HeloDude

So I watch Fox News...am I 'stupid' or misinformed? Or is it that there are plenty of stupid and misinformed people in our country, regardless of where they receive their news source? Just because students fail a college class doesn't mean that the course material isn't being delivered in a factual and effective way. Just to add...though Fox is the only news source I watch on TV (and I only watch certain programs as there is still a lot of crap on the network), I receive my news from several different sources...even some of those on the left.

This is old news...it was cut last year. It not being funded in the recently passed DoD budget is what made it official. Even if it was funded, I imagine it wouldn't have survived sequestration cuts.

Yep--gotta be quick. It was just posted on slickguns.com about 20-30 min before I posted it on here.

Best deal on .223 brass I've seen since before the shooting. $6.99/20 + free shipping. Can't really beat it these days (and wouldn't have been a horrible deal last summer). http://www.mackspw.com/Item--i-PMC223A

If you want a 'real' safe then get a Graffunder, Brown Safe, or something else with a TL-15 rating or higher--unfortunately it will cost you as it's heavy duty steel. Most options out there are UL rated 'RSC' for Residential Security Container which means it can withstand 5 minutes of attack before being comprised. Don't be fooled by the gimmicks that don't add much (if any) additional security features. You get what you pay for. Edit--'Patriot Safes' were previously under a different name and I did some research on the company a couple years ago and found almost all the reviews to be pretty bad as the company had very poor customer service.

I mention all the services, and you come back with the Air Force. So the Marine PT test has nothing to do with physical endurance to accomplish their jobs? What about the Army? Dude, here's some free advice--just stop talking. You want women to be able to fight in direct ground offensive roles because you think it's the 'fair' thing to do, regardless if it in fact reduces mission effetiveness. Got it. You make a lot of people in other countries very happy...and I'm not referring to our allies.

I'm sorry that you don't think I'm being fair. It is funny how you're cool with being 'fair' when it comes to gender but not 'fair' when it comes to age...I mean, hey, if standards are standards then it shouldn't be a problem? And I'm not talking 65...the military starts age discriminating much much earlier. What planet are you living on?? The physical standards are less for women in every service. Are you really this clueless? Ok, you're finally doing better here. ...and then you go and screw it up. You were so close. The standards are not the same--see above. You have yet to disagree with anything I said concerning menstrual cycles, pregnancies, etc. You just keep talking about dicks and standards. I guess if a chick has surgery in order to not have her menstruate or be allowed to get pregnant then the discussion would change a bit. As it stands, allowing women to serve (especially if they serve in offensive ground forces) brings on more risk than if it were only men, even with all other things being equal. But yet you're saying it's worth taking on they additional risk when it comes to our most strenuous jobs, especially the ones that take on the most riskier missions...and that increased risk is ok in the interest of 'fairness'?? Oh good...I was worried that our Army was in trouble when it came to local women in combat zones. I'd like my job to be like the movies everyday too man...unfortunatey that's why they call it the movies. My parents made me grow up years ago.

You need to read what I wrote--I have never once said that I think there is not a single woman out there that can hack the training, I definitely know there are at least a few. What I have said is that there are plenty of other people who can hack those same standards that we refuse to let in...dudes with full blown diabetes for example, dudes who are past the age limit, etc, but we typically don't let those people in those jobs. And if we want/need more women to serve those roles (who can not make the standards), then let's let in other folks who can not make the current standards. I also said that shaking up the entire organization just to let a few women in does not IMO improve mission effectiveness. If it's about fairness fine...just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. It's called risk vs benefit analysis. Interesting point about the women searching women...tell me then (since you seem to be well versed in the subject), what do the Army units do now to overcome this lack of ability that you point out? Would we doing better in Afghansitan if Clinton's Administration had came out with this decision back in 1997? My main arguement this entire time is that women have other biological issues (one that is a regular occurrence that can lead to an inability of doing strenuous activities that day) that men do not have. That is a fact, no denying it...and that's irrelevant of whether a woman 'plays that card' or she is just legitimately in pain that day. Sure men in the off chance can get prostate cancer, but women can get breast cancer, so that argument is a wash. If the county is cool with adding another physical variable (ie cycles or potential pregnancy) to things that can adversary affect training or hardous combat deployments of a SOF or infantry unit, then so be it. I have no doubt we aren't allowing some awesome dudes become pilots who have diabetes or who are too old, but hey, life's not fair...though it seems to be getting that way, regardless of the consequence.

So Tree brings up being deployed in the desert/combat environment and your response is that guys not in the desert/combat environment got DUI's. How many guys are getting DUI's in Iraq (when we were there) and Afghanistan? I'm sure it happened a few times, but I doubt it happened much. Here's the deal man for you and your liberal friends--if folks on the left want to allow women to serve in direct/offensive ground combat roles (infantry, SOF, etc) because they believe it's the 'fair' thing to do, then that's your opinion and I'm cool with it as then it's just a difference of opinion, and regardless of what decisions are made we have salute and follow orders. My problem is when people try to sell that this is needed to make those units better or that there won't be any mission degradation because of this decision...even Nsplayr said it won't add to mission effectiveness (though he said it will in the long run, but he didn't give any examples as to how or why). Can women fight in the infantry, of course they can--and so can 65 year old dudes and guys who are 4'5". But are we that hard up for people that we are having to change who we allow into/able to compete for those roles? I seriously doubt we would have done any better in Afghanistan if women had been allowed to fight in infantry units or SOF teams. So once again, I ask--is this decision one of 'fairness' or one that will make us a stronger fighting force?

