Lawman

Bought an M&P shield to replace my P7 as a semi auto carry gun. I don't think I could find a mo'betta option of small & light while staying rugged, and in a caliber I already owned in bulk. The thing is tiny, and I can hide it in just about any type of outfit or weather I would want to carry. Also came with two different mag options so if I really need to make it small in shorts and a tshirt I can for the option of 7 instead of 8 in the mag. Still one more than my S&W .38 and same profile but skinnier. Shoots pretty well, though not spectacular like the P7 but at nearly 1/2 the weight and the fact it's a close quarters option only really that doesn't bother me.

Saw it. Holy hell that was awesome. They took the mantra "Death Before Dismount" and really ran with it. A lot darker and more serious than I was expecting too.

Well it's obviously a workable model for employment. Haven't you had to deal with the lazy good for nothing accountable to nobody fungus people who occupy (I don't want to say work) in the finance offices at every military post. Government job creation in action ladies an gentlemen.

Fixed it for you.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.... https://m.gazette.com/toxic-fort-carson-battalion-commander-returns-to-job-despite-recommendation-of-firing/article/1539975 Further proof the system is truly broken and nobody seems to care.

Corrected for offset

The combination of that article title and your avatar is spectacularly appropriate.

Well the thread title was only a year off. Good hunting.

And 1 pissed off Major making Popcorn? Jesus.... There are 7 maybe 8 LtCols in an Aviation Brigade in the Army.

My old Battalion is gonna be there till March by most estimates.... a CAB is already slated to come in and replace them. What advisory role does an Apache have?... Bueller?

Its kind of amazing how much different we are between services. In Army aviation, Command that everyone views as the best time in your life is a Line Troop/Company as a Senior Capt. Everything after that is just a long down hill slide. Even the guys that make Battalion and Brigade level commands will flat say the most they enjoyed as far as a Command was the Line Company spot they held when they were a 6 year time in service O-3. Then again the 2 Air Force LtCols I work with right now are amazed at how much differently they are treated when they interact with Conventional Army guys. A LtCol in the Army is a big damn deal where it seems like you cant swing a dead cat without hitting one at an AF Base.

Update to the original point of this thread: Scot's Vote No on referendum. By 400K more people (about a 10% split). I dont think the independence voices will go silent on this, I just wonder if they will channel more energy into the idea of an amiacable solution to the issues they have grievances with rather than go for the big gun of Independence.

Good point. And Article 4 of the Constitution provides for that process though like creating an amendment or ratifying a state it is incredibly difficult. That is probably the reason it hasnt happened since 1863 and only happend three times before that. Overtorque, I used Texas as an example because everybody who has ever met "that Texan" can recall some level of conversation about "We can leave, they taught me that in Texas History." Honestly as vocal as Texans are though after dealing with Native Hawaiian on how they view their states ownership you guys have a long way to go to hit that level. Helodude, here is an excerpt from the opinion of Texas v White (apology for the Bolding, I copy pasted it) The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.‘ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? While Madison and Jefferson did in fact say those things they were also under the initial formation of a country that had never existed in such a likeness before. It was also under the Articles of Confederation and the idea that Slavery was not in contention for the right of all men to be equal, so yes things change. Also Jefferson finishes that quote with "I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture." Meaning its not a statement as to the legality of secession its a statement of him not believing in taking up arms to preserve the greater Union. Also its important to note the language used in the creation of states from Ohio afterward. These were the first states to literally be carved out of Territory by their enabling acts passed by the US Congress. That act was the Federal governments endorsement for the State to form a constitution and State legislature allowing adoption of them into the Union and their allegeince to the US Constitution granting them the same rights as previously formed states. Enabled... as in the Power to become a state is a grant by the Federal Government. Hawaii and Texas were slightly different the same way 14-16 were because they had some form of existing government at the time of their admittance but if you read the enabling acts passed for those states, it comes the same way the power to become a state was granted by the Federal Government. Its really simple from the point of view of allegiance. The State, through its formation and ratification as one was adopted in its whole to elevate the greater whole of the United States. No different than a City or County deciding to leave one state for another is illegal (we fought a war for Toledo in Ohio and I dont know why seeing it now) it is an unacceptable loss to the whole and damaging to the citizens of the US for a state to leave without a demonstrated failure by those members to equally support that State under the requirements of the Constitution (hence my military example a post back). They are free states on the grounds that the powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are maintained by the states. They are not Free states in the idea they can come and go as they please without the grant of the Federal Government.

Side note... We were pulling old stored crap out of the basement of the bowling alley at Illeshiem several years ago and we found a lot of that stuff buried in boxes. Guess we shouldnt have thrown it out.

People have made that argument in regards to taxes, and it has repeatedly been found to not be within the protections provided under the 9th and 10th Amendments which is the basis for the argument in the first place. The same could be said for the idea that somehow a bunch of people effectively voted for us hundreds of years removed from any of us on our consent to be citizens of the United States. Effectively you are born a citizen of the US by default where in the other approach would be to allow people to chose to become citizens through some oath of allegiance (wait I think I said that every day in grade school...) upon reaching the age of consent at 18. We do maintain the individual right to give up your citizenship, we do not maintain the right of the state to do so. Like I said there would be some argument for the idea of a legal secession provided that the Federal Government was complicit in its requirements of the Constitution. If for instance the Federal Government refused to protect the State of Florida or Arizona from a military Invasion of a foreign military power than that state would have an argument that it was abandoned to its own sovereignty. But simply deciding by popular opinion "we dont like this so we are out" isnt a protected right.

