tac airlifter

Do you think your employer would know or care if you were a felon? Dishonorable discharge is, depending on the state, equivalent to a felony conviction. It’s not good, and employers who do a cursory background check will know.

Just brought this home today. I’d never heard of B&T until recently, did some online digging and found good reviews. I was in the market for something my daughter can easily shoulder and shoot so I grabbed this. Very nice engineering, I’m impressed.

It’s interesting to reread these posts in light of current events. Looks like we were all being lied, misdirected and artfully deceived by those in charge.

If they reason that a policy letter supersedes written regulation that's fine. We also have a policy letter from CSAF saying stop doing dumb shit. Who adjudicates which letter wins? Commanders. Not their front office or worker bees. This should, clearly, fall into the realm of dumb shit since you wouldn't be in compliance with the policy even if you execute their proposed COA (for arguments sake, assume you get <90). I recommend elevating this past the front office to an actual commander, and presenting it as simply as possible: I can't take the test early and still meet the requirement, so I'm planning to take the test a KRND. If they say execute, do so. Understand your desire to avoid appearing whiny, but you can attack this very nonsensical policy interpretation in a professional manner (which you're already doing); if folks are offended buy that, it's not your fault.

I assume you’ve pointed this out to whoever is directing you to test; what is their answer? If you cannot fulfill requirement of the reg by testing prior to PCS, what is the point of doing so? Can you take a PFT at your TDY location? Sorry to answer your question with 3 questions, but understanding their rationale is a prerequisite.

His trial has confused me. I was informed that SGT Berghdal served with honor and distinction. What happened?

I'm in a similar position, my job should not exist and certainly not be filled by a rated officer. I successfully lobbied to leave early and let the position go unfilled which was difficult but not impossible. In lieu of an audit, there should be a mechanism to ID useless staff jobs. But there isn't, so if you can leave, you should. This organization doesn't want to be fixed.

AFSOC will do what it’s told, but “let’s have these high speed assets sit and wait for something to happen” is antithetical to the mentality of the command and will create operational friction. I don’t think rescue belongs in AFSOC, but I do think AFSOC will earnestly try making it work if ordered. It is noteworthy what another poster mentioned: I’ve never briefed my CSAR pickup would be a -60 from ACC. It’s usually been another SOF asset who was nearby as our primary pick-up plan. And I’ve never thought an RMC qualified HC would be value added for coordinating pick-up over a DRACO or even contract ISR. So it’s going to be weird to work alongside SOF rescue who won’t rescue SOF. Copy they’re sitting alert for CFACC as ordered, but the awkwardness will be present for every mission brief and every excercise, until eventually the debate about whether they belong in AFSOC re-emerges. So, might as well leave them be in ACC.

What comment did I make on 9/29?

This is a hoax? I’m slow to the discussion here, so im seriously asking.

You’ve read through 6 pages of debate and think this is an echo chamber without disagreement? Has someone said they needed a bump stock to protect their family? Great point. The law of unintended consequences. Too bad few of the anti-gun folks are smart enough on history and details surrounding this debate to recognize the truth in your observations.

Is a semi-auto AR a weapon meant for the battlefield?

