Yes, I'll bet you did...

Ken Rockwell has a solution to your problems:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I am not as famous (infamous) as Mr. Rockwell but I take a different approach. You get what you pay for. Stop putting cheap film in your camera.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=824140&gclid=CJy5z-rlpr4CFaZm7AodmQ8AVg&Q=&is=REG&A=details

The above card is all I use. 32 GB (not MB).

They have larger cards but I would prefer 2 32s over 1 64. It's the whole eggs in one basket thing.

I don't think the first amendment means what you think it does.

If nothing else, this is an excellent argument for school uniforms.

Stock market is being artificially propped up by interest rates that are being held unreasonably low.

Unemployment is stable--I will agree with this but with only 61% participating in the work force I don't think this stability is a good thing. I would prefer unstable and improving to stable at a high unemployment rate.
Maybe you were just referring to the numbers that describe how many are getting unemployment benefits but don't address those whose benefits ran out or just gave up altogether.

Healthcare? Fewer are insured now than were insured before the ACA took effect. More people lost insurance and doctors they were happy with than signed up for obamacare. How many of the new signups actually paid? Not as many as you think. Some of the signups that are being counted are people who lost insurance as a result of the ACA.

Nope, don't listen to those people you mentioned. I have degrees in business, economics, & finance but my passion is history. I should have been a history teacher. I don't need anyone on TV telling me what is going on. I can see it for myself very easily.

I understand you are not impressed with their accomplishments but at least they did SOMETHING, and yes, they did build it. What did Obama accomplish before entering politics?




I'm glad you put this in simple terms so I could understand. Now let me explain something to you-- I am sick of being called a racist by race-card playing racists who do not know anything about me just because I don't agree with someone's political views.

I fear that Obama never studied history while obtaining his law degree or he would not be following the path to economic collapse that has repeated time & time again throughout history. My bigger fear is that he has studied history and he is leading us down this path on purpose.

Having said that, don't you think me calling him ignorant is the nicest description for his policies? The alternative to ignorance is that is is intentionally trying to destroy our country.

Call me what you want but don't dare call me a racist until you have met me. You could end up looking very foolish.

Yes.

Anyone who says anything critical of our president (who is less than 50% black) is a racist.

Now you know.

Yes, My reply was not really a rebuttal but more a commentary and expansion. I chose your post because you covered so many facets of the topic I was able to comment on your past rather than reply to multiple different posts.




I don't just admit it. I will come right out and say I do not believe open carry is a good idea for the general public. I will also say that the right to do so is a right that "shall not be infringed."



There really isn't a need to rebut my comments because I agree with your feelings. I strongly believe every right includes responsibility. If you are going to carry a gun you have the personal responsibility to get trained. I feel most people take this responsibility seriously and get the necessary training and experience to carry. I believe this because there just aren't many issues with people who have the LCF in my state. Overall they are a very responsible group of people. If you hear of a shooting you can bet it was either justified or a criminal or unlicensed person.

Yes, I agree that training should be required to carry a gun but you should also have to pass a test before you are allowed to vote. Both of my beliefs would make things better for everyone if implemented and both infringe on rights. Only one of my beliefs would cause public outrage although they are both constitutionally equal.

That is the unfortunate reality. The criminals have guns and we have no way of ever collecting them all up because the criminals are not willing to report what they have.

Since we are never going to rid ourselves of guns in the hands of criminals then it is necessary for the good people to have them too.

As long as the military or law enforcement is allowed to have guns then the criminals will find a way to get them too.

The real issue is that guns exist and people are not willing to acknowledge the reality of that.

You can't eliminate guns by passing a law any easier than you can cure cancer by simply passing a law saying it is illegal to have it.

Guns are here to stay. Some people will pontificate on how to get rid of them and different types of people will take a stand to actually deal with the issue.

Yes.

Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea. The idea of using a gun with alcohol in your system is a very legally scary one even if you do everything right.

Property owner's rights rule all though. If there is a sign on the door that says no guns allowed then you can be asked to leave or arrested for trespassing.

I remember seeing hunting rifles, shot guns, bows... whatever in the gun racks of pickup trucks in the student parking lot. Nobody would ever dream of bringing one inside and certainly not shooting anyone. Most of the boys also had pocket knives and a teacher would occassionally ask who had one, would borow it and give it back. Nobody ever got stabbed but some initials were carved in desks.

This was in the 80s.

Times have changed.

PA is one of those states where any adult, not otherwise prohibited, may open carry without a permit. It has been that way for a very long time so I can't speak to any increases.

In the last 10 years I recall seeing this right being excercised maybe 3 times...total. People in different areas of the state may have different experiences and I am not counting law enforcement.

Why?
I think I have some ideas why people don't open carry:

1. People don't know it is legal. There are rumors you can be arrested for disorderly conduct if someone is offended by your open carry and some dumb cops have tried this but simply open carrying does not violate the law even if someone doesn't like it. A con-ed update came out a couple years ago for all cops in the state to remind them it is not legal for them to harass someone for simply excercising open carry rights. I think this came about from a group having their open carry meetings in a Pizza Hut or something.
2. People know it is legal but don't want to be seen as a gun nut or social outcast.
3. People prefer to carry concealed because a concealed carry permit is easy to get and you will need a permit if you plan on geting in a car while wearing your gun (where it is concealed by the car.)
4. People realize open carry is a big responsibility and makes you a target in many ways.

So to answer your question, Pennsylvania does not look like the wild wild west.

