HeloDude

I agree...however, this real example shows that a company 'can not' refuse to do buisness (ie hire, fire, refuse service) with someone because of what certain people say (even if the buisness believes the speech of their customers cause their buisness damage): https://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24687970/no-right-refuse-gay-couples-wedding-cake So who makes the rules?

I could argue that the 14th Amendment implies that a buisness should have to treat my speech as equally as it does another person's speech and thus can not fire me for what I say... (and yes, I'm making a point of a slippery slope) So if the NBA (a buisness) can ban a person from engaging in commerce with their organization because of what that person says...then why can't a cake company ban a gay couple from engaging in commerce with their buisness because of what the gay people say? I fully agree that scorn and ridicule from the public is where these issues should be dealt with, however, the government (ie public schools) loves to tell people what shirts can and can't be worn (ie an American flag shirt on May 5th) on certain days, all in name of 'safety'. Don't kid yourself, Vertigo, the government is very much involved in limiting the type of speech that they don't want being engaged at a certain time/place.

Since you're speaking of legalilty vs illegality here (not philosophical), per US Code, only citizens makeup the organized and unorganized militia (unless they have made a declaration of intention to become a US citizen)...which is interesting because you can enlist in the military without being a citizen. When you enlist as a non-citizen, do you have to make a declaration of intention to become an American citizen? (did some searching and couldn't find an easy/straightforward answer https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/non%20citizens%20in%20the%20enlisted%20us%20military%20d0025768%20a2.pdf) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

People shouldn't be surprised...

Philosophically, I agree with most of what Vertigo has said (sans the racist accusation part). The problem that he is failing to adequately describe, as others have written, is that with open immigration you have to entirely end the welfare state. That means the end to government funded schools (it is also a form of welfare), the end to ER's having to accept people who can not pay for their treatment, and of course the end of all food stamps, Obamacare, government housing, etc. Also, to maintain the integrity of the Republic, you would have to amend The Constitution to get rid of future anchor babies (this would become much less of an issue once you get rid of government welfare) and you would also need to end all minimum wage laws, implement the Fair Tax, and allow business owners to only employ whoever they want, regardless of any other factors (as Vertigo has also suggested). Once the above changes are fullly implemented, a more 'true' capitalist system can be economically achieved. Theoretically, the more raw resources and labor you have available, the more economic growth output...however we have many barriers to this economic model in our current system. As much as I would love to see all of the above occur, the odds of it happening in my lifetime (if ever) is essentially zero...and I would say that we are further getting away (overall) from more Liberty, than getting closer. The vast majority of this country's citizens do not want anything close to true freedom.

Slide Fire Stock using the new Tac-Con 3MR Trigger...not saying it makes sense tactically (or monetarily), but it definitely looks like a fun/sweet combo!

Got it. Reason I asked is because (as stoleit points out), they are used in the movie 'Lone Survivor' in which the true story took place in 2005 (yes, I realize it was a movie based off the book...but I wondered how much was accurate when I saw the movie in the theaters). I'm still waiting to try out the VCOG.

I agree with Nunya...I think it has to do with keeping a proper cheek weld. I have played around with an ACOG/RMR combo and it would definitely take some getting used to in terms of adjusting your head posistion when going from one to another. By the way, when did Trijicon release the RMR? A few minutes of google searches didn't help me out.

...anddddd...you just went there.

Nobody likes the debrief phase...

Pretty evident: To show off his junk.

Enough! Ban AF PT shorts!

https://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/05/06/mexican-cartel-allegedly-hired-ms-13-to-carry-out-torture-operation-in/

Agreed. Though I'm sure there would still be somewhat of an limited underground presence and/or another black market to take its place. But I believe the strength of the cartels would be severely limited in both the business sense and the power they hold.

