HeloDude

I agree. But nothing says you or any of the other crew dogs need to be in the pics with the hot chicks--actually, I prefer you didn't! Edited for alcohol.

Negative man. It's a pistol stabilizing brace...one I mentioned above. Goes to my point of the SBR becoming less and less relevant. https://www.gunsandammo.com/2014/04/04/atf-response-firing-ar-15-pistols-shoulder-sig-pistol-brace/ ETA: Nunya beat me by a couple minutes, sorry to be repetitive.

These days with bullpups and the new 'SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace' from Sig, I don't know why most people would go through the hassle in getting a SBR. Don't get me wrong, I'd also like to have one, but not at the expense of getting/keeping an NFA registered item and needing permission just to take it out of State...plus selling it is also more of a hassle. It's not even the stupid $200 tax stamp (I know it's the same price as it was in 1934), it's the rest of the nonsense (especially the registration) that I just laid out that keeps me from doing it, especially when there is, IMHO, 'somewhat' reasonable alternatives. Just my $.02. I'm definitely interested in SCAR17S...haven't been able to shoot one yet, but hopefully one day soon!

Pics or it didn't happen. Same with you Prozac. No pics means you were just hanging out with a bunch of fat dudes...which Nsplayr likes. I'll also settle for more pics of BQZip's mom.

That's like saying that without the 9% (whatever it was) of the black vote, W wouldn't have gotten elected. I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting that Hispanic Americans are solidly (in the past, present, or forseeable future) in the GOP's corner.

CDNN has the SW MP-15 OR for $700 (assuming it's in stock) and then you get $100 mil rebate on top of it. Hard to beat and with an OR you can dress it up however you want. https://www.slickguns.com/product/sw-mp-15-223-16-barrel-optics-ready-1-30rd-79999

I'm somewhat surprised they didn't offer continuation, specifically since Big Blue had the VSP/RIF/TERA program to get their numbers the way wanted and then would be able to allow the others to continue to 20. Possibly because they didn't want their 'better' people (ie those that did get picked up for O-5) to have a chance to get out early with VSP/TERA? Also, assuming you got commissioned/went active duty in the early summer, wouldn't just about everyone who was twice passed over have at least 15 years and thus be allowed to retire under TERA?

Looks pretty heavy for a 5.56...I can only imagine that their .308 version would add an extra pound or close to it. The SCAR17S (.308 semi-auto gets great reviews, though it is a little pricy). Personally, I'm really looking forward to the Desert Tech MDR bullpup in .308 as their other products seem very legit. If it's anything like the Tavor (to bad only availsble in 5.56/9mm) then it will be a hit. I don't mind a little extra weight if it is balanced well.

Hey now, I thought Jessica Rabbit was pretty damn hot back in the day. If you disagree with me then you're obviously a homosexual...'not that there's anything wrong about it'.

What's crap is that they get to 'apologize' but yet we still have a Marine sitting in one of their Mexican prisons for something that should only require an 'apology'.

You and me both, man...that's how it was for us 'back in da day'. I also remember hearing that a 3U was better than a 14G (assuming you didn't have any problems passing your 88/89)--basically it was 'downgrades' that were scored and the overall score didn't really mean much. How are they doing it now?

Does this mean if a fellow squadron member is the Wing CGO of the Year that his squadron mates can also claim on their OPR that they are also the Wing CGO of the Year? Or do we only share the bad things?

I read his post for a second time... So let me get this straight: If you don't want to be the world's police force then you're an isolationist? So if Canada is not using their military to their maximum extent possible are they also considered isolationists? I'm just curious where the limits are.

Who's talking about isolationism (nice straw man)? There are plenty of ways to get oil besides via the Middle East, and who says we won't continue to get some of our oil from some of those nations in the future? As for the prices going up/being in fluctuation when a heavy oil producing country has problems, that's just life in a world market...definitely ways to get through it and survive.

Rainman?? I didn't know you flew C-17's haha

Sounds awfully similar to what one American soldier 'might' have did in Afghanistan...

Reminds me of a movie I saw once... https://youtube.com/watch?v=QJQ0EV4bWH0

I have a feeling that the VP only meant it will be one of the Administration's 'greatest achievements' if it doesn't get all fvcked up before the end of their time in office.

As in the Kurds claiming independence from the rest of Iraq?

You probably meant to say that you, as the Nav, would request to the AC, that he/she extends some special 'bro treatment' to Fed LE. Guess it would all have to depend on the request.

Dude, whatever--don't be such a wimp. You get all emotional because someone challenges your opinion. Don't respond to my posts if you don't want to have a discussion! By the way, did you finally watch the entire video?

