Jump to content

Recommended Posts

WTF happened at the Academy last night?

Are you referencing the incident where someone wrote “go home n*gger” on a Cadet’s white board outside his room? Or did something else happen?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In a gesture of goodwill, Southwest named a row of seats after her.

Been doing this long enough now to see the slide from something I dreamed of doing all my life to something that is absolutely unbearable at times.  Dad flew for 28 years before me and both of my gran

No dog in the fight.  But the 480FS Wikipedia page has an awesome “Woke era to present write up.” never seen that before must be a new AF Historian.

Posted Images

40 minutes ago, Duck said:


Are you referencing the incident where someone wrote “go home n*gger” on a Cadet’s white board outside his room? Or did something else happen?

There was also a false-alarm active shooter incident yesterday

Link: http://www.kktv.com/content/news/BREAKING-Reported-active-shooter-at-the-United-States-Air-Force-Academy-448771323.html

Edited by PilotCandidate
Link to post
Share on other sites

You really have to watch out for those big foam shooting nerf guns, really look like AKs and ARs these days. Especially the ones painted light blue and red.

Sarcasm obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounded eerily similar to a movement to fire drill we'd conduct in The Basic School with a platoon+ worth of Marines firing M-16s. I'd be interested to know what weapons he possessed that allowed him to maintain that sustained rate of fire.

I actually checked out of a hotel yesterday morning that was a quarter mile away from that location prior to doing my ATP/737 Type Rating check ride Sunday evening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LJDRVR said:

Sounds like a belt-fed weapon to me. Low cyclic rate and a whole lot more than thirty rounds.

Concur.  Sounds a lot like a Stoner or an M-60.  Either way, a lot of firepower for someone to sneak into a hotel room, especially someone not known as a gun guy.  Appears to be a lone wolf gone crazy, but it doesn't smell right.

Prayers and condolences to the victims and their families.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, gearpig said:

How to you get over 20 weapons to the 32nd floor without raising suspicions?

Really? 

On family trips I've had baggage carts loaded with all kinds of stuff (including weapons), and no one has ever said a word.  He was there for a few days, I would bet he used a push cart a few times and it looked like bags or boxes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you are saying but I doubt it went down like that.  I was in a hotel for three days last week and kept the do not disturb sign on the entire time, I don't like people in the room around my stuff, he could have easily done the same.  Also, you are assuming he used gun cases...this guy obviously planned this out and I am betting he was smart enough to pack and transport stuff in nondescript containers, luggage, or boxes. 

This guy was smart enough to find a perfect ambush overlook sight and install a bump fire stock.  I don't think it takes a great leap of imagination to think he could package his weapons to look like anything but weapons and make a several trips over the course of three and a half days to get his weapons unobserved into his room.  I know I could.

Unless you are advocating we search every person entering every building in the country you won't stop this type of situation from occurring when there is a determined madman.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:


Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

I will respond with one reason to consider for removable magazines.

Consider the home invasion scenario where you have multiple homes invaders with the intent to harm you and yours.  The majority of malfunctions within a semi-automatic firearms tend to be the feeding device.  A removable magazine is essential to you remedial actions when dealing with a malfunction in a gun fight.  If Tap/Rack/Pull doesn't work, the next option is, drop the mag, clear the jam, insert new mag, go.

Again, this is one reason to consider.  I am sure there are many more reasons individuals can come up with.  For me in my home, I always have multiple magazines loaded and ready to go for every self-defense firearm in my home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

Shall not be infringed.

It's the only justification necessary.

 

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Ratner said:
16 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:
Shall not be infringed.
It's the only justification necessary.
 

You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas.

Automatics are not illegal and neither are grenades. 

Why would using the Second Amendment cause me to lose? Do you support the Constitution or not?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Automatics are not illegal and neither are grenades. 
Why would using the Second Amendment cause me to lose? Do you support the Constitution or not?
Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s.

If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect.

I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill.

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Ratner said:

Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s.

If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect.

I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill.

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

 

So if you're "Very pro-second Amendment" then what is your solution to avoid violating infringement?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

Agreed but unfortunately compromise isn't possible with the gun control Left.  We could trade away bump fire stocks and trigger cranks as part of a compromise but that would just whet their appetite for more gun control, leading to their desired end game-total abolition of private firearm ownership.  Like a Terminator, they will not stop until they reach that endstate.  

The sad fact is that elimination of most firearms would be fairly easy to accomplish.  Once they have ownership lists, either by mandatory registration, credit card data mining, having doctors ask kids if their parents have guns, etc. then they can require you to turn them in.  They don't need to send police or military to round them up.  All they need to do is make turning them in a condition of any interaction with the government such as renewing your driver's license or license plates, getting a tax return, applying for unemployment, etc. 

Edited by pbar
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

The second amendment is not about hunting.

The second amendment is not about a home invasion.

The second amendment is not about “toys”.

The constitution does not grant rights.  Neither does the government.  The constitution enumerates our rights.

The constitution does not empower government.  It limits government.

Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

 

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...