Lord Ratner

Gender differences ≠ Racial differences. So let's just skip that diversion. We already discriminate based on gender in the military. And we should. The extent to which we do so is a valid debate. Also, reposting something does not equal endorsing every word of an interview. As I said, I wish our leaders wouldn't post/repost/share anything, but they do. If Hegseth says he believes women should not serve, then you have a point. Hell, if he refuses to answer, even then you have a point. Right now you do not. Call it lunacy all you want. We will *never* have a functional government by this standard. I think it's lunacy to believe that gay people will go to hell. I also think it's lunacy to believe that gay parents are a drop-in substitute for straight parents. Every belief is absurd to someone. But he did not voice an opinion about women serving or not serving. *You* think it's wrong. Which is worse? Saying women shouldn't serve, or promoting seizing the means of production? What about hate speech laws? Affirmative action? How many people would die if we "turn the clock back 77 years" and ban women from military service versus legalizing all drugs? Is a discriminatory belief less acceptable than a fatal belief? It's just hypothetical, since PetSouth has never said that women should be banned from serving. Overturning RvW was the constitutional answer. Period. So now that's a step on the slippery slope? Also, could you elaborate on the gay marriage to Jews continuum? Not going to lie, watching you lump disparate issues together like this is making you sound more like Sotomayor then Alito. If we shouldn't have a Secretary of defense that would roll back women serving in the military, do you also suggest that we shouldn't have supreme Court justices that would (did) roll back Roe v Wade? Do we appoint a new Arbiter of Acceptable Opinions, or do we just rely on the first amendment and let the voters to decide? I already told you I agreed with you on Signal (that it is a fire-able offense, not that he *should* be fired), but we are talking specifically about this Twitter post. I won't make so broad a statement, but again, if Pete Hegseth actually advocates for banning women from the military, then I will agree that he is the wrong person to run the DoD. But he hasn't done that, regardless of how much I disagree with him retweeting a ridiculous interview.

For this? Why? Because you don't like his beliefs? I don't agree with them either, though I haven't taken the time to listen to the complete interview. I'd rather we just close off the pipeline of unfiltered reactions to every stimulus in the world. Our leaders should not have social media. We shouldn't know what they think about everything. You guys are acting like you still haven't figured it out. They're all crazy. They're all idiots. If you expect these people (or any people) to have the right views and the right ideas and the right responses and the right actions to every possible situation, then every single one will be a let down. Vote for what matters *now.* Women are not going to be forcibly impregnated and kicked out of the workplace, losing their suffrage in the process. The signal thing was bad. 100% understand calling for removal for that. I don't think RFK Jr should be removed for thinking he has a worm in his brain, nor do I think Hank Johnson should be removed for thinking Guam could flip over. I don't think they should be voted for, but that's not the same as calling for their resignation. Cancel Culture indeed.

Get a Holosun with the ACSS Vulcan reticle. Hands down the best reticle for fast acquisition.

"Did you kill him?" "... yes." "Thank you for your honesty. I think that's about everything we had, you may go."

Hey man, like I said, if they had approvals and those approvals were taken away, that's bullshit. Regardless of the political issue. But I also don't think it's going to matter. I remember you were convinced that the Roe v Wade ruling was going to doom Republicans forever (hyperbole), but I think I was closer with my prediction to say that the issue will largely fall by the wayside because there's no longer a unifying narrative. But this issue is the opposite. The unifying narrative will either be "I just don't care about transgenderism enough to have a strong opinion," or more likely based on the insistence by progressives that we hear about this bullshit day in and day out, "sorry but the idea that a man could be a woman is so fucking stupid that I will act against the movement *if* I am forced to act." So yeah, I don't like it one little bit if they are backing out of promises just because the service member is a tranny. But the idea that this is going to radicalize anybody against the Republicans is misguided in my estimation. I believe the vast, vast, vast majority of Democrats are quietly relieved when they see someone else speaking against nearly every facet of the transgender issue. And they will vote accordingly and never admit it to anyone else.

