HeloDude

And it starts...ugh. https://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_ISLAMIC_STATE_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I wouldn't call it either. It is true that citizens of the original country (the US) were fighting each other, however, the Confederacy wasn't trying to take over the northern States. If we call the war between the Union and the Confederacy a civil war, then you would have to call the Reviolutionary War also a 'civil war'. Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm still waiting for Lawman's response to my original question... Maybe we should stop calling it a 'Union' or the 'United' States? If mafia/gang rules style apply (you can join you just can't leave) then the federal government can essentially do whatever they want to the States and the Constitution is just something nice to have, but doesn't need to be followed...or can be 'interpreted' to mean something completely different than it means today, or meant over 200 years ago. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about secession in his First Inaugural Address. I love Walter Williams--he's good shit. And what's James Madison had to say... https://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

The 'United' States doesn't sound like much of a 'union' if one State wishes to leave and the federal government/other States forces them to stay...or am I mistaken? So what's your definition of a union? Oh and it's 'secession'.

Looks like Clemson University is doing some sexual assault 'training' of their own... https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5923

I guarantee there are a 'few' big government types here who are also watching...hoping this doesn't spread.

Just curious what you guys will think will happen later this week with the vote in Scotland? And if they do vote for independence, what are the positives and negatives we might see as a result in Scotland, the rest of the UK, the EU, and here in the US? My bet is that it will be a somewhat close vote (with 5-10 points), but that they remain with the UK for the near future, though this might give more steam to their independence movement vs crushing it. A strong part of me would like to see it happen, if nothing else just to see how things will shake out. My number concern is the delicious scotch--as long as it continues to flow (like 'where the beer flows like wine') and at close to the same price, then I'm good! It's all about priorities...

I think tac airlifter replied appropriately. It has to do with overall length and transportability, as I'm sure you understand (or not?). Some people want to be able to have many of the same benefits of a having a 'rifle' in a small carry bag/backpack, under the seat of a car, etc. So until Congress repeals the NFA requirement of SBR's or a federal judge overturns the law as unConstitutional, this is the next best thing without having to go through the NFA hassle. I don't doubt the spec differences in using a shorter barrel and a non-adjustable 'stock', but then again, you can carry a Ruger LCP in .380 in your pants front pocket, or a heavy Desert Eagle in .50AE on your hip/in your backpack.

I've have never fired an AR/AK using it, but I have shouldered a few different configurations at gun shows over the last year. It's obviously not a 'stock' but, like you mentioned, works pretty well when you consider it allows you to effectivley shoulder a non-SBR SBR and avoid the NFA BS. I think the key is to have a buffer tube setup (long enough, etc) that allows the shooter to get a comfortable position when shouldering the brace. The link you provided shows some good options, but it seems KAK Industry (ironically located in CA) has some of the best options available for a reasonable price. I really like the quick detach/attach of the 'Dolos' that MAC uses in the video. Here's a short video he posted on his FB page (30 Aug) with one of his guys using a folding 'stock' for DI AR's with the Dolos: https://www.facebook.com/militaryarms?ref=ts&fref=ts

When you say 'we' are you implying the military, Congress, or the country as a whole?

The link/video below is worthy of at least being discussed...whether in a positive or negative way. My personal opinion hasn't changed: Let the Iraqis give them damn near everything they have first, in conjunction with/followed by neighboring countries (for those that actually care), then other countries in the world who also have an interest...and so on. As a citizen I'm not supportive of the US getting involved right away 'just because'. Besides, what's the point of saying you want to destroy something if you're already promising that you aren't willing to do all that may (and probably will) be necessary (ie "boots on the ground")? https://video.foxnews.com/v/3768333397001/president-george-w-bushs-chilling-warning-on-iraq-in-2007/#sp=show-clips

I have to be honest guys, this excites me.

Why do they need to go to Canada? We have millions of illegals here and it's all good.

Agreed, he is innocent until proven guilty. But also agree that show is pretty stupid. I was a big fan the first 1-2 seasons, and then it just got too lame. Hopefully Discovery Channel can find a better show about guns.

Sounds like the Syrians have a problem they need to deal with...

If I correctly remember my high school Spanish, wouldn't what you said translate to: "That's a lot of cervesa to 'to drink'? Because we're housing a lot of illegals from Cental America on military bases...

Just like the original roll-out of healthcare.gov? Last I heard, the contractors wanted more money to fix their mistakes.

Definitely helps the argument as the people who pay for/oversee the work fall under control of the government. When government is in charge there is less incentive to ensure things are done correctly vs when financed privately. Business owners and shareholders are much more careful with their money than the government is with theirs (or should I say, with ours).

But if not for a big government, who will build the roads?

This

Let me ask you (and guys like ViperStud and Jaded) this: What do you guys care if guys decide to take the bonus? Some of you guys want to belittle the guys for taking it, but that's their prerogative and you don't know their individual situation/reasoning. I have yet to see other line-pilot types (or any rated guys for that matter) give someone a hard time/tell them they're making a bad decision for NOT taking the bonus, yet there's the other side who gives folks a hard time FOR taking the bonus. I could care less if you and others do not take the bonus, whether you decide to stay in as a free agent or get out. If you get out, I will thank you for your service and wish you the best. But I think your anger in the AF is over your own situation, not at the vast majority of the other guys who decide to stay in. Back to the conversation on the bonus itself--if these takes rates end up being as bad as they seem when the program ends, I agree that the Air Force will realize they have bigger problems and will need to do something about it. As for raising the amount of the annual bonus, that will have to be in the approved budget/appropriation that comes out of Congress next year, though the AF could always extend the bonus to 20 years to other types of pilots vs just fighter guys. Interesting times, that's for sure!

I'm pretty sure I didn't get the exact joke/flavor of sarcasm--my bad, it's Friday, and I'm tired. My point was that if he is going to quote restrictions out of the FAR, then he should quote the one that applies to helicopters, not to fixed wing aircraft (which has nothing to do with the AF). But you're right, I wouldn't talk to either of them, that's what PA gets paid to do.

California, nuff' said. Oh and I love how their aviation 'expert' starts giving altitude restrictions...for fixed wing aircraft. This all being said, there's no reason not to fly friendly when you can.

But the Pentagon allows troops to march in non-military gay pride parades while in uniform. I guess it all depends on the cause...ALS is not progressive enough of a cause I suppose.

GAO gets it...seriously doubt anything will be done about it. https://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140821/NEWS05/308210051/GAO-Pentagon-broke-law-Bergdahl-swap

One of the many reason I'm against liberals pushing for more gun control--they don't know what in the hell they are talking about when it comes to firearms and either lie/make shit up to force their beliefs on others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIKfoO-JTcc https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/21/conservative-guest-asks-cnn-anchor-to-define-automatic-weapon-his-response-will-leave-many-viewers-speechless/