StoleIt

You obviously aren't in this thread enough to know my stance on firearms. Yea, I can see this easily becoming a stepping stone toward wider confiscation, which I definitely have issue with. I definitely haven't put enough thought into it, I'll be the first to admit. But my gut response was what I wrote. Not a terrible idea, but definitely in need of tweaking and very clear rules. That's really the part I'm leaning toward. Obviously, mental health is tricky to diagnose and very easy to cross the line on infringing rights. But I think for felons this is a non-issue and should be enforced. In other news...when will gun prices drop so I can finish my 14.5 AR w/pinned break (thanks Illinois for no SBR) super lightweight build? Thank God I got my polymer lower before this thing went full retard.

So...you prefer convicted felons maintain their access to firearms? Or you trust them to follow the law and turn in their firearms if they owned them prior to the conviction?

Hmm I'm slightly on the fence with this one. If Adam Lanza's mom didn't have any firearms then the kids ability to shoot up the school would have been greatly reduced. While perhaps a long shot, this proactive law does make a lot more sense for violent felons who may have already legally owned a gun but then got convicted. What are they odds they just turn in their guns after the conviction? Dangerous ground I admit...but I'm really 50/50 on it.

Tron Legacy?

Seemed like, from the article & FB, he is doing it as a publicity stunt to show how easy it is to purchase weapons. Thus, with his history, it is not surprising he cleared a check and went on to purchase two firearms. And if his purpose is to then go around and sell them, that would be illegal since he isn't an FFL. Which I am assuming worse case, the article said he was going to turn them into the PD...whatever that means. All very unorthodox all around.

Yea. because that is a worthwhile comparison. Decorated Navy veteran with no felonies or history of mental issues successfully buys a gun. Who would have thought?!

Waiting for someone to charge the guy with manslaughter because he "only" had a plastic gun in 3...2...

I think everyone here agrees with you. I at least know I am disappointed there are no squadron patches for dudes stuck in ABUs. I still have my BDU's hanging up in the closet complete with pocket patches.

Either photoshop or a 3D rendering.

Him, him. (Edit: And yes I am aware this is not a photo from the actual raid)

Prestigious awards

Not the first time that has happened. A bro had that exact scenario about 4 months back. Met up with a -10 over the boulevard until the damn thing managed to turned itself back on.

Two big thumbs up for Oban.

Not sure what MWS you are but the tanker staff guys were wearing bags or ABU's (their choice). I heard rumor that the old chief boom or someone along those lines was rocking multicam's but your best bet is to email whoever you are replacing (or worst case your gaining DO) and ask them directly.

Damn...

You can't go wrong with the Glock, but personally I like my M&P9 (VTAC) better. The XDM is at the bottom of the list IMO.

About 2-3 months ago in the AOR.

Mini 14? BANNED! Good thing my full sized M1A isn't though, I was starting to get worried. Double irony that it totally looks like an assault rifle too (sans black paint).

Sweet, that's right next to my hometown.

Iran has one.

True, I should have clarified that's assuming a normal closure rate. The receiver in question managed to get into contact (briefly) prior to the incident so I'm just assuming it wasn't an issue of closure rate.

The -135 doesn't fly in an out of trim state. When we have an A/P disconnect the jet is trimmed and will continue doing whatever it was before for the most part. 99% of the time the receiver won't even know our A/P just clicked off. Up front we can generally tell how fast the receiver is closing in just by paying attention to the trim wheel moving due to the receivers bow wave. I wasn't on that jet though, so it's hard to tell if it was an A/P issue. I'm betting you think the boom floated up because the tanker had a sudden pitch down. I'm willing to bet it was the boom operator doing his job and flying the boom out of the way. Tough call. The receiver definitely hit the upper limit though. The E-3's wing flex when he dives away means nothing other than he dives away. It doesn't tell the story if he had upward movement into the tanker or vice versa. Regardless, NATO E-3's still scare me...but not as bad as some foreign Vipers (Dutch and Polish not included).