By this point you have to be a clown to believe that the news is accurate, especially when it deals with something as nuanced as Air Force separations. If they applied for Tera and were approved, then after the fact had their approval denied because of their transgenderism, that's bullshit. If they applied for Tera and were denied, and there is not currently a blanket approval process in place for Tera, then they are just what, angry they aren't getting the money? If they waited to apply for Tera until after they found out they were going to be separated due to their transgenderism, then I'm not sure what the issue here is. Tera is a voluntary program meant to incentivize people to leave of their own accord, correct? Waiting until the military decides you will no longer be serving not the intent of the program. Does anybody really believe that the news is going to get that right, or that the transgender people getting kicked out are going to fairly represent that in the media? Seems unlikely.

It's too bad the FRT doesn't work on more guns. Looks great! Edit: Just looked up the super safety. Looks like an FRT by a different mechanism. Crazy times!

Relax, he's only talking about the old retired ones.

Why do other countries send pilot trainees to UPT? There aren't many places to learn how to use FPV drives in combat. In fact, for now there's only one.

You go ahead and try to get it outlawed, and I'll try to get it so that we at least get some sort of benefit out of what's already happening. There is no putting this genie back in the bottle. But hopefully it can at least be harnessed and controlled. Plus I'm not sure I'm particularly concerned about the freedom to commit traffic violations, and I don't suspect the founders were either.

Gotcha. I don't think so. It was not relatively complicated to get an old 1911 to go off if you hit it right. That's not to say that it was something likely to happen, since most people aren't throwing their guns onto the ground barrel first, but then again this p320 issue is also quite exceptionally rare considering how many of them are in circulation. But you are absolutely correct, until we actually know what's going on with the p320, this is all speculation and educated guesses. What were they saying? I'm very fond of their weapons, but I don't actually know anything about the company itself. Anecdotally I've talked to people who have had problems with their gun and Sig seemed willing to have it shipped to them for repair or modification by their gunsmiths. Same I'm really glad this hasn't been documented for the P365, because it's a fantastic carry weapon.

I guess I mostly agree. I really wish they would bring red light cameras back. Maybe one of the best pieces of public safety on the roads, but of course governments wanted to do it cheap, so instead of buying the technology or even leasing it, they get it for "free" by giving the operator of the technology a cut of the tickets, thus creating a negative incentive, and inevitably resulting in the yellow light duration being lowered. Which is absolute bullshit. I forget where it was but when the local legislative body increased the yellow light times back to where they were, it was immediately no longer economically feasible for the company, and away went the cameras. Install the cameras, increase the duration of the yellow light by one second, and give be ruthless in enforcement. The cost is made up by fewer accidents. Get a bonus feature where DHS gets brought into the loop for traffic violations and you'd see Texas jump from the worst to the best state to drive in overnight 🤣😂

First it didn't matter because the discharge was into the ground, now you need a source? Google it, bud. From Wyatt Earp and the "Cowboy Load" in revolvers to the very reason the series 80 was designed in the first place. Or are the titanium firing pins just for looks? Or the S&W Victory navy fatality that resulted in a safer design being procured. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Gun safety engineering hasn't improved? The 1911 community is always so defensive. Imagine arguing that a ’67 Mustang was just as safe to drive as a 2025 model, and asking the other guy to prove it. The 1911 was a huge leap forward... a century ago. Now it's just a neat gun with lots of nostalgia that almost no professionals in the world use (real shooting jobs, not competition shooting). I like mine. But I like my revolver too. Both are outdated relics. The P320 is safe enough that it takes *a lot* of active testing to get it to discharge. But that's not safe enough for what we expect from firearms today. Agreed. But you would have much less difficulty making our elders' guns discharge if you wanted to.

The point is not that you *can* make an older 1911 safe. That's a bit obvious. It was claimed that "our elders'" never heard of a 1911 or receiver going off. Prosuper is already an elder (🤣) so his elders are from the 1920's-1950's, and 1911s and revolvers were most definitely not safe in that era, and were in fact discharging unintentionally with regularity, even in comparison to the beleaguered P320. No gun that goes off when you drop it (or snag it on your clothes) is safe by any modern definition of the word.

