Cajundude

I bought a new pair of tennis shoes for my first jump and have worn them on every jump, except the last 4… I left them at home. I didn't die...

Why would you hate the rich? That makes no sense to me. If someone works their butt off and makes a bunch of money, so what! When this question is posed I can see where there could be jealousy, sure, if you are a .com millionaire and made your money quick, I could see jealousy but good for you! If you were born into a family with money, I could see jealousy but good for you! You were a member of the lucky sperm club, the sibling didn't choose that! But to say you hate the rich because they are rich is just retarded. As far as the tax rate, whey should rich people get taxed more?Because they worked harder and need to support the lazy? I am in agreement with shropshire, if you are a dick, you are a dick. And if you are a dick just because you have money, you are a special kind of dick. For anybody bitching, get over it and get off your lazy ass and make some money yourself! (I am not rich nor do I hate the people that have more money than me because that would make zero sense no matter how they got it…)

Yowsa, glad you are ok!

I guess she can't get no satisfaction. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/wren-scott-fashion-designer-found-dead-hanging-apartment-cops-article-1.1724198

Yup. There should be stiffer penalties for people that have guns that should not. Licensed or not, if you don't secure your weapon and a kid gets it I do not have sympathy when it comes to your sentencing either. However, the solution is not to take away the guns no mater if it is a BB gun or one of the "evil black" rifles which most if not all gun control advocates have no clue about.

Yup, there are idiots everywhere and this was last year. I can name one that happened five minutes ago for a criminal pointing a gun. To your point, one of them may have been standing their ground and this ended very unfortunately...

Why? I'm open to explanation. My belief is that it is subject to lines being drawn. And different people draw them in different places. Perhaps in twenty years people will start saying that the term "Vikings" is bad. I can see a team name like the Lafayette Coonasses being objectionable by lots of people and being rabidly supported by self-identifying coonasses around Lafayette and elsewhere. But as I've also stated with regard to auto names, we'll name a rugged car a "Cherokee" but not name an economy car a "Jew." Because there are lines. LMAO

And in the time that these 90 died, probably not ONE of them a lawful gun owner doing the killing in an unjustified way, if at all. Well, Captain Obvious, murder is not generally lawful. True, but it is sometimes justified. Murder is unlawful, protecting yourself is lawful. As I stated before, I do not care if you are carrying a toothpick or a bazooka, if you break into someones house it is your choice to face the consequences. You never hear of any lawful gun owners having shootouts on the street killing each other (I'm sure you'll dig up one crazy person somewhere and completely ignore all the criminals).

And in the time that these 90 died, probably not ONE of them a lawful gun owner doing the killing in an unjustified way, if at all.

]\\ Whiner!

It is still $1000 on the website at the moment. I just went to renew my regular membership just in case they jump that up.

I didn't answer your first question on how I would feel. I will always feel safer because I will never be without one.

But the question isn't how you'd feel. It's how you'd actually be. While some individuals may in fact be safer, statistically as a whole, that is not the case. Looked at another way, if you were a life insurance company, would you charge more or less for life insurance for people living in households with guns. The smart money says you would charge more. Significantly more. For registered gun owners? No, if I were an insurance company I would have an exclusion in the policy that stated something to the nature of an accident death by a firearm in the insured's residence would be a denial. I have no patience when it comes to people acting stupid with guns or leaving them out for kids to get. As far as the criminals with guns, they would not be able to track that and if guns were outlawed, guess who is still going to have the guns… the bad guys...

Also, white collar crime is not kicking my door off its hinges in the middle of the night. I ail always have a gun because it is my right to have one. I'm not paranoid, I'd rather be prepared if someone does kick that door in or some psycho tries to shoot up a mall that I am in, or a theater, or whatever...

Are you sure or are you only looking at specific types of crimes? Obvious, violent street crime, you might be right, but my guess is that crime of a different type is higher in the less violent area. I'm not saying it all balances out, but "white collar" crime rates tend to happen a lot more in affluent areas. Power cocaine tends to happen more in affluent areas than crack. Crack tends to happen more in impoverished. True, and no I have not done research not the types of crimes. There is lots of white collar crime everywhere for sure but we are talking about a gun making you safer and where I live I would feel much safer not having a gun than if I lived in any of the places mentioned above...

Furthermore, every city has crime and some more than the others. And yes, even Southern states including the one I am in now, Texas. To further narrow it down for you, Houston, further narrow it down, 18th District. Most of that district is a turdhole. Guess who runs that one… Sheila Jackson Lee. I happen to live in Ron Paul's district (now Weber). Night and day difference in crime rates and practically back up to each other.

Uhhhh, how am I being proven wrong? I never said Chicago had the highest. Besides, I'm not changing the subject, I'm pointing out the problem. Your problem is that you can not think past the piece of metal (the gun).

news.yahoo.com/2013-ends-big-drop-homicides-chicago-212612071.html Chicago's murder rate is lower than: New Orleans Atlanta Orlando Birmingham AL Detroit St. Louis Memphis Cleveland Baltimore Baton Rouge Jackson MS Mobile Philadelphia Montgomery AL and a whole bunch of others in "gun friendly" states. You mean liberal friendly. All these cities are run by Democrats. See a pattern here? So all those cities have stricter gun laws than Chicago? Really? You are clearly into self-delusion. A classic case of Dunning-Kruger effect. No, you are under the delusion that a city is a state. What we have here are cities with a concentration of freeloading welfare criminals spawned from crooked Democrat leadership. Just about every liberal run city is a cesspool.

news.yahoo.com/2013-ends-big-drop-homicides-chicago-212612071.html Chicago's murder rate is lower than: New Orleans Atlanta Orlando Birmingham AL Detroit St. Louis Memphis Cleveland Baltimore Baton Rouge Jackson MS Mobile Philadelphia Montgomery AL and a whole bunch of others in "gun friendly" states. You mean liberal friendly. All these cities are run by Democrats. See a pattern here?

LOL http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/118373-man-wakes-body-bag-funeral-home/

magazine. LOL

You are correct. It will be practically impossible to remove the gun and most certainly from the ones with mal intentions. I fully support background checks but not keeping guns from law abiding citizens no matter what kind they happen to be. Guns don't kill people, people do.

Since guns seem to be a popular subject at the moment, and immigrants, and black people (referencing the wingsuit thread), etc… here is a clip I took from my business partners FB page who just happens to be an immigrant who went the the PROPER channels to get his citizenship and he is a (God forbid I say it) a BLACK man… You want to see him go ballistic? Talk about immigration reform, gun control, black oppression, or political correctness, something liberals can't even speak logically about… Lol Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake. Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934. This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake." I say -- again: "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own. So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake. And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again. This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it. Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ... ... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!) After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake. In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things. Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"? In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns. In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967. Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"? The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"? I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more. For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be. I've got news for you: That is not "compromise". I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

Lake Wobegon effect in action. Or Dunning-Kruger. Maybe both. Uhhhhh, I think you may need a reality check and direct this back at yourself. Please… Lol

Absolutely a gun makes me feel safer in the home and on my person. I pity the robber or the home invader that comes in my direction. BTW, how are all those gun laws in Chicago working out for you and your city? It really does keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals doesn't it?