Pancake

Lowering the drinking age to 18 and upping the driving age to 21 makes more sense to me than current laws. I'm curious how powerful MADD remains. I know they're a big proponent behind the 21 year drinking age, but I haven't heard or seen much from them in the past few years. What happened to the "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" ads?

My sister left Misawa today. She acted on a gut feeling that she should leave, packed up her two kids, and caught the first flight to the States-a C-17 to McChord. Scary thing is that she doesn't know when/if she should go back. Japan's in a desperate situation. They're a good people that need to be in our thoughts...

Amen, Brotha. As a conservative, I appreciate finding common ground. I didn't confuse "legal" and "right," but thanks for the heads-up. As for "being on the wrong side of a criminal case," "holding you head high," and "same goes in the jet"... pretty bold statement for something I assume hasn't happened. Sheep/Sheepdog, IMO, both lives are equally valuable. You may kill an innocent person and go to jail, BUT THE INNOCENT PERSON IS DEAD! Personally, I don't care if you go to jail or not. I do, however, care about protecting innocent people from untrained shooters who were "doing the right thing." My point is that if you want to carry, you should be required to be current and qualified. So that makes the few lives lost to stray bullets ok?!

nsplayer isn't advocating more gun control. He simply posted an article that offers an opposing view. M2 said a trained shooter can reload in less than 1 sec. How long does it take an untrained shooter? Is that a window of vulnerability that us law-abiding types can exploit? You say we need 75-round magazines and AKs to protect ourselves. Two questions: How's life in Darfur these days, and how bad of a shot are you? I doubt you need 75-round magazines to kill an intruder in your cozy suburban home (ref: nsplayer's evaluation of the philosophical argument).

I agree with you 100%. However, that doesn't excuse the well-intentioned, law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen from the repercussions of errant bullets shot from their weapon. Criminals will commit crime; they will have guns regardless of the laws. However, it would be a real shame to watch a law-abiding citizen become a criminal in the squeeze of a trigger. IMO, if you want to legally open/concealed carry, then you must 1) realize you are 100% responsible for who you kill, correct target or not, 2) subject to all laws regardless of intentions, and 3) be required to receive annual training and pass annual evaluations. The way it is now is akin, IMO, to taking a B-courser to the range, dropping a few BDUs, firing the gun, then turning them loose in the Stan, alone and unafraid-not a good idea. The carrying citizen in this case showed good judgment. I doubt that all 299,999,998 (minus Loughner) Americans would show the same judgment. Good talk, good talk. Thanks.

Would a crowd full of gun carrying citizens have stopped Loughner from walking up to Giffords and firing at point-blank range? Doubt it. Common sense and/or mortality doesn't stop crazy people, either. So let's say a gun-carrying citizen shot at Loughner, missed, and killed innocent person? What's the fall-out from that? While I'm 100% in favor of open and concealed carry, I don't understand how anyone can advocate untrained Dirty Harry wannabes walking the streets, praying to become a folk hero. Police officers, FFDOs, fighter pilots, etc... all require mandated use-of-force training. But Billy Jack and his MP-4 don't?!? Personally, I don't want to be at a Dunkin Donuts with my family when it gets robbed and Billy Jack steps in to "save the day"... Then accidentally kills half of the donut-makers, and possibly my family. There are a lot of people walking the streets who think they are much bigger bad-asses than they really are. Some of them have guns, and I'm not comfortable with that.

Dude, your assessment couldn't be further from my beliefs.

No one in this thread has called for more gun legislation. Grandstanding politicians, yes, but no one in this thread. The reality is that 4 or 5 people think their opinions in support of unlimited gun ownership are sacrosanct while anything else is ludicrous. Reminds me of a room full of these guys... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N2E93VzQSA Note: NSFW breast feeding video link also on page.

Like this opinion...

Pancake. It says that every time I post.

Thank God for that... And, it's "Crew Dawg," thank you very much...

If I'm wrong, please explain the merits of unlimited gun rights. And don't use the "criminals will win" argument. A .45 bullet will drop a bad guy just as quickly as a 30mm HEI round, if the user is proficient, of course. Spoken like the true intellectual you are! I'm also very intimidated by your "capturing" skills. I've voiced my opinion. You've made it clear that any real discussion about this topic is impossible, so why should we waste time exercising your vast vocabulary of four-letter words in a series of pointless back-and-forths? The First Amendment has limits. Inciting mayhem, for instance. One more thing... It's seemingly always the guys who have never actually done "something," whether that "something" be getting laid, flying airplanes, or being violent (killin' squirrels don't count), that talk the most/act the biggest about it. Just something I've noticed...

And I'm exercising my right to the First Amendment which I have defended (and continue to) for the last 17 years. I disagree with your view of the Second Amendment.

Really?! Joking, right?! I am all about the second amendment, but is all of that necessary? I'm curious of the purpose of such extensive firepower. Obviously, firearm ownership lines have to be drawn somewhere. Whether it's semi-automatic handguns, fully-automatic rifles, or personally owned A-10s, there comes a point where the right to bear arms ends. Just like well-intentioned evangelicals, over-the-top radio talk show hosts, or radical political activists put-off the general public with their voices, responsible gun owners can be a lot more successful advocating the Second Amendment by quietly promoting safe and responsible gun usage than by owning, bragging about, or encouraging stockpiling of military standard weapons. No private citizen is going to fend off any tyrannical government with any amount of firepower, and for the safety of my family, I prefer just enough firepower to get lodged in an intruder, but not go through my baby's bedroom wall. I am a Constitutionally-minded conservative, but bragging about the size of your "gun" in the aftermath of events like yesterday's shootings does more to hurt Second Amendment rights than help. I'm not sayin', but... I'm just sayin'.