A pre-series-80 1911. That's what I meant by "a 1911 or revolver that our elders used to carry." I would choose a modern 1911 with a pin block over the 320. No worries if you don't agree, but those guns were not safe, just badass 🤣😂.

Prior to the series 80, 1911s could and did go off from being dropped. And revolvers have an equally checkered past, including the Colt peacemaker. I would happily trust a Sig P320, fully conceding that there is some sort of unidentified mechanical malfunction occurring that causes them to occasionally misfire, over carrying a 1911 or revolver that our elders used to carry. Guns were not safer back then, we just didn't care about accidental deaths as much.

Yeah, but humans don't work that way, and this line of reasoning got a bunch of innocent people killed, so new procedures are needed in my opinion. Being off altitude, misidentifying visual traffic at night in an ocean of lights, or drifting off flight path are well within the reasonable bounds of human error. Procedures at congested airports should not allow for basic human error to result in a crash. That's the whole point of having these procedures.

You will not be eligible for disability if you refuse a breathalyzer. It was made crystal clear to every pilot that you do not have the right to refuse drug testing in this job. Pretty much the same as how we forfeited that right in the military.

I've been breathalyzed twice and passed, and immediately sent on my way. Once for driving without headlights on, but it was well lit and I didn't notice. I do agree with minimizing interactions when you believe you are under threat of charges, and personally I would just ask for the breathalyzer *over* the FST, because the cop can't bias a breathalyzer. At a certain point you end up as the guy refusing to roll down a window when he's pulled over. Sure, you have the right to do it, but being a dickhead to a cop *before* the cop has proven to be a dickhead is just conflict-seeking behavior. Most cops are good. Plenty of places in the world where that isn't true, but America isn't one of them, no matter how many bad-cop videos the algorithm feeds you because they think you'll watch more ads that way.

I know, which is why my inclination is to be suspicious of the P320. But there's a difference between a couple of maintainers spending 20 minutes on a maintenance issue and hundreds of gun enthusiasts, YouTubers, Federal officials, military officials, and gun industry engineers trying to unravel a mystery and coming up with nothing. I'd say it's 50/50 whether there's actually something wrong with it, which is to say, who knows 🤷🏻‍♂️?

Is the seagull going to be okay?

It's only insane because the training is minimal, but carrying a holstered weapon with a round in the chamber is the standard if you actually worry about having to use it. That's nearly universal. I'm not entirely sure what the huge threat in a pressurized aircraft is, but one more 9 mm hole in the kc-135 would have been very little to change the performance. Maybe if everyone on the plane unloaded every magazine into the same structural spar something would happen, but planes don't explode when you poke a hole in the skin, at least not the big ones. You know there are a lot of people flying around in airliners everyday with rounds in the chamber, right? Suicidal? Do you conceal carry with no round in the chamber? I don't bump into many people who follow that philosophy anymore. Of course a big part of it I suspect is because all the gun manufacturers have been creating guns that won't go off on their own no matter how hard you shake, hit, throw, or beat them. I absolutely love my sigs, and the fire like a dream. They also just look good. But it seems like they really shit the bed here with the 320. It is curious however that everyone seems to have such a difficult time recreating the problem when they're actually looking for it.

While I understand the sentiment, there's no realistic scenario where you have two drinks, stop for 8 hours, and still have a high BAC. And I have yet to see a single incident of a pilot who drank responsibly, then tested positive the next day. You've never in your life smelled like booze 8 hours after having two drinks. Now, if a pilot is one of the types who has a tendency to turn two drinks into 10 drinks, then absolutely go full Mormon on every layover. But these incidents aren't bad luck or strange biology. Every time it's someone getting hammered on the layover, and not having the sense to call in sick the next day. It's just like credit cards. Some people can use them everyday for every expense because it's an easy way to get 2% of your expenditures back. Other people touch the plastic and find themselves on an all-day spending binge. Know thyself and act accordingly.

I'm usually very skeptical of gun malfunction allegations that never seem to happen during testing, but the case against Sig just keeps getting worse. I'm not sure how an in-holster discharge can be explained away, assuming that's what actually happened.