Lord Ratner

Phase one, voluntary recalls. Phase two, stop loss. Phase three, involuntary recalls. This move makes phase one look more thoroughly applied and paves the way for an inevitable phase two.

This would support my argument in two ways. First, there's nothing that says C-130s can't be like Fighters, where since skill is required to support the mission, there's a higher incidence of skilled pilots in Leadership positions. However, because of the existence of the Phoenix reach program and a general desire to swap commanders into different airframes, bad pilots from other heavies that have distinguished themselves through paperwork are still able to take over C-130 squadrons as commanders, bypassing the requirement to be good at flying C-130 missions. Last I heard there were more C-17 pilots taking over C-130 squadrons than the reverse, so even though C-130 pilots may require more skill to accomplish their mission, the net effect of the system, thanks to Phoenix reach, would be the same.

I could write an entire paper on how the mobility Air Forces delegitimize flying skill. But the bottom line is this: for the most part, you don't have to be good to accomplish our mission. Because you can be quite bad at the actual skill of flying and still get the mobility mission done, guys are able to focus their early careers on superfluous shit, while maintaining only a baseline competency in the jet. Since this strategy optimizes your chances for promotion, especially within Mobility, these people end up in positions of power. And since they weren't competent in the jet, they perpetuate the idea that skill in the jet is not as important as the skill of paperwork, and being an exec, and other non flying related tasks. Since the reality is that you can be bad in the jet and get the mobility mission done, this mindset is able survive. What commander who got where they are by being terrible in the aircraft is going to promote a squadron culture of being skilled in the aircraft? Because people are generally proponents of the way they got to their position in life, these weak pilots deemphasize skill, sometimes actively.

The first round of Metamucil is on me, old man.

Sweet, so all the guys who get hit on the river walk in San Antonio for public intoxication should be gone too. And yet again, all those lovely commanders running around with DUIs. How about loud music? Speeding? Ooh, I know, double parking! Lets kick them out too.

So far no one has explained how their actions are worse than our many, many, many DUI veterans. Or how abut people who use racial slurs? One and done? Stealing from the snack bar? I guess the one-mistake Air Force isn't going anywhere soon.

Who knows? You ever met a 19 year old who thinks they're a Satanist? Overwhelmingly awkward nerds looking for acceptance from other dorks who rebel against the status quo. Goths. Punk rockers. Similar strains. I suppose we should just dump anyone who stole from a grocery store too. Or put graffiti on an overpass? Or keyed a car? I sometimes think pilots are so incredibly spoiled with our limited interaction with enlisted troops, and then the ones we get, booms, loads, engineers, they are often the top of the heap. Then again, one of my previous sq superintendents was a gang banger and homeless in his youth. If I recall correctly, Ben Carson did some stupid shit as a teen. Too bad those fools in medical school didn't kick him out! Waste of resources! How about the commanders, or even better, the people on this very board who have DUIs? I suppose they are better than some kids with red paint, despite being so selfish they put the lives of innocent pedestrians and driver's at risk because a cab was too expensive. There's a beautiful irony in Christians treating the vandalism of a church as more severe than other non violent crimes. I'll ask again, what would Jesus have done if he caught the young airmen?

That's interesting. I'd rather clean a star with a circle off the wall than get covered in the collected shit of 300 people. I honestly don't know if my highschool was just some anomaly full of evil hellions who found the redemptive power of age, but I've noticed that people get really skilled at forgetting their own youthful transgressions, or worse, pretending like theirs were "completely different." I wonder how Jesus himself would treat teenagers who spray painted his house with the symbols of his enemy.

Probably, yes.

Kids, being kids. Some are dumber than others. I hope leadership fixes them, rather than destroys them

Well, you did a great job completely invalidating your arguments here. Go read Federalist Paper No. 78.

I've had to do it once. Got a satcom call in the jet saying our duty day was "approved for extension to 18 hours." I told them since I wasn't the originator of the extension request, I couldn't accept it. Got an incredulous O-5 who didn't think it worked than way, but I quoted the reg and asked if we had a waiver from HAF for me not requesting it. Issue dropped. Didn't even need the extension anyways. Standard disclaimer about getting in the bad Graces of your CC or DO, but these days they don't have the luxury of black balling people for following the regs

This only stops when ACs have the backbone to say "no."

