HeloDude

You have to love hearing what the liberals truly believe when they're caught off guard with an unknown open-mic. Anybody who doesn't believe that confiscation (similar to that of most European countries, Australia, etc) is the true goal of the liberals is either fooling themselves or is on the same team as these guys. http://www.examiner.com/article/open-mike-reveals-n-j-senators-contempt-for-gun-owners-confiscation-goal

Ok dude, you went from your argument being that this alleged past affair now makes it more likely that he assaulted that chick, to...what's on a security clearance request form...getting a little bit in the weeds to say the least. Overall though, by your reasoning, everything Bill Clinton or Gen Patreus said was a lie since they both cheated on their wives, and additionally, at least in the case of clinton Clinton, originally lied about it too. Oh, and does that mean that Clinton also assaulted those women he allegedly slept with even before being President, being that one directly has to do with the other, right? I thought you were done talking about this subject? Here's a tip--don't become a lawyer.

I'm glad the Secretary decided to this for the entire military...because in the Air Force, we just had ours a few months ago and everything has been smooth sailing since then, no problems at all...nope, not a single one.

I like it...frankly I wish he took the same approach with Fast and Furious.

"Does this mean I no longer get to go to Air War College in residence?"

Since when has that ever helped any guy get laid?

Dude, you're a tool. You argue this as well as you argue everything else--based off of emotion. You're not a chick, are you? If the AF wants to investigate this guy for something he may have done 9 years ago then I'm assuming that's definitely within their lane of authority (not sure if there is a time limit on brining up such charges)--though they would be singleing him out to a degree because there are a lot more people than you think cheating on their wives...and husbands, and most people just look the other way. But to say that because a guy cheated on his wife 9 years ago gives more evidence that he assualted the recent chick is pretty stupid. Evidence is evidence and the 3-star tossed his conviction because be didn't believe there was sufficient evidence in the trial to uphold the conviction. Try thinking with your brain for a change...

I understand your thought process--but for the sake of argument, what do you mean when you say 'the gun control is fizzling'? I agree that since it has been several months since the last major shooting and now that the Senate vote has come and gone, that the issue is not as front and center in the average American's cross check as it was earlier...and I agree that's good for bringing prices down and availability back closer to normal with respect to firearms and somewhat with respect to ammo. But what happens when there is another mass shooting? You're fooling yourself if you don't think there will be another one in the next 2,3,5,7 years--who knows when, but it will happen. So what then? We play this game all over again? The anti-gun folks will not go away and will be waiting patiently to exploit the next tragedy just as they were with this one. I am just curious how you see...or even how you 'hope' to see this gun control issue play out. Because like I said, the issue will not just go away, and there will be other shootings to reignite the powder keg--so what then? I agree that the less shootings there are the better the argument for the pro-gun folks and vice versa the other way around. Are you just hoping this settles down long enough for you and others to stock up, to help get a pro-gun President and legislature elected, to get more people into shooting/being supporters of The 2nd Amendment...? Legitimate questions that I would like to hear you or anybody else answer. The way I see it, the issue shouldn't even be up for debate and though in the short term it's easier to have the issue lay dormant, it doesn't really do you much good in the long term.

Hmmm...I could argue either for or against it. For it: It's civil disobedience which will also help highlight the issue and their cause on a national level--that carrying a gun doesn't mean you're automatically going to start shooting, plus that it's a Right protected under The Constitution and people are willing to go to prison over it. Against it: In reality, will it really do that much, if anything to change the discussion? Anti-gun people will not be swayed by such an event, even if is peaceful. And as for generating more support for the movement, I think the pro-gun support side is already pretty damn strong. Also, for these guys (though I believe they are morally correct)...is it worth all the heartache of getting arrested, attorney fees, potential jail time...and even worse, possibly being a convicted felon and then not being allowed to purchase a firearm again? Strong price to pay to make a statement. I get what these guys are trying to do, and I support their passion and their convictions, I just don't know if now is the time, reason being the question: Are we to this point yet? This all being said, I'm curious to see what will happen and how it will go down. Either way, I don't really see it making the argument much, if at all, worse for the pro-gun side.

I think he just saw that her blouse and jeans were on a little crooked... Remember way back when in ROTC: "Permission to touch?"

Are you trying to say that this story is 'ironic'?...because that song by Alanis Morissette is full of ironic things. Or is it just full of things that suck, ie winning the lottery and dying the next day, now that just sucks if it's you.

Not quite sure if that was his only goal...he had a lot of ammunition and other resources that suggests to me he desired to do more than just take some shots at some LE with the hopes of them killing him. But agree that the outcome was almost the best they could have hoped for considering the circumstances. I just like to point out the hypocrisy of the media and the 'gun control' left--if they don't have victims to exploit, it's not worth their time. Besides, they hate the fact that Sandy Hook involved a gunman going against the unarmed vs this nut who went against the very well armed: Which outcome was better?

I wonder why this one didn't make overwhelming national news as it plays right into the agenda of the unConstitutional 'gun control' tyrants?...perhaps because thankfully there are no dead victims to exploit? Or perhaps because the police proved that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? My bet is a combination of both...politicians could care less about victims as they only pretend to care when it helps them further their own ideological agenda. Thankfully this asshole took on a bunch of armed folks instead of shooting up a playground. http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1335608

Was this before or after the two had a chance to compete the 'Eiffel Tower'. Who would have ever though the wobbly-H would be so dangerous. Though the real question is...how is BQZip's mom doing after this whole ordeal?

