HeloDude

Interesting question. I look at it as the squirell who keeps coming up to the same person because the squirell knows where it can get its food--if it stops getting fed, the squirrel won't come back and will go elsewhere. The Red States (I'm speaking the mountain west States (less CO) and the plain States) need to ensure they severely limit what attracts those who leach...so extreme limitations on welfare, strict adherence to enforcing laws/cracking down on crime, not giving into the PC BS, etc. There's a reason illegal immigrants are attracted to States (CA for example) that 'look the other way' and who also are very happy to give them welfare, driver licenses, etc. I'm generalizing here, but it's a shame as it applies to the majority. The problem with CO is that it was purple-red in the past, but with liberal Denver increasing welfare spending, State college education for illegals, etc, and now with the increasing Hispanic population, it has moved closer to being purple-blue. The Hippies in Denver and Boulder got their way. Read the exit polls fom the last election, they are very very telling.

You can do all but 2 of those listed in a handful of much better States--and as for the NFL game, that's what the 60" flat screen and the occassional vacation to the actual stadium is for. As for free beer, I think I can afford 3 Coors, and besides, it's not like he was going there more than once a month! (though I could be wrong).

The liberals (which now owns the Democratic Party) only care about pushing their social agenda where government has most of the control. People having firearms does not further this agenda, and neither does reducing welfare, drug use, and deporting illegals--as they also rely on the government and if they do in fact become legal citizens one day then most likely they will vote Democrat. Here lies which way CO is going. I've said it before and I'll say it again--it comes down to demographics, birth rates, and also out of wedlock birth rates. If you want to know which way a State will be in 10-20 years, look at the demographics. What's also interesting is that you can predict which large metropolis areas are going to have the most crime just by looking at the demographics (not an exact science but it's a strong correlation). Think about it--most intelligent people look at crime stats to choose/not choose which neighbor to live in...why wouldn't you extend that same thought rationale on which city/State to live in? I know it also comes down to employment, but at some point you have to decide what's most important.

I'm thinking it will...the Dems contol the entire State government (Gov and legislature) so I'm sure they figured this all out before they started pushing their bills. It's seems like most States that are entirely run by Dems are doing more or less the exact same thing, with a few exceptions. For those who live there voluntarily, it's easy--vote with your feet and move. For us poor suckers in the military, we won't be in forever and then we can chose where we want to live.

Uh oh...we're agreeing again. Those of my friends, who happen to be Mormom, are some of the best people I have had the pleasure of being friends with over the years. They will do just about anything in order to help you and also have great family structures.

Actually that is the first time I have seen it, but thanks for the link. My opinions on where I want to live and retire are based off quite a bit of research I do on the various States that I find appealing. As for you liking Utah--wow! I figured a big lib wouldn't want anything to do with the land of the Mormons (I jest). Maybe a slight Libertarian streak in you somewhere?

I'd cross New Mexico off the list if I were you. With the exception of the current Governor, the State is ran by Dems who are all about driver licenses for illegals, and it also wouldn't suprise me one bit if in the future they tried to get a ban similar to the one being proposed in CO. I bet Arizona will follow suit in the next 10-20 years. I think the best States for freedom and liberty (guns are just a symptom of this) are Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah...with Montana still being pretty good (though they seem to have a slight liberal streak)--I guess the most of the plain States are pretty good as well.

Sounds like you should be a Nav...then you and Nsplayr can be friends and hangout.

I love how people (Dems) try to say with a straight face: "Nobody is trying to take your guns away from you!". Flat out lie.

I bought mine in Oct for $680 on Buds LE and then got the $100 rebate. Given the climate, this is a pretty damn good deal. Here's the link with the current $100 rebate: https://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757803_-1_757797_757797_image

Dude, the Dems had their chance in 2009-2010, and since then have had their chance in the Senate (no filibusters that I'm aware of) to at least pass it and send it over to the House. I would like them to pass it in the Senate and send it over to the House, until then, the party of supporting gay marriage isn't doing all they can. Trust me man...I blame the GOP for not repealing (or at least meaningful attempts at trying to repeal) from 2001-2006 a lot of the anti-gun laws already on the books. Call a spade a spade.

I don't have any problems with any of the new provisions. Hell, I don't have any problems with extending all the same benefits, just repeal DOMA and have that be the end of it...but nope, the Dems would rather talk gun control that wil do nothing to fix gun violence. Be cool if the GOP House would pass a bill repealing DOMA but then that would send a 'negative' message to the Bible Belt folks (like the majority of them would vote Dem anyway)...one can always hope the country becomes more Libertarian, but I just don't see it happening.

Or you could just discover scotch and see what you've been missing.

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). https://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.