I don't know yet. I've been a bit too distracted with admin stuff to sit down and really think about it. But my first thought was, why do we allow removable magazines? Lets say we didn't even change capacity. Why can't I take the time to load 30 rounds into my fixed-magazine AR-15 at the range? What enjoyment do I lose? Does it make the AR-15 less fun? Yeah, a bit. How much? Does it make it less lethal? You bet. How much? I would vote to make bump stocks and any other loophole modifications illegal. I agree with auto being (mostly) outlawed. I'm also a big fan of cooling off periods. I have never met someone who needed a gun in the next hour. Wanted, preferred, desired, sure. But needed? Look, like I said, I don't know yet. But if I can't explain it to a non-gun-owner, then why do I believe it myself?

This. Someone is going to "improve" upon it. It can be the gun owners, or it can be the gun haters. If we refuse to engage in the debate, we concede our control in whatever "improvements" follow.

Tac and Moose, You get my point exactly. Truth is, I haven't yet decided what I think should happen as a result of this, and other shootings. But that's not the point I'm making. Something is going to happen. I know the stats. I know the reality. I own many of the same guns decried by the uninformed, and I enjoy them greatly. I know how easily they can be changed, regardless of the law. But the same people here (and in most conservative circles) who decry the lunacy of the masses are acting as though they are not beholden to their will. We all are. And if we don't start acting like it, we're going to lose the battle over the 2nd Amendment. They can take our guns. They can, and with enough support, they will. You guys keep throwing the constitution in my face as though the people who actually want to take your guns give one flying fuck about it. And the simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of you are not going to die for the right to own an AR-15, or a 30 round magazine, or collapsible stocks. You're not going to go to prison over it. You might write a sternly worded email to your congressman, but the ones who want to take our guns will just use your email and the constitution as a piece of two-ply while they do the real work of convincing the voters with lies and scare tactics. Do you think they're going to just pass a law banning guns? They aren't going to make it that easy on you. They'll pass some watered down piece of garbage legislation that doesn't solve anything and only affects a minority of gun owners. Unenforceable, but it will get people used to the idea that some guns are bad guns. Then, after a few more shootings, the laws will be "fixed" to give them some teeth. Over the years, and I'm talking 20-30 years, more barriers to entry will be constructed, until there's a generational gap in gun ownership and use. Your kids will think you're the crazy old guy who can't get with the times. Then, it's gone, with no battle, no righteous victory. Slow, patient change. Don't believe me? This is exactly the strategy with socialized healthcare. Conservatives are playing fiddlesticks while the progressives are playing 4D chess. They don't care if you hide your guns in the backyard, they'll just convince your heirs to not want them when you die. Gun owners, NRA included, do a terrible job of fighting the battle. They want to believe they'll all take up arms if the suits come knocking, but if it doesn't come to that, they're happy to sit smugly and wait. Nonsense. Income taxes, healthcare, property rights, welfare benefits, there are plenty of examples where these changes took decades, but they happened. If we (yes, we) want to protect the 2nd Amendment, it's going to take more dedication than they have to ending it. And most importantly, it's going to take a better message than "price of freedom" when someone loses their loved ones in a mass shooting. 59 people died, yet somehow I have at least a dozen people on my Facebook feed talking about how they knew someone 1st or 2nd hand who was a victim. I bet many of you do too. These people are looking for answers, and the gun-control side has them. Wrong answers, sure, but I would have thought by now, after the Republican primaries of 2016, that conservatives have learned a bad or incomplete answer always Trumps no answer at all.

