FourFans

The Hurricane Hunters strike again.

Oh. I am a full believer that the US federal government should play absolutely no part in 'regulating' our weapons. The regulation isn't talking about making a registry or some such. Use the analogy of a pickup basketball team. You got the guy who practices alone all the time. Great at shooting freethrows on an empty court, but never practices or plays with a team. Another guy who never exercises and never shows up to practice but still declares he's on the team. Another who claims to be the team leader but has no clue how to run a play. That's not a team. That's an unregulated bunch of people who think they are something that they aren't. The intention behind the 2nd Amendment to not about making sure you have a gun. It's about making sure that you have a gun that you're able and willing to use in defense of your local community against tyranny (from abroad or within) while operating as part of a team, militia, or unit doing the same thing. The founders wanted to make sure that the country maintained it's ability to have grass roots self defense forces that were not mandated or controlled by the federal government. Remember that the revolutionaries were largely volunteers, and were largely disbanded after that war. There was originally to be no standing Army. The heart of the 2nd Amendment is two fold. A: Citizens - Keep your weapons and yourself ready so that if you're needed and you choose to volunteer, you can actually be useful. B: Government - Stay completely out of their way. Beyond that, the Amendments were never meant to stand individually. The biggest thing we as US citizens have forgotten is that citizenship is a responsibility, not a privilege.

People tend to forget the first portion of the second amendment and proceed directly to "shall not be infringed" For reference: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nothing says well regulated like lack of accountability (which is effectively what an untraceable gun is). 'A militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' goes on to indicate that this right to bear arms is not for my own personal liberty, but me contributing to the liberty of my community. With regulated and controlled force if necessary. It implies that we have this right in order to serve and defend something bigger than ourselves, such as a community, city or state. I've yet to encounter law enforcement, military, or paramilitary organization that doesn't place a high emphasis on accountability and training. Karen with her .38 special that she carries loaded but never trains with does not fall into that category. Moreover, it's kinda difficult to rectify untraceable firearms with a well regulated civil defense. Not saying I'm totally against production of your own weapons. I think that's great! But it needs to be done responsibly.

because he's off...or will be thereso getting...Biff says:

@Biff_T: See that yellow circled part? Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

Have you done any international assignments?

So, you've partied with some airline captains too, eh?

FIFY

...and that's why we need corporal punishment...

Oh, I know how I WANT us to respond. Respond with rational and reasoned thought and applying common sense while still holding out enemies accountable for their actions. But that's NOT how we've been acting. I'm curious about the most likely action our current leadership would actually take. It could get kinda interesting when you consider that those making recommendations to NCA are probably argyle wearing academics who have never had their lives placed in any form of peril. Put those people on the receiving end of a suspected nuclear launch and I'd be surprised if they make totally rational inputs. Beyond that, I highly doubt Joe Biden has the cognitive ability to make a good snap decision in such a case. Hence the question: What would we actually do?

Interesting thought experiment I came across: What do we do if Putin tries to launch nuclear weapons, and they don't work? We now know that a large section of China's rocket forces are inop due to corruption. It stands to reason that Russia's might be suffering the same fate. How do you think we'd respond to that?

Fair enough. I'm glad to hear there are still some good leaders out there. Game off.

@nsplayr You should run for press secretary. You literally reworded and reinterpreted every question and statement I asserted. This is the hypocrisy thread after all, so...par for the course. To respond to your specific questions and assertions. No, because the US military does not directly work for the a church, a dietary persuasion, or a fitness group. We work for politicians, which means that our political opinions are subject to a unique level of scrutiny, as they should be. Specifically, we don't get to disobey orders based on political opinion...though I've seen some try. To clarify my statement about "hard over": That's implying that someone ISN'T capable of keeping an open mind and is no way willing to change their opinions based on a line of reasoned logic. Not debatable. You literally said those exact words in previous threads. Go re-read you own posts. The green transition being physically unsustainable with current technology is ALSO not debatable and it's certainly not a political discussion. It's a fact. There isn't enough lithium ON THE PLANET to sustain only the USA's intended EV transition. Again. That's a fact, not a political debate. Not the question I asked. I asked how it impacted your unit, not how your unit deals with DEI issues. Has going to mandatory training about 'you are white and you have prejudice that needs fixing' (a direct quote from DEI training at my southern, mostly white AFRC unit) hurt or helped your unit moral or unit capability? Is the unit better able to accomplish it's mission because of this training? I'm glad to hear your unit is able to remain focused on the mission. I'm curious if you can tell if the current senior leadership is focusing on social issues instead of mission ones. It was clear to me and many of my in my cohort. It wasn't good.

In my opinion if someone is hard over "I'm a democrat" or "I'm a Trump supporter" or "I only vote ...insert party or single topic here..." should be exempt from any form of command. That sort of mental ossification proves the lack of dynamic thinking that should be mandatory for leading people. It kills credibility and approachability. It proves that said individual is willing to become beholden to an ideology, no matter how unrooted it is from social impact or scientific fact. It's not that you can't have strong opinions. But when those opinions are so publicly displayed that your subordinates are made keenly aware of their importance in your life, you become unapproachable to at least 50 percent of your people. To paraphrase Heinlein: The hammer should have strong opinions in the how it's used, so long as it's lawful. @nsplayr you have has specifically stated that you agree with every policy that Biden has put into place. So you are in command of people. How has DEI impacted your command? Beyond that, do you still adhere to the idea that a green transition is a good idea, even though it's been proven impossible by the simple math of lithium required (we don't have enough on the planet) or the fact that Germany (the country farthest along in the 'green transition') has so failed in it's transition that it has de-transitioned back to using lignite coal and having it's residents burn wood which are the absolute worst carbon producers? You lead people: your words. You are a hard over democrat: your words. Do you recognize how declaring a hard over political line (regardless of party) undercuts your credibility as an approachable leader?

Who would you prefer, specifically?