Thats what I get for typing on an Ipad... We are totally going down this rabbit hole arent we.... Look Illegally choosing to leave a body you had to be ratified in as a member of is not allowed under the constitution. What level does soverignty exist at. The city? The county? the State? Every single one of those levels has in some way shape or form attempted to leave the greater whole of whatever Union it was a part of. Staten Island tried to leave New York.... Should that have been legal if it simply didnt want to be part of it anymore? The Nation of the United States is what is recognized at a sovereign level, not the state. Thats the same reason states are not allowed to ratify their own treaties with foreign powers. So yes a state that made the decision to become part of the United States doesnt simply get to say "fuck this Im out." States are ratified into the Union, which by doing so do not so much voluntarily choose to be part of as swear allegiance too. At what level to oaths not mean anything if a state chose to affirm its self to the US constitution. Short of the Federal Government not living up to its requirements under the US Constitution and breaking its end of the contract, no the states do not have a right to simply chose to leave when they dont like the systems they swore allegiance too.

Actually no. Texas argued that it wasn't responsible for war debt accumulated by the confederate government because that government was illegal. The USSC found for Texas in the matter based on previous codified standards, 1 being it was implicitly stated in the original articles of confederation that a state could not leave the union and also that the constitution didn't explicitly overturn that nor did it provide for any sort of breaking up of states after their admittance from either territory or foreign state status (like making Cali 2 states for example). There were dissenting opinions on the bench however. Its just important to note that in the wake of a period defined by the idea of state sovereignty within the union a group of individuals who's job it is to interpret the constitution found that succession was not a right. Compare that to todays highly centralized government, no way in hell is that idea making it any further than some grass roots rally in Texas or Hawaii.

You can thank the eco lobby for slowing the adoption of high efficiency diesel in America. PR campaigns on how diesel is dirty or forcing different emission requirements closing off huge swaths of market (IE California). We are easily a decade behind the power curve but thanks to eco requirements the wide field of Asian and Euro market Diesel vehicles including the ones of US manufacture. Whats funny is all the PR on diesel being bad is now coming back to bite them because its the only way for manufactures to meet the ever increasing average mileage requirement while keeping Americans in the larger Cars/SUVs they are accustomed too. They thought they could starve out that market for small hybrid/electric vehicles.

We had some people try that a few decades back... didn't work out so well. While its opening a can of worms that would need its own thread, no US state is leaving the union. For all the blustering and bragging Texans do about how its in their states constitution it doesn't matter (not to mention that it isnt actually there). First, the "Supremacy Claus" (Article 4) of the constitution states you can write whatever you want but if it doesnt align with the US constitution it is null and void. Second, and more to the point Texas V White settled the legality of Succession, our US constitution does not allow for states to secede from the Union. Short of open rebellion nobody is going to go out and form a new country. Sidenote: Polls on the news are gonna be too close to call on Scotland. Im really curious to see if this does happen and they do split what kind of timelines and adjustment periods they set themselves. Curious to see how many of their voters are in that "Change!" mode and not looking at the long game, ala the Post McCain/Obama Southpark Episode.

The multi link rear goes a long way to improving the truck ride. However, it still maintains as one of the best towing trucks in any of its available weight classes despite the old attitude that you need a solid axel and leaf springs to do it. I'd buy an Eco diesel ram in a heart beat if I wasn't already sitting in two paid off cars. That Fiat diesel has been on the market for over a decade and well proven, combined with an 8 speed tranny you have a sub 10k towing half ton that gets high twenties on the highway.

I dont doubt there are elements in their government that view this threat in Syria/Iraq to be a real problem that effects them. But at the same time I dont think its politically acceptable for them with the general population or at least a good portion of that population who would be more than just "against" our presence conducting strikes down into Iraq and Syria. Airlift or support aid might be one of those semantic sells we can pull off like "these dont drop bombs therefor they arent combat ops," or something of that nature. Still, not a great start out of the gate when the most immediate neighbor tells us publicly to F off.... again.

So much for that advantage.... https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/09/11/Turkey-refuses-U-S-permission-for-combat-missions-against-ISIS-.html Echos of 2003 anyone?

Yet another reason for them to remain my favorite go to airline.

So if I follow what your saying we took a field with probably as much of a niche technical requirement in expertise as say the medical group and then essentially stopped tracking who went there? So like if we just let any LtCOL run the base hospital instead of putting the people with the knowledge to actually run it there and keeping them there. Brilliant idea.... Between stuff like this and partnership exercises with our allies I'm starting to think our success in combat isn't because we are so much better at everything, it's that they have somehow found a way to suck worse at it.

So are you saying its worse than my shitty analogy? Well that explains how we spend 600 million dollars on a website for healthcare and it doesnt work....