brickhistory

Foul. This did happen previously during hobbit's and my time which doesn't precede you all that much. Wonderboys in an Administration hit on this idea, thinking it and they are the sh1t for thinking it up. Then it blows up in their, well actually the nation's face when dudes punch because the ring at the end isn't brass, but peanut butter. Not to mention that the promotion rate, and, most likely, PCS rate will slow down dramatically. Look at the RAF for examples of such or Guard/Reserve units. Wanna be a captain for 12 years? A major for 10 or more? That is the inevitable result since the officer caps will remain in place.

Smith & Wesson Model 439 not my photo If a M1911 and a Browning Hi-power had a baby, it would be something like this. First, the history via some google-fu: S&W developed the Model 39 in the early 1950s to compete for a US Army effort to replace the 1911 (when has that ever happened and how many times?). Specifically, Big Green was looking for a double-action 9mm to be a NATO standardizing weapon and round as well as taking advantage of the double-action of the German P-38 of WWII fame. S&W came up with the Model 39 and then the competition was cancelled. So they went to the civilian market where it did ok. Incidentally, the Vietnam-era SEALs used the Model 39, including a silenced .22 version called the "Hush Puppy" for silencing the biological ADT alarms of the VC of the day. Fast forward to the 1970s and the second generation, the Model 439 came out. It fixed some of the issues with the original Model 39 - weak extractor mainly. The Model 439 was the first semi-auto to be adopted by a major police force - Illinois State Police - which began the switch from .38 revolvers to today's semi-auto armed police forces. So with that background, here is my report on this new-to-me Model 439. This is a Colt Commander-sized semi-auto. It has a better hand feel than even a 1911 (which is the best, IMO) with curved mainspring housing filling up the center of the palm. The fixed front sight is large, but has no definition for my old eyes, so I had a red insert put in. The large rear sights are adjustable. Capacity is 8 + 1 of 9mm. Controls are 1911/most semi's standard. Recoil is soaked up by the steel slide and aluminum frame. This is not a light-weight gun. But the nose didn't rise very much and follow-up shots were easy and quick to do. I put 200 rounds of 124 gr. FMJ through it yesterday. Zero malfunctions of any sort and it hit where aimed from 25 yards down to 3. The double action is heavy but not as bad as, say, a Walther PPK/S. But you aren't going to accidentally fire this thing when the hammer is down. You will have to mean it to pull the trigger in double-action. In single action, there was a little play before the trigger took up tension, but the break was clean and precise. Could be because this is a used gun. (After buying, I took to a gunsmith for a full R&R since I didn't know the full history of it before I bought it.) A trigger job could be on the horizon to lose the slight play. The slide-mounted decocker/safety is on both sides and easily reached/manipulated. I like this gun. I could easily see it being a carry piece especially for those that like 1911's for such. And, for me, carrying it with one in the chamber, but the hammer down would be more instinctive than the 1911 condition one cocked/locked. No insult intended for those that do, just that I haven't trained for such. My thought pattern is that if I need to draw, I need to fire. And my lizard brain is likely to be the only one working at that moment, so adding a step of 'safety off' is one I will screw up. Obviously, training and practice could overcome this. But since I don't carry a 1911, I don't need to. But I digress. Breaking it down to clean it shows the old-school of it as well. Kinda 1911-like here too. Push and remove the slide-lock pin, slide off, mainspring/guide rod off (and it's a looooong spring), barrel bushing off, barrel out, and there you have it. I like old-school steel and wood guns. But technology has passed them by in a lot of ways. For less weight, I can carry more ammo in a modern polymer 9mm. I can also carry smaller, more concealable pistols. But in the day, or if this was all I had, I would have no problem carrying this one. It is flat like a 1911, points well, and operates in a standard fashion. It also would make a good night table house gun. Pros: Feels good Low recoil Shoots well Looks good Cons: Heavy compared to modern counterparts Complicated engineering compared to modern counterparts Limited magazine capacity I like this pistol enough to where it made the display gun cabinet. Just a classic, classy looking pistol

"Night Fighter" by C.F. Rawnsley and Bob Wright. Rawnsley was the R/O, radio (for radar) observer (nav) to John Cunningham, a high scoring RAF night fighter ace in WWII, later test pilot for de Havilland. Often spoke to SOS and ACSC classes before he died. Fantastic description of how being a pioneering WSO/nav worked as well as bringing radar into aerial warfighting. Have read these so many times through the years. And he writes in a (Brit) crew dog sort of way that keeps the reader interested in what could be a boring radar 101 briefing, as well as excellent combat narrative. Started me on my illogical fascination on the topic.