Good discussion gents. Too much for me to unpack on a normal work day, so here's just a few responses over lunch. Gearpig I wouldn't bother fighting a law to restrict or ban bump fire stocks. However, would such a law have prevented this event? As mentioned below, bump fire is not a difficult effect to replicate even without a specialized stock. The shooter doesn't have to "whittle one out of a table leg" and even if he did, apparently he was fastidious enough in planning that he might have done so. So ok, we ban bump fire stocks. Since this was the first high profile shooting to utilize one, do you expect said law to diminish the chances of another mass shooting? I just don't see banning stuff as a way to prevent a determined mass killer. But I don't care enough about bump-fire to object their banning. Let's just all acknowledge that we're doing it just to do it. But I do award you 1 fake internet point as promised, for your well thought out reply! Concur. And a psycho who wants to make their own facsimile of a bump fire stock could do so without much effort. A big problem gun owners face in these discussions is how many folks have opinions without knowledge. Interesting reply, thanks. I have more spears to throw than time to throw them, but a couple things stand out: First, I reject your 4 categories. Not only are there more than 4 types of people who own guns, but many folks fit more than one profile yet want one gun that works for multiple scenarios. Here's another category you entirely forgot- good guys who require weapons proficiency for their job and buy a gun to practice on their own. There's a lot of mil & LE folks who fit that description. I've shot many times with small town SWAT who don't have an official budget for the quantity of ammo required to actually be good. Lot's of LE are optioned to purchase their own weapons, and funny enough many of them were directly affected by the AWB we previously discussed. Wrap your mind around the reality that many firearm restrictions affect police. And a lot of military folks buy ARs because shooting for qual every other year just isn't enough to make them comfortable walking around with one on a FOB. No gun laws that I know of make accommodations for these people; it's not a trivial point. Second, your idea that "a reliable semi-auto shotgun is far more effective and practically lethal in a home invasion scenario" I have to ask, no disrespect intended, what exactly is your background? Are you making this argument because it seems logical, or are you an actual firearms expert? Because that is the opposite advice I would give, and the opposite I've received from any class (I've attended several) or any expert. Do you think my wife is comfortable using an 18" barrel shotgun inside a home? What about old people, think they'll stay on target after more than 1 shot? Think they'll hit the target with the first shot? Think it's easy to maneuver in a house with a giant ass shotgun? I frankly think a short barreled pistol caliber carbine is the best tool for most users in that scenario, but prior to this new brace fad a short barreled anything was NFA. Third, it's noteworthy you admit there is no law to prevent a diabolical, committed and well funded dude from perpetrating a mass casualty attack.... right after you call for restricting magazine capacity to 10. So, to be clear, mag restrictions wouldn't stop this but we should do it anyway? Did those restrictions (in place at the time) prevent the Columbine massacre? Are those restrictions (in place currently) preventing regular mass shootings in Chicago? So if that proposed law hasn't worked in the past, isn't working currently, and wouldn't stop a similar psycho in the future..... why should we do it? Where did you get the number 10? Where's your proof it'll make a difference? I care because mil/LE all do not accept those magazine restrictions. No one I know who has been in a gunfight ever wanted smaller mags. Your arbitrary numerical restriction without any evidence of achieving desired effects is exactly the kind of knee-jerk nonsense that erodes freedom without increasing security. Finally, as for your comment about Robert O'Niell not using FA..... think through that one a bit. Those guys definitely use FA if the situation warrants: break contact, cover, etc. Sneaking into someones house, with all your heavily armed friends, with a massive support package overhead, and targeting a small number of enemy.... yea, I get it, he didn't use FA. I'm not sure his niche experience is directly relevant to this discussion except for one part: he used "high" capacity mags on every mission. I agree we need better answers (I don't have them), and I agree that seemingly quick-fix bans by the gun control crowd are enticing to the uninformed. Einstein said "if you can't explain it to a 6 year old you don't understand it yourself." So I applaud your questioning mind and your self-awareness. However, other than bump-fire, which of your suggested law changes would have prevented this massacre? Fixed magazines? The guys had 40 guns in his room, and was rotating them for cooling. Pre-purchase cooling off periods? Reports are that he began purchasing weapons months in advance. As I said earlier, looking for the right thing to ban is not, in my opinion, the right approach to prevent a future recurrence of something so anomalous. What would? Well I can't say until the investigation ascertains his motive. But I'm comfortable saying we should seek legislative mechanisms to address mental health problems.

You’re too smart for this straw man. The point I’m making is more complicated than your oversimplification implies. For example: we have speed limits. Sure some are too slow for my tastes, but I don’t deny the need for regulation. However, if someone spends 100k on a race car and plans the time and route to race illegally, surely you wouldn’t suggest more speed limits would stop them? It’s an imperfect example, but the overall point of my metaphor is that yes laws are necessary but when a criminal shows a unique level of diabolical sophistication in their planning and execution of a crime, that is a person whose criminal intent cannot be legislated away solely by addressing the means used. To your point above, I’d argue law, like any tool, is only effectively wielded by users who understand the capabilities and limitations of the tool. I’m sure some gun laws (mandatory waiting periods?) have prevented crimes of passion while others (background checks) present obstacles for deliberate and pre-meditated criminality. However, in this particular case, given what we currently know about the alleged shooter, any law short of a ban & confiscation would not appear to have stopped him. And at that point, you’ve trampled my rights without making us safer from crazy people who wish us harm. Gearpig I normally enjoy your posts, but do you not feel hypocritical responding to my reasoned post with oversimplified snark, then being surprised by receiving the same in return? I challenge you to propose a law change that could prevent a wealthy and thoughtful person from committing a mass casualty event. Bonus points for leaving out personal attacks.

No. They are not good faith partners in minimizing social violence. We can’t give them anything, they’ll never stop taking and will create Chicago slums on a national scale. Is this directed to me?