*Edited to remove the personal attack. Apologies* This has to be internet bluster. They don't have to change the 2A. It'll be a "common sense" set of laws that just "keep us safer" and a few more of these shootings, they'll have enough supporters to get it through Congress. Maybe it'll be after the Republicans lose the House or Senate, and the President goes to a prayer ceremony for the dead and sees that we have to do something, just can't let this go unanswered... It'll go into effect, and of course be challenged, all the way up to SCOTUS. Then Roberts, in his perpetual effort to "keep the court respected," makes another not-a-tax-but-a-fine decision that shocks everyone, and boom, the new law is deemed constitutional. And now, because you worship the infallibility of the Constitution, and you recognize that the Constitution says that the SCOTUS determines if something is constitutional, you support the new law with all your patriotic furor, and your AR-15s are illegal once more. It wasn't the supreme court or Constitution that made them legal again, it was a sunset clause. Don't expect that mistake to be made again. There are people who are honestly (and insanely) arguing against the first amendment. And some people are listening. I don't know if it's just because you guys haven't lived anywhere else in the world (where the things we consider inalienable rights are proven quite alienable), but this shit is only as secure as the voters who believe in it. Our politicians are for sale and the media is against you, and the best you got is "Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment?" Furthermore, and back to the original point, if I really am this undercover progressive, I've asked questions that were met with non-sequiters and disparagement. Other conservatives have expressed concern as well. This is how you convince us to remain on your side?

Great. Then you'll support the changes made as a result of these massacres. This is the fight that's coming, kiddos. Keep your head in the sand and it'll just make it easier for them to pluck your guns away while you aren't looking.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Do you defend the Constitution or not?

Funny how people like you believe that black people should only be counted as 3/5s of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Jesus do you not see how f&*king ironic your post is. You equate my position to a partial endorsement of slavery, by waiving around a document that originally endorsed slavery! The second amendment is proof that the Constitution was not perfect. The other 26 amendments are additional proof. I'm honestly baffled that you could think that way. It makes me think our gun rights are in bigger peril than I suggested. If the "pro-gun" folks think and debate the issue as you just did, we have no hope of winning this battle after the next few mass murders tilt the balance of public opinion.

Agreed. But they don't have to. No one is going to outlaw semi-trucks or pressure cookers. This isn't about "how do we stop murder," it's about "how do we keep our gun rights in a changing world." Guess what, pressure cookers and semi-trucks weren't specifically designed to end human life. And unlike semi-trucks, we don't need access to high-powered, high-capacity firearms to keep the economy running. The opposition will waltz right past your argument and say "well we can still save 59 of those lives." Your argument boils down to "if you can't fix everything, fix nothing," and it's a ridiculous argument coming from either side.

You're talking theory. We agree on the theory. I'm talking reality. And the reality is that gun owners, including the people in this thread, do a shitty job of persuading people of these theories. If enough people disagree with you, you lose your guns. That's it. Sure, a bunch of us will puff up and say something silly like "pry them from my cold dead hands." But most of us will hand them over when forced to choose between being a martyr and one day walking your daughter down the isle. We have three options. 1) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes, guns are confiscated. Freedom suffers. 2) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes. 2a) Some gun owners refuse and are killed/imprisoned in their righteous stand 2b) Most gun owners refuse and we get a catalyst to a civil war. 3) Gun owners accept that the 2nd amendment never envisioned what is possible with firearms today. They further accept that even if the framers would have loved machine guns, amendments can be amended. They start working to put a real argument together as to why 59 people should be executed at a concert so they can have removable magazines, silencers, hollow points, etc. This is not an impossible task, but it will take more than "freedom isn't free" or "Do you support the Constitution or not." You know what's great about a civil war? All the early adopters die. I'd rather avoid that. I think republicans/conservatives need to unilaterally pass legislation (important to not include any anti-gun people, to avoid legislative creep) that makes it harder for someone to go crazy and kill people. Lots of fucking people. I think limitations on how quickly one can obtain weapons is a fair trade. Cooling off periods, limitations to how many guns you can buy at once. Expanded background checks. I don't know if those are the right answers, but I know "do nothing" isn't. You can disagree, and I'm sure many do, but I know I wouldn't be able to look a widow, or daughter, or father in the eye and say "sucks dude, but this is the cost of freedom." This wasn't a battle. No one took a stand, no one made a choice. There will be no justice; the killer is already gone, just how he wanted it. I'm not trying to change your minds. I'm really not. I'm still trying to internalize this disaster and work my way through what I believe it means for the future of gun rights. What I want is for you to think about where your head would be if your wife just had her head canoed while enjoying some music. If we don't argue it from that position, we lose. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/10/03/country_musician_changes_mind_on_gun_control_after_las_vegas_shooting.html That's the only chance we have at keeping our guns. /Devil'sAdvocate

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.

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.

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.