That's totally cool that you want (and do) voluntarily answer their questions...not even saying I haven't and wouldn't continue to do so. But that's my choice, yours, and everyone else's choice (I thought you were pro-choice by the way?). Others, however, do believe being forced to answer is a violation of their Rights, regardless of whether or not you believe it is, and fortunately the courts agree. I totally support any private buisness being able to turn someone away for any reason, so if Chipotle wants to ban the open-carrying of rifles in their establishment then I have no problem with it...hell, I don't have to eat in that private establishment. I also don't consider those guys 'dicks', either, maybe not the classiest people, but I'm sure most are nice guys. I wouldn't choose to do it, but then again I also don't choose to have tattoos, purposely rip a huge fart in front of someone in line, or be rude to people. By the way, they (for the most part) choose to open carry their rifles in public places to make the point that Texas does not allow the open carry of pistols, but allows the open carry of rifles. Fortunately I think they are getting their message across. Sorry dude, don't believe you, in principle or reality. If so, you would staunchly disagree with the administration's policy on dealing with illegals already in the country (not talking about their number which includes catching people at the actual border). So unless you're going to reveal something new for us... They can (and do) catch illegals (at the border and who have been inside the country for years) without having to stop and question everyday people who are just going about their business/not doing anything wrong. I don't support a police state of being asked to 'show my papers' or 'answer their questions' on demand just because I am moving about and not breaking any laws. Our problem with illegals has nothing to do with these checkpoints. Nope, the courts have upheld that you do not have to answer the questions at these BP checkpoints...hence while after being harassed a few minutes, they are allowed to go on your way (watch the entire video). If soemone tells the BP agent 'Sir, I respectfully decline to answer that question', then unless that agent has probable cause to detain that individual, then that should be the end of it and the person should be allowed to go their way. It's not the people who are being dicks about it, it's the agents not letting them go when soemone has already refused to answer their request. To be fair, I don't believe it's necessarily the fault of the BP agents, themselves, per se...rather it's the policy and standards set forth by the bureaucrats who make the higher level policy and send it down to into the field. Just like I don't think it was a a few random field ATF agents who came up with the plan to allow 2000 firearms to be illegally sold to what everyone knew would eventually mean that most of the firearms would wind up in the hands of Mexican cartels.

So when you choose not to answer a question that you do not have to answer, you are being a 'dick'? Watch the entire video...you'll see that the people being stopped are not being disrespectful and that the agents are practicing intimidation/coercion, because if they weren't, they would allow the people to leave right away instead of going back and forth without allowing them to leave. If you can explain it any other way then I'd love to hear it. As for how you personally choose to respond to their question, that's your voluntary choice, others choose not to answer. That doesn't make you are any better or worse than the guys who refuse. By the way, just because you don't want to answer fed agents/LE when you are not required to, this does not mean you are 'shitting' on them. The agents' job is to ask the question and detain people when they have probable cause and go from there as necessary...some people just don't want to answer a question they don't have to, that's all. By the way, can you post your full name, SSN address, DOB, and bank account number? Or maybe you don't feel like giving out that information that you're not required to do so. It's called The Constitution, why don't you embrace it? The irony of all of this, nsplayr, is that you are against the deportation of those known to be here illegally, but think that people here legally exercising their Constitutional Rights are being 'dicks'. It's telling.

Excellent video depicting people exercising their Constituional Rights...educational as well (and funny at the very end!). I have no problems with people voluntarily choosing to answer questions, people just need to know that it's not required, regardless if agents attempt to intimidate or coerce you. (and for Prozac, no, I'm not PYB, nor even know who he is haha)

Just so I'm clear, is it safe to assume (I'm asking because I don't want to put words into your mouth if it is not correct) that you would have supported trading every Taliban member that we have captured for our one guy? If not, then please tell me how many you would have traded--we already know you're cool 5 of their top guys, so would you have supportd trading all of them and if not, why, and also what number between that maximum and the original 5 that you supported would you have traded? Would it have been smart for the British to have traded Rudolph Hess and other top Nazi officials for one captured British guy before the end of the war? And if not, then why not? As for the trials of people suspected of crimes, this is nothing new. What makes it so that the US can't have their trials in a military tribunal? Why does it have to go to a federal court? As for the guys who are not suspected of any crimes, then you release when the conflict has ended...sounds pretty standard to me. I guess they could release them to the Afghan people for them to have a trial--it's what Bush decided to do with Sadaam Hussein, for better our worse. That's my suggestion--what is yours?