I heard a rumor that the AFPC guy also said that since the airlines are going to start their hiring boom next month that the bonus will be increased to $35K/year and that the guy on BO who goes by Butters is always wrong about the airlines and that matmacwc knows all. Sorry guys...I need some BO entertainment since nobody has posted anything good recently.

I'm not saying that's a 'bad' deal...after all, it does come with a pretty good optic, but IMO, there are better AR's out there for even a better price. The Colt AR specifically comes to mind.

True...but a Congressman is not part of 'leadership' per se. But yes, we are required to give them their due respect. Which is why I have never said anything negative about any public official ever.

You're smoking crack...'good for a while'--Collins sucks, especially the last several years...and now we know he really likes to suck <zing!>. I'm not a big Tebow fan but the dude won the Heisman and helped take a team to the playoffs (along with a playoff win) his first season. So the dude's gay, big deal. I bet Manti Te'o is gay too, but if the dude can play ball (no pun intended that time) then San Diego will be lucky to have him. I thought a person's sex life wasn't supposed to matter?

If he came out as gay he would be called a 'hero'...

What the fvck is right...as if I needed another reason to never live in a liberal, piece of shit excuse for a State (California). Sadly, these lawmakers are to the point where they're cool with a live baby being aborted and then thrown away (ie they allow extreme and partial birth abortions), but yet they have no problem going against a woman when she's taking care of her child. If the parents had left the first hospital because the hospital staff said they disagreed with gay marriage then it would have been ok <sarcasm for the few lefties on here>. I know it's been posted before, but here's the ideology from where this all stems from...ie the state and the government knows better than you do.

I don't disagree with you on this one...and I always thought it was a little odd that there were relgious invocations at Change of Commands (just one example). I am curious to see what new 'religious policy' the Pentagon will be enforcing.

I thought it was done pretty well considering. But don't fool yourself, they were definitely pushing an anti-gun agenda...just a little more subtle than some other media outlets. I did like how they detailed the difference between the M-4 vs AR-15 (ie select fire vs semi).

Thought this forum was at least somewhat appropriate to share this article. Now it's from Breitbart, so factor that in when reading it...that being said, it is interesting and does say something to how the Pentagon is approaching the continual debate of religion in the military. I do find it worth noting that the Pentagon hired a guy as a consultant to help develop new policies on religious tolerance, when that same guy shares such extreme negative views on many of the Christians in this country and also many of those who are already serving. Diversity doesn't seem to extend to those with certain religions beliefs...

You do realize that the Air Force can not officially 'punish' you unless it's under Article 15, Court-Martial, etc? Again, if you have done nothing wrong and chose to not answer an official's question, then there is nothing the Air Force can do to you. What, 'failure to cooperate with LE?'...have you been detained or charged? They asked you a question and you refused to answer--no law broken there (please let me know if i am incorrect). What's funny is that several weeks ago guys said on this Board that if your leadership starts 'questioning' you over potentially legal issues that the best course of action is to say that you won't discuss anything without legal council...but yet for some reason you will spill your guts in front of a LE official who has no problem arresting you if you say the wrong thing. Or even worse, you fear the response of being questioned by your CC (after said ATF gives them a call) for something in which you did nothing wrong? At that point we're back to the whole 'don't answer questions by your CC if its a potentially legal issue/investigation without council'. Can your leadership then push for a shitty assignment, not strat you high for IDE, etc...sure, but if it's in response to this matter in which you did nothing wrong, then you have an IG complaint, though yes, it may be hard to prove. I'm not saying you don't have a personal reason in wanting to answer questions (you're hoping it all goes away after your answers, which in this case it worked out for the guy)...all I'm saying is that he doesn't have to answer them. Funny, if LE came to your house asking you what you were doing a few nights ago over the weekend because a neighbor got raped, would you just have a friendly conversation with them or would you get a lawyer?...there's a reason why they are questioning you specifically, they are not asking you if you heard any noises outside that evening. No difference here. This isn't the same as being pulled over for a speeding ticket or the police coming out to your house because your music is too loud--firearm charges can carry stiff penalties, and not to be taken lightly. Best advice--get a lawyer. Again, just my opinion and I hope nobody on here has to go through anything like this. But we saw an AF O-5 almost go to prison for something he said he didn't do (ie sexual assault case)--you don't think he lawyered up if LE/OSI just came over to 'ask him some questions'? I'll leave at this unless somebody wants to comment further and disagree under legal reasons.

Why did you talk with the ATF at all? Were you just wanting to answer their questions because you wanted to help them?...even though they have no problem going after you if they see fit? You can just be polite and say that you don't feel comfortable discussing this with them, end of story. They'd have to detain/arrest you to further the discussion at that point, and then you lawyer up and go after their asses for wrongful arrest. I get that a lot of people want to 'talk' with officials when they are questioned, but if you have nothing to hide/did nothing wrong, then there's nothing they can do to you. Sure they can try to press charges anyway, but in this case, where is their proof that you were doing anything illegal with your firearms? I'm all about cooperating with LE, but not when they're looking to potentially charge you with a crime (hence why they were questioning you). At that point, it's better to get a lawyer. Just my $.02