If you think the majority of politicians in DC truly care about securing the border...well, then I have nothing for you. They haven't done it before and I don't see them doing it anytime soon (regardless of what political party is in control). Reagan allowed himself to get fooled in the 80's (maybe that was his goal all along?) and today if you support anything other than legal status and future citizenship for illegals then a third to one half of the country will call you anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti...well, you get the idea. Republicans were all about the cheap labor all those years (and still are) and the Dems (who were also fans of the cheap labor) now see millions of new voters once again for the future. As for the security situation with the drug cartels, human trafficking, etc on the southern border...see above. I understand there are decent people who would just like to come here to better their families and they're not the same as the cartel members, but when the border is not secured, then both get to come in. Like I said, most politicians don't want to risk not allowing the former to enter even at the risk of the later. I've talked to quite a few in the border patrol over the years and I understand their focus is on the criminal aspect (as it should be)...but let's not kid ourselves, we don't know exactly who is coming over. I'm all about letting the free market decide who/how many should be able to immigrate/come over for specific/temporary periods for work visas and allowing that to be the forefront front of the policy, but this is not popular as it creates 'inequality'. As for the folks already here, let's not kid ourselves, no politician is going to be for mass deportation (see Romney 2012), especially by force (see nobody). I'd petsonally be wiling to give legal status/permanent green cards to the illegals already in here as long as they're not given citizenship (kind of wrong to reward people for breaking the law...as for those brought over as children, maybe some wiggle room there because of the obvious situation) and only if it was attached to a trigger that required a truly secured border and the passage of a new Constitutional amendment to rewrite the 14th Amendment to not allow citizenship purely by birth in this country alone--that you would need to have at least one parent be a permanent resident to be given citizenship by birth alone. But since I'm not naive, I know none of this will happen--emotions almost always trump logic. As for whose responsibly it is for securing and monitoring the border, I agree that it shouldn't be the military, but it's kind of irrelevant because it could be CBP, National Guard, a new DHS department (take your pick)--it's not going to happen, except on the margins so politicians can say that they're doing something. Think about this: How comfortable would the American people be if they found out that only half of the airports were screening passengers before flights. We get the kind of country and government we deserve. If you think the majority of politicians in DC truly care about securing the border...well, then I have nothing for you. They haven't done it before and I don't see them doing it anytime soon (regardless of what political party is in control). Reagan allowed himself to get fooled in the 80's (maybe that was his goal all along?) and today if you support anything other than legal status and future citizenship for illegals then a third to one half of the country will call you anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti...well, you get the idea. Republicans were all about the cheap labor all those years (and still are) and the Dems (who were also fans of the cheap labor) now see millions of new voters once again for the future. As for the security situation with the drug cartels, human trafficking, etc on the southern border...see above. I understand there are decent people who would just like to come here to better their families and they're not the same as the cartel members, but when the border is not secured, then both get to come in. Like I said, most politicians don't want to risk not allowing the former to enter even at the risk of the later. I've talked to quite a few in the border patrol over the years and I understand their focus is on the criminal aspect (as it should be)...but let's not kid ourselves, we don't know exactly who is coming over. I'm all about letting the free market decide who/how many should be able to immigrate/come over for specific/temporary periods for work visas and allowing that to be the forefront front of the policy, but this is not popular as it creates 'inequality'. As for the folks already here, let's not kid ourselves, no politician is going to be for mass deportation (see Romney 2012), especially by force (see nobody). I'd petsonally be wiling to give legal status/permanent green cards to the illegals already in here as long as they're not given citizenship (kind of wrong to reward people for breaking the law...as for those brought over as children, maybe some wiggle room there because of the obvious situation) and only if it was attached to a trigger that required a truly secured border and the passage of a new Constitutional amendment to rewrite the 14th Amendment to not allow citizenship purely by birth in this country alone--that you would need to have at least one parent be a permanent resident to be given citizenship by birth alone. But since I'm not naive, I know none of this will happen--emotions almost always trump logic. As for whose responsibly it is for securing and monitoring the border, I agree that it shouldn't be the military, but it's kind of irrelevant because it could be CBP, National Guard, a new DHS department (take your pick)--it's not going to happen, except on the margins so politicians can say that they're doing something. Think about this: How comfortable would the American people be if they found out that only half of the airports were screening passengers before flights. We get the kind of country and government we deserve.

I see what you did there...

So you're telling me I should invest in anti-laser cream now...before the rush?

Proponents of gun control laws have made the arguments that a woman is better (ie safer) to not be allowed to carry a firearm vs having the choice to carry a firearm for defense. They have also said that it's better for a woman to urinate or vomit to stop a rape attacker vs be allowed to defend herself with a firearm. So again, "They're trying to say that the risk of rape (due to being unarmed) is better than allowing people to have firearms due to the risk associated with a potential fatality with a firearm." Gun control proponents believe what I just wrote, regardless of a whether a poster on the Internet is true or not. I care about what is actually going on legislatively not about online posters. Check out these links if you think I'm making this stuff up: https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/ https://www.occupycorporatism.com/colorado-rep-no-guns-rape-victims-urinate-or-vomit-will-protect-you/ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

They're trying to say that the risk of rape (due to being unarmed) is better than allowing people to have firearms due to the risk associated with a potential fatality with a firearm. If what I said makes any sense. I've stopped trying to have a rational conversation with these people...their emotions are too strong and keep from having real dialogue on the subject. Just don't believe them when they say, 'nobody wants to take your guns away'...that's like saying we don't want to take your right to have an abortion, but you can't have one once you're 2 weeks pregnant.

This doesn't appear to be too new, but still pretty awesome. 1.43 mile shot wuth a .338 Lapua

Are you referring to his trigger finger...or that the eotech optic he is using is on backwards.

Congrats, man! Safe to assume you would have punched soon anyway? Or did it take the VSP money to solidify the decision?

Might want to reconsider going to the Air Force Museum at Wright Patt... https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140409/NEWS/304090042/Air-Force-security-holds-granny-gunpoint-Wright-Patterson

Transparency, you know...just like the President promised us. Wait...is it not happening?