Called it! Damn I'm good!

You're comparing prostate cancer with menstruating? Are you fisting me? The vast majority of women menstruate, it's a common occurrence that sometimes causes women discomfort/unable to perform tasks. What percentage of men in their 20's get prostate cancer? Resubmit and try again man. Again, if we have no problems with things that can potentially come up in the field, then we should have no problems letting people with diabetes do the job.

So if a woman ever has to miss a day or two of training because of bad menstrual cramps or whatever, that's ok? A guy will never have to miss training for menatrual cramps. And before you say something like "Well, a guy could sprain his ankle and miss 2 days of training/have to be pulled out of the field"...anybody in they outfit could sprain an ankle, but guys will never miss training due a monthly period. Hell, we should let guys with full blown diabetes be in the infantry...and if they have to get pulled put of the field for their condition, oh well...being 'fair' is now above mission effectiveness. Give me a break.

Nsplayr...you support a President and a party that refuses to enforce immigration laws (just one example), yet you speak of values--do you value not enforcing laws? What other laws are not worth enforcing? I think your values are all over the place and sometimes even contradict with one another. I just saw how you wrote a few days ago in another post that youn said the #1 important aspect about the military is the mission/combat effectiveness, yet you point out that allowing women to serve in direct/offensive combat roles is not needed to make the forces stronger, but is the right thing to do because of 'values'. So which is it? ...and to answer your question about the 2 major politcal parties: I think one is pretty bad and the other is horrible. They both suck when it comes to supporting and protecting The Constitution. There's a reason things are so fvcked up right now and why for the last 6+ years the majority of the country says it is on the 'wrong path'. Here's a hint to those people...it's been on a destructive path for a very long time now.

I think that's only half true for you...the other half is that your values are driven by your political views--ie you have more loyalty to a political party/philosophy than what you truly value.

Nsplayr, you mention values and liberties only when it suits your political desires.

I have PMAGs and have never had an issue. When did they buy them? Also, are they sure the mags aren't pro-mags' (somewhat joking)--those things are pure junk.

Thanks nav! You're right, navs are indeed good for something! Dude, if this were a kids book, it would be a story about a sheep convincing itself that the wolf is more friendly than a sheepdog. But as it is not, I think it's safe to say that you could care less about your Right to own firearms. Why do you expect anybody in a 'gun forum' to take you, or anything you say, seriously? You say you are an instructor...in this arena, you are definitely not establishing credibility.

I will not vote for anyone who runs on wanting more restrictions to the 2nd Amendment (it's bad enough that we already have restrictions). Obama has a record of wanting more gun control and said in a debate last year that he supported a renewal of the AWB...so that was a pretty clear reason alone for me not to vote for him. You voted for him, so obviously it didn't bother you too much. I'm assuming that free healthcare and food stamps are more important to you than your Right to bear arms. Like you said in a separate thread...it all comes down to values. Given their current policies/ways of governing, would you vote for Gov Cuomo in 2016 if he was running against Gov Jindhal? Sorry man, I don't feel sorry for you for not being able to get your ammo. You should have realized your guy wanted to take guns away and stocked up early...that's what a lot of us did.

Or you should have voted differently if it means that much to you. The man you idolize in the WH is who/what is generating all the fear. If this was 2005, I don't think people would be too concerned. How does it taste?

You voted for these people...you reap what you sew.

He's being very serious here. Seriously folks...he's being very serious.

I'm sure there won't be 2 different standards...oh wait, we already have 2 different standards.

I stocked up very well in the last couple of years of just about every caliber I shoot...except in .22. I always thought that it would be the most abundant caliber if we had another scare/shortage--the lesson has now been learned. Additionally, I think the lesson also to be learned is that ammunition is a strong commodity to have as well as having it availavble in an abundance of supply. I think it comes down to those who have and have not, specifically with trading/bordering of ammunition. I actually would be willing to trade some of my .223 and 7.62 for some .22 if the deal was right.

You're just saying that because you like their AK's...wait, correction...you 'used' to like their AK's. Darn boating accident.

Just like it's hard to take people seriously who believe that asking for an ID when voting (to know then who is actually voting) infringes against somebody's right to vote or constitutes a poll tax. Or that the 14th Amendment, as it was originally constructed (to allow the freed slaves to be citizens), should then rightfully apply to an illegal Mexican woman who is 8.5 months pregnant and then who jumps the border in order to have her child be an American citizen. You mentioned 'those types of people' who will not follow a law because they believe it goes against The Constitution and their Rights?...just like Rosa Parks and other Civil Rights leaders? Everybody is allowed to make their own choices, however, they then must live with the consequences of their decisions...whether the consequences are justified or not. And yes, I did compare our 2nd Amendment Rights to Civil Rights...Rights are Rights. Liberties are Liberties.