M2

ATF "interpretations" of late have proven to be less than stellar! In January 2024, the ATF published it recovered more than 31,000 machine gun conversion devices over the past five years (Source). But again, the issue is the GCA/NFA and why are such devices illegal in the first place? Before anyone starts the "it doesn't matter why, they just are" argument, I am fully aware of that. But much like SBRs, full reset triggers (which while functionally different pretty much provide the same result), bump stocks and everything else that's prohibited (to include fully automatic weapons), it's simply unconstitutional ("Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward). I will always be against any legislation that turns law-abiding citizens into criminals simply for exercising their inalienable rights! And anyone who doesn't realize this is just a stepping stone toward greater restrictions is simply delusional. Truthfully, I treat any gun legislation coming out of California as anti-2A, no matter how they sell it ("It's for the children!")

Not surprisingly, that's a USN Sea Hawk (SH-60/MH-60). Typical Navy infatuation with the phallus! That aside, for eight bucks, you can own the UH-60 Dick Hawk patch that glows in the dark! 🫡 https://www.twotofly.net/products/dickhawk-pvc-patch

That bitch needs to shut her pie hole. When Hillary and Bill left the White House, they took approximately $28,000 worth of items they claimed where personal gifts. After media scrutiny, the Clintons agreed to return any donated items determined to be intended for the White House itself. That ended up being all $28,000 worth!

Can't say I agree. The mere presence of a cruciform trigger bar does not make a Glock a "machine gun." It requires an illegal modification and part that Glock does not provide. Just because their design makes their handguns more susceptible to conversion doesn't demonstrate that was their intent. I get there's been an increase in their use; but from 2017 to 2021 Federal cases involving automatic conversion devices only rose from 10 to 83. 730% sounds a lot cooler, but it's hardly an epidemic and such drastic actions (which California is well known for!) aren't necessary as they don't target the true culprit. Of course, if the courts actually held those who use these devices liable for their actions, that would be a more effective deterrent; but once again it's a matter of punishing the good for the bad! I have zero skin in this game, I just hate it when government goes after law-abiding citizens for the actions of others. That is how we ended up with the GCA and NFA, and if the Liberals have their way, we can expect even more unconstitutional rights being denied! And we're completely fucked if Gavin Newsom ever ends up in the White House!

OK, I went a little AI-crazy on this one, but here ya go... Yes, non-U.S. citizens can join the U.S. Air Force, but only under specific conditions. Here's a breakdown of the eligibility requirements: Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) are eligible to enlist in the Air Force and other branches of the U.S. military. You must have a valid I-551 (Green Card) with at least two years remaining before expiration. You must reside in the United States. You must have no pending deportation proceedings. You must meet the same age, education, physical fitness, and moral character standards as U.S. citizens. Dual citizens must renounce their foreign citizenship and surrender foreign passports to enlist. You must be a U.S. citizen to become an officer in the Air Force. Some military occupational specialties and security clearance positions are restricted to U.S. citizens. As of the latest update, the maximum age to commission as an officer in the U.S. Air Force is 42 years old for both active-duty and Space Force applicants. However, to become a pilot in the U.S. Air Force, you must begin pilot training before your 33rd birthday. To become a pilot in the U.S. Air Force, you must also be a U.S. citizen. This is non-negotiable due to the need for security clearances. Serving in a foreign military does not automatically disqualify you, but it may raise concerns related to: Security clearance eligibility Foreign allegiance or obligations Potential conflicts of interest During peacetime you must serve at least one year honorably in the U.S. military before applying for naturalization under Section 328 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Military applicants benefit from fast-tracked naturalization, often completing the process in 4 to 6 months. Some service members have received citizenship within weeks or months of enlisting, depending on their paperwork and USCIS processing speed. So there is a "chance," but exactly what odds you have are for you to determine...and even for US citizens, becoming a fighter pilot is a roughly 3 out of every 1,000 applicants (0.3%) chance. It depends on... U.S. citizenship Bachelor’s degree AFOQT and TBAS scores Medical clearance (IFC1) Begin pilot training before age 33 Excellent physical fitness and vision Good luck!