The problem here is that you are dealing with a right, not a privelige. Sure, you can demand a test for a driver's license but would you also agree a test should be given before you are allowed to vote? Sure if you carry a gun that doesn't work or you don't know how to use it you are asking for big trouble and would probably be better off without it. I feel that most responsible people will make the correct decision. I agree range time is also very important but if you are going to require it then you better first make sure it is available to everyone in a convenient and affordable way the same way voter ID is.



As someone who open carries almost every day, I can tell you it is generally not a good idea for the general public. Occassionally I am in a uniform but mostly I am just in a dress shirt & tie with a badge clipped on my belt. The badge stops most of the verbal assaults and not being dressed like a dirt bag lowers the stress level of those who don't notice the badge right away.

Open carry eliminates the element of surprise. It makes you a target so you better be alert. You need a whole different mindset when pulling in to a business in a marked car and if you ever walk into a bank or convenience store you better pause outside and look in through a window to see if everything looks normal. You walk into an armed robbery wearing a visible gun while talking on a phone or looking at your shoes you will be dead before you ever realized what happened. Sure open carry can deter crime but concealed is better because the criminals have to guess who is armed. It shifts the advantage to the good guys. This is where a right requires responsibility. In PA, where I live, any adult, not otherwise prohibited, may open carry without a permit. I support this right but say that you better know what you are getting yourself in to and understand you are putting your life on the line to make a statement. I am always on the alert when open carrying. Nobody can maintain that high alert level all the time so when I am off duty I always carry concealed. I still stay alert but don't have to worry about things like turning my gun side away from people, keeping my arm over my gun in a crowd and all those little things you should be trained to do before you open carry.




Yes, If you live in the right area the criminals should assume everyone is armed.



Well, this could be enforced as trespassing and it is enforcable. You could say you didn't notice the sign but when you are asked to leave you would have to do so immediately. Also, if you were to told never to return this would also be enforcable.[/quote]



Generally, yes.




There is no required training in my state for a concealed permit either, just like there is no training required before you register to vote. If you are a responsible cititizen, you should seek education before exercising either of these rights. Failure to do so can have extreme concequences for you and those around you.




Um... what?
Simply carrying either open or concealed is not justification to be stoped and identified. I really don't see criminals open carry. They want to hide it.
It isn't hard to determine if someone isn't allowed to have a gun but they have to do something other than just having a gun before you check. Having it concealed in a car or on their person would be reason to check for a permit then it can all go quickly down hill from there.

The nuts could do that before the law was passed. It was before and still is illegal to go into a bar or movie theater and start shooting people. The difference now is that there may be some good people who obey the law in the area to shoot back and possibly stop the nut before he either gets tired or runs out of ammunition.

When gun laws are passed it is important to remember that those laws only matter to people who want to obey the law. The criminals and insane are not detered from killing people just because they might also be charged with illegal posession of a firearm.

I find people who believe the simple passage of a law will eliminate unwanted behavior are disconnected from reality.

Have you witnessed any laws being broken today or did you break any yourself? Did you drive anywhere today? How are those laws working? Obeyed only by those who want to obey them maybe?

It would only make you appear as ignorant as I would appear for asking why you need a royal family.

It is not only our right, but our responsibility, lest some Brits try to once again make us their subjects. Not that we really have that fear--our own government is in the process of making us subjects. The 2nd amendment is there to prevent the others from being removed.

You are singing like a caged bird. You have no right to free speech or freedom of the press so you really don't value these things like we do. You don't need to fear rights being taken from you if you don't have them in the first place. Your illusion of these rights are granted at the pleasure of your government but could be taken from you in a heartbeat if the peasants start getting uppity.

Wrong answer. That would be the same thing as me taking a photo you posted and I would "alter" it by putting my copyright watermark on it. You can't alter a copyrighted work and void the copyright.




The difference here is that he took a photo of a photo and didn't simply alter the original. This is the grey area where lawyers earn their money. Copyright is created when the shutter clicks. What happens when you take a photo of a copyrighted work? What if the photo that was protographed was not only copyrighted but also a trademark?

Did you know the lighting design on the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted and if you want to take a photo of the tower at night you have to pay a licensing fee to have it published? Why would the same law not apply to a photo?




Yes, the EXIF data is all you need and if it is altered or removed the penalties increase. Even better if it is registered.

Just whatever you do, don't go putting huge copyright watermarks on your images. Nothing screams amateur pretending to be professional like a big ugly watermark or logo.

Well you will need the 70D to take a picture of you with your 6D! ...just kidding (kinda)

If you have the financial means to keep it then you should.

I see all the full frame / crop arguing kind of like mechanics arguing about what is better - English or metric wrenches.

The truth is your cameras are different tools and they have tradeoffs of different advantages and disadvantages in different situations. Granted, with the 6D there aren't many disadvantages but there are situations a 70D could be slightly better. If you sold your 70D you wouldn't get near enough money to buy lenses to make up for the options you lost.

Sure you can sometimes use the wrong wrench and get acceptable results but you normally wouldn't do that if the right wrench was available.

Crop sensors excel in good light when you are maxing out your focal length.

Full frame is going to give you better image quality in all types of light and will beat the crop when it starts getting dark.

If you are able to fill your frame with your subject the full frame is going to be better. If you are at your max focal length and you are still going to need to crop on the full frame but the 70D would allow you to fill your frame with your subject and you are in good light then the crop is going to give you more pixels to work with. The extra "reach" of a crop is somewhat a myth and somewhat not at the same time. It really depends on the situation.

Aside from the sensor, the 70D is a faster camera with more focus points and a better focusing system for fast action. Faster isn't always better but it can come in handy.

The rear display being able to swing out and be viewed from the front can also come in handy when you are taking photos of yourself with your 6D.

It's also really good to have a backup.