All grandstanding. I doubt any of this will make it past the House, or even to the floor. Ironically, based on her voting record, I doubt Giffords would vote for such legislation, as a she is a gun owner. The AZ CD8 campaign was very contentious and well-covered. Being conservative-leaning, I would have voted (if I was an AZ resident) for Giffords over Kelly (R candidate). Besides Obamacare and abortion rights, she's conservative, well educated, down-to-earth, and actually listens to her constituents.

Disagree. You're assuming all CCWs are expertly proficient. I'm not sure introducing more bullets to the situation in this case would have been a good thing. Again, all speculation.

I hear ya, but disagree. My experience with handguns is as an enlisted SP and as aircrew. I've never not shot expert. Between the time to mentally shift from "friendly day at the supermarket" to "kill" mode, ID the target, prepare to fire, and pop off a few rounds, I'd prefer to tackle the guy. Loughner's 30 or so single-action shots probably took about 10 seconds to fire. Anyway, all speculation, none of us were there... Cheers to the heroes that subdued this guy, and prayers to the families of the dead and injured.

The magic formula? Who knows? ACSC (correspondence) and master's "complete" are requisite for non-selects. My anecdotal observation is that stratification is the one thing that really matters. GRE, GMAT, DLAB, SOS DG, and GPA are nice footnotes, but ultimately, it's my opinion that you will do in-residence IDE where (if) your wing commander thinks you should.

Does the board consider a candidate's graduate discipline when considering IDE opportunities? The number of degrees? The university(ies)? Can the GMAT substitute for the GRE? Through my IDE research, I concluded that ultimately, the selection process is all but entirely out of my control.

My response to the article comments: Instead of wasting time searching for loop holes/complaining about the test, spend a few more minutes running or preparing healthy meals. IMO, the number one barrier to passing (note "passing," not "maxing") this test is weight. It's my anecdotal observation that failure has a direct correlation to weight: you're fat, you fail. Please don't respond with "I'm too busy to work out or eat healthy." We all are, yet most of us still pass the test. Shucks! I proudly wear my patch every Friday... Seriously, there is (was) a patch for scoring a 90+?!?

So who's going to fly these things? Seems like a perfect AFRES opportunity.

Lots of good points, but it's important to also recognize the poll sample is likely skewed towards negative responses-I don't see too many threads on BO.net about the positive aspects of the Air Force. However, I don't think historical data (which has been trending towards lower retention rates) is a viable indicator either. Stop loss? It's one thing to stop-loss 4-year enlistees, but stop-lossing career officers may have a seriously negative impact on recruitment of future officers... very dangerous QOL policy that makes the Guard (or not serving) much more attractive than AD. If Big Blue plans on playing the "bad economy" card to keep pilots in, they may be in for a surprise. It's not that bad, especially if you have a "usable" master's or plan on going to the airlines. I'm interested in reading the next ACP. Will we get one? How much? Is $25,000/year worth sacrificing significant control of future assignments? IMO, the answer to the AF's problems is cultural change that favors the biggest stakeholders. If you want to keep the people you spend the most $$ training, treat them like they're the most valuable part of the team. All successful businesses/teams practice this form of retention. So should the AF.

Sounds like you flew for Airtran?

I hate it too. But, just like the Cavalry left horses for vehicles (more mobility and protection), the AF will leave some manned aircraft missions for UAVs (more loiter, lower cost, and less risk). On the one hand, your nuclear example could be as easily applied to the F-22/F-35-the future will tell. On the other hand, one could argue that our investment in nuclear platforms actually prevented their use through the deterrent of MAD. We must be smart about spending as social entitlement programs grow and defense budgets shrink. I trust (hope) AF leadership has a better grasp of national strategy than folks at Baseops.net, and that they are making smart decisions about future military engagement. With all of our problems at home, unless we're full-up attacked by a nation-state, I doubt that any time soon our democracy will tolerate a war with anything less than national survival at stake. If I could predict the future, however, I'd be doing something more exciting than posting on Baseops.net.

Hoss, I agree with you. UAVs ARE the AF's future, like it or not. Proof: compare what is and what isn't funded. Personally, I want nothing of it, but this is the capability AF leadership selected to maintain both our future relevance and funding. From an efficiency perspective, UAVs are high value (capability/investment). With that said, strictly sending the "best and brightest," or the "weak swimmers" to UAVs damages the AF. IMO, the best answer is to send volunteers. TX dates, school slots, and assignment preference to those with UAV time are easy ways the Air Force can get a mix of "upper tier" volunteers. Offer leadership development to those HPOs selected to stay in the UAV AFSC. Promising good things then reneging, however, guarantees the poisoning of any MWS culture. As we are now, I think it's best to man UAVs with CAF FLs/Navs-people who have experience of combined execution with UAVs. We haven't built combat doctrine around UAVs, they're simply assets that usually do what the on-scene commander dictates. The real-time, in-the-cockpit, perspective adds a lot of value to UAV effectiveness. I was at the briefing with you and heard the same thing. Patches will maintain their due on the predominant share of FS/CC jobs. However, ACC/A3 (I think) is the weight behind the "breadth of experience" comment. IMO, he's one of the best officers in the AF-hopefully in line for CSAF. I trust what ACC/A3 says and think we'll see more emphasis on UAV experience as he gains more influence. To reemphasize, I have no desire to leave my current cockpit.