Bleh. I carried a Glock while deployed to Bosnia, and was a fan until I retired in 2006 and discovered the then-new and superior Springfield XD line. Honestly, Glock's kowtowing to new California legislation makes me like them even less. I get California is the third-largest gun market in the U.S.; but Glock is the only manufacturer so far to publicly announce a redesign, launching its “V Series” pistols to comply with AB 1127. I also get SIG Sauer and Smith & Wesson are not directly affected by the law as most of their pistols do not have the same vulnerability. But the California Rifle & Pistol Association says AB 1127 is a “backdoor ban” on striker-fired pistols and warns that it could impact a wide range of models sold in California, not just Glocks; yet instead of fighting it, Glock capitulated early to beat the rush (and here I thought they were Austrian, not French!). Bleh.

If anyone was wondering why the U.S. Army plans to cut 6,500 aviation jobs from the active duty ranks over the next two years, here's your answer! UH-60 Black Hawk Cargo Drone With Clamshell Nose Breaks Cover The new U-Hawk can lug thousands of pounds of cargo internally that would never fit in a standard Black Hawk, and launch scores of its own drones and munitions. Sikorsky has unveiled a new, fully uncrewed version of the Black Hawk helicopter with a completely transformed front end that swaps out the cockpit for clamshell doors. Depending on how it is configured, what has been dubbed the U-Hawk can move thousands of pounds of outsized cargo internally and slung underneath, deploy uncrewed ground vehicles, and fire dozens of “launched effects” like surveillance and reconnaissance drones and loitering munitions. A U-Hawk demonstrator, converted from an ex-U.S. Army UH-60L, is on display at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual conference in Washington, D.C., which opened today and at which TWZ is in attendance. Sikorsky, now a Lockheed Martin subsidiary, also refers to the design as the S-70 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), with S-70 being the company’s internal model number for H-60 variants. “A lot of our customers said, hey, I need to be able to move things into theater, and I need to be able to move them in mass. And a lot of the drones out there may be able to carry 100 pounds, may be able to carry 500 pounds,” Rich Benton, Sikorsky Vice President and General Manager, told TWZ and other outlets during a press call earlier this month. “We look introspectively, what do we have? Well, we actually have an autonomous Black Hawk today, our OPV, optionally piloted. But why couldn’t we just take the cockpit out of that and make that a UAS?”... Full story: https://www.twz.com/air/uh-60-black-hawk-cargo-drone-with-clamshell-nose-breaks-cover

Add Napier to that list! Complete BS.

I'm sure Biff-T will call 'dibs' on her; but until she repeals the NFA and CGA, she's been a lame duck AG!

I can't speak for any other states, but I do have good insight into the Texas Military Department and the TAG, and can attest this deployment will have practically zero impact on servicemember's civilian employment here. I've had people deployed for Operation LONE STAR - BORDER SURGE for four years, and all are successfully returning to their jobs. If it is a cause Texans believe in, they will support it to their dying breathe! It's our in our culture, history and mindset!

Just to clarify, these are STATES that have Constitutional Carry and yes, I do believe exercising one's God-given right to self-defense reduces crime rates! But are the mayors the cause of crime, or is it simply that people who vote for red candidates then to be the same ones who commit the crimes? 2/3rds of the 100 largest U.S. cities have Democratic mayors, and urban areas consistently have the highest crime rates, both violent and property-related, over suburban/rural areas. So, while there is a political tie here, it's not the one driving the need for increased security. By the way, both Dallas and Fort Worth (they are two separate cities!) have Republican mayors! Eric Johnson of Dallas serves a population of 1.3M, and Mattie Parker of Fort Worth around 956,000. Ironically, Johnson switched from Democrat to Republican in 2023! I was up in the DFW/Arlington area in late June/early July, and while not a garden spot, the law and order there seemed far more effective than what I experienced in Baltimore last month!

What commander's call isn't a huge waste of time, yet they still continue to happen? Not saying this was cost effective, but when has that mattered in the DoD/DoW? I recognized an Army four star in attendance who retired the next day. Not judging, just some observations...and honestly it's not worth debating!

Unfortunately, you were already in violation of Title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 232.1 (also 39 CFR § 232.1) which states "no person may carry or store firearms, explosives, or other dangerous or deadly weapons on USPS property, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes." This includes vehicles parked on postal property. Unlike 18 U.S. Code §930, which prohibits carry in Federal facilities, the CFR covers "any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use" https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1 I got into a debate with the owner of the Rio Medina General Store who felt because they leased a small section in the back to the USPS, the entire property fell under this regulation. She was wrong. Luckily, local police don't enforce Federal laws; it would most likely require a Postal Inspector and they are rare birds to see in the wild! I am glad a court finally addressed this unconstitutional restriction, it will be interesting to see how quickly the correction is implemented (already doubtful) especially consider the shutdown that started today...