable means testing, education doesn't matter now that our kids have under graduate degrees, and as a straight white guy gay marriage is a purely theoretical thing. Gun rights are personal, so I think I'll be funding the GOP, California GOP, and a few politicians fighting winnable contested battles elsewhere since representation decided according to geographic boundaries means my vote usually does not count.

That seems to be how it's done when you don't have a back hoe at your disposal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e45jivkXNLM

I wouldn't willingly surrender a dime more until they get a handle on truly wasteful spending and corporatist laws that artificially increase prices at which point the deficit could be eliminated with zero net cost to the citizens. 2011 military spending was $711 billion (this does not include homeland security, DOE spending to protect nuclear materials, etc.) The number 2 ranked NATO country was $62 billion and Canada with our same land mass only spent $25B. Only doubling the UK's spending and still beating China would save $1900 for every man, woman, and child. In terms of purchasing power parity, US governments spent more on health care than all but three other countries (Monaco, Luxembourg, and Norway). We're insuring just 25% of our population with the sort of spending that much of the world uses to cover their entire populations. This is because "health care" is more about funneling tax dollars to for-profit corporations than taking care of people. Cutting out the corporate middle men and spending the same money could save thousands of private dollars for every man, woman, and child. Etc.