I’ve read all your posts and I think I understand your viewpoint excepting the above and similar statements. What are you talking about? The AWB of 94-04 (I think those were the years) never made ARs illegal. In fact, this entire Vegas massacre could have been prosecuted with the same ARs available for purchase during the AWB era, as the ban was cosmetic, not functional. The sole piece of hardware banned during that period but used in this attack was “high capacity” magazines; under the AWB era mags were limited to 10. However, mags produced before the ban date were grandfathered in and readily available for purchase. And that’s really key to your debate: the previous ban would not have stopped this attack, just like it didn’t stop Columbine. Crazy people kill. Nothing you’ve suggested would stop this incident, other than magazine capacity restrictions. However then we’re left facing the fact that law breakers don’t follow laws.... so, your inability to justify high capacity magazines wouldn’t stop this guy from using them. Given the level of lucidity he showed during attack prep & execution, in addition to financial resources, this guy seems like he could make his own magazines. Yes that’s a real thing. I’m solidly on the side of maintaining gun rights as they exist; I’d even repeal the NFA. But for arguments sake let’s say you banned all semi-autos. Do you think we’d not have shootings still? The US is not Australia (to cite a commonly held comparison): were already flooded with weapons, have easy borders to cross, have a culture of gun ownership, etc. Mexican cartels move cocaine shipments protected by full auto weapons, do you think they aren’t business savvy enough to start moving weapons instead? Where I’m going is this: there is no putting the gun genie back in the bottle here. It’s impossible. There is no law which can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening when an intelligent and rich and insane person sets his mind to doing it. if the gun control lobby wants to find a middle ground and work together, I’m happy to discuss potential legislation on mental health issues. That they are laser focused on restricting the 2A, despite years of data disproving a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime, tells me they’re uninterested in “solving” the mass shooting issue, and instead shamelessly using these tragedies to advance their partisan agenda. I get your point- we gun owners should brace ourselves for inevitable forthcoming bans and be prepared to question the necessity of every weapon and weapon add on. I get it, but I reject your entire premise. What law would have stopped this crime? The same laws that stopped Nice & Paris attacks in France? The laws that stopped the Utoya massacre in Norway? The laws that keep Mexico so safe? I reject the notion of gun-violence, it’s just violence. What fixes violence? Culture. I took the time to type this out because I think your original questions were well intended, and demanded a reasoned reply. Hope you found something in here we can agree upon.

Just say yes, it’s authorized. I’ve been prosectuing that COA for uniform questions the past 15 years, it works.

Eh, not my intent. Sorry if it came off rudely. Like threeholer said, we all have different rules & norms. I appreciate hearing other perspectives.

No bro, if you’re just having coffee and waiting for brief time to start. Am I not allowed to look at mission slides before official brief time? some of you guys are so official it’s amazing anything gets done.

Interesting to hear from other corners of the AF about this policy. We all have our own context, which I think affects the perception of whether this change is good or bad. For example, it never occurred to me that I should factor in transit to/from a hotel into my 12 hours; I'm accustomed to living a 5 minute walk from my aircraft. There have been times weather was rolling in and the whole crew is awake sitting around looking at mission slides, and if we don't move takeoff time 45 minutes left we'll be stuck on the field while an op is happening elsewhere. Of course we asked for a crew rest waiver-- we're all feeling great and if we don't leave earlier than expected, we miss the action. I see this change as enabling those situations, but that's my context. I haven't experienced a CC pushing me to fly when I know I'm unsafe. I guess some folks are afraid they'll be pressured into flying an extra leg when everyone is beat, or worried they won't have enough time to check in/out of the hotel. I don't have any response except: be a professional, know your limits, and speak truth to power. From my viewpoint, this change pushes authority to people with the best ground truth of a situation. If you have no faith in those people and have been previously relying on regs to protect you.... well, that sucks.

I like this change. I've asked for crew rest waivers and been denied. If the SQ/CC and AC want it and judge the mission benefit worth the risk, it's dumb that someone disconnected from the mission can deny it. I guess every corner of the AF is different but our waiver authority is MAJCOM A3 who is not tracking daily missions and will always say no, even for TIC support. So to me, this is a good change because it removes obstacles to the mission. If you're worried your leadership will now bully you into accepting missions you aren't safe to execute, well that sucks. Say no, that's always your right.

I think the JQP article was trying to make a very nuanced point that is over-simplified by saying that he is against this decision. As brick said above, this decision results in the same number of people promoting, not more, but in a smaller pool the percentage must be higher. The USAF needs that number of people to fill jobs that many people think don't need to be filled. Instead of promoting a higher percentage IOT achieve the same numbers to fill useless staff billets, why not promote less (or the same historical %) and cut the dumb jobs? That was the point JQP was trying to make, but you're right that it's been drowned out by drama queens who are salty that making O-4 will no longer require whatever knob gobbling they did to make it.

To clarify, I don't understand the persistent assumption that seperating rated from LAF would result in higher promotion rates for rated officers. Is there any evidence this proposed action would achieve the intended result? Or are you assuming the rated board would be allocated a higher number of officer positions? Because the total number of officers promoted would remain unchanged.

Regarding your second sentence, why do you assume that to be true?

Yea it's weird, I understand each individual word he types, but arranged in the order they are leaves me baffled. I feel like an archeologist looking at hieroglyphics: "ok I've got snake, a bird and river. I know those. But what does it mean all together?" And then I look at the post he's replying to and all my theories explode.