"We were Crewdogs" I-V "Riding Rockets" mainly about his time as a Shuttle mission crew, but some about his RF-4C backseat time "MAGNUM! The Wild Weasels in Desert Storm" has stories from both front and back seaters - note: I wrote this so mods can delete if too self-promoting There are more; will edit/add as I remember them

"Battle Ready" by Mark Donald. Guy enlists in the Marines, becomes Force Recon, decides to be a medic, switches to Navy, becomes a SEAL, then decides to become a PA in the Navy, stays with special ops. Suffers from PTSD. Who'da thought...

Have seen Big Blue non-vol folks for 365s even when they had less than 365 remaining. Mid-90s drawdown, pilot feet on the ramp fiasco: "Here Mr. former F-16 driver, here's your remote." "But, I'm less than 365 left in service." "Here's your 250 day orders." Big Blue can and will waiver anything to meet its needs.

Knock, knock. Who's there? AGM-114...

Anybody got the number to NSA? Or is me typing their initials good enough for them to start the process on this guy?

And a dictionary...

Again, not getting the point. Ok, Gen Liquid, you just racked and stacked your guys. Me, I'm Capt Snuffy and I think you screwed the pooch on Maj(S) Bagodonuts. And just how would Gen Liquid, Col Piningaway, or any other senior rater react in their gut? Never mind the how does Capt Snuffy know how you ranked anybody to be able to call you out? I can assure you that the average O-6 and above bear does not like being second-guessed either by a senior or junior. I wouldn't either. But the aforementioned rater being called out has recourse to his challenge. You seriously gonna say it won't be done? Different from my experience. Fix what is graded, not rely on the 'courage' of the next 'troublemaker' highlighting his need for a 179. And please don[t come back with a "that's poor leadership and/or that would never happen." Yes, it is poor leadership. It is the rule rather than the exception. And it has and will happen. I get that you think the system needs work but overall performs well. There is an awful lot of folks who disagree and are voting with their feet. Again, nothing new in our AF history. I also will argue that being rated is not the be all and end all and that's who must be taken care of. The CE guy busting his hump, getting it done, take care of his folks, and the other support folks deserve as fair a shot as any rated guy. But the discriminators in play don't work and rewards the wrong things. I will also argue the trap being laid by the Corona piece you put out and that AADs might get hidden again. That'd be great until the next time a new guy decides to reinvent the wheel like happened recently. How many guys got caught flat-footed by that little move? I am all for the wing commander or equivalent being the guy/gal to decide the ranking of his people. But the standards need to be known and of value to military readiness and mission accomplishment, not AAD (nice to have, but of what value?) or Shoe U by correspondence. But the Neidermeyer "all is well" doesn't play well.

While the sentiment is nice, and I actually agree with that, the truth is that those same (majority) of SRs who worked the system to get where they are will score according to that system and will not appreciate the "feedback." Rather, it'll be Capt Snuffy is not a team player, at least not my team. And Capt Snuffy will then join your APZ pile that apparently deserve their status.

By God, if only someone, somewhere had thought of this before. Say since 1947... It's thinking like this that is gonna take this great nation all the way to California one day. edited to add: The system is like it is because the system, i.e., those running it want it that way. It worked for them, why shouldn't that be the measure of success? Otherwise, you invalidate their achievement. And, again, this is not a new phenomena. Look at the b1tches from the Vietnam era. Look at it from the 1980s.

Wonderful, even motivational cheerleading. But it doesn't, and hasn't, fixed the problem. On this site alone, how many threads with how many anecdotes about p1ss-poor leadership and/or senior officers commanding who weren't good aviators? And that's just this site. Multiply it by how many p1ssed, non-led folks who have seen the beast and decided "fcuk that" while Col or even Gen Skippy goes about his or her merry, Kool-Aid chugging way? Billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money...(famous quote from Congress).

Good comparisons. The FNX is not that much bigger than the others and to get the fistful of .45 looks worth it. But for a CCW would be a trick. Nice S&W Patrolman six-gun! That needs a report as well to ensure the old school stuff doesn't disappear with the polymer generation.

Self-published? Not a criticism; a question as I couldn't find the publisher using google fu. I hope the guy sells a million copies. And the lesson learned is that this is something that many of you could do. You have done, and will do, some amazing sh1t, in aviation and people want to read about it. Write it down, get some pics, take a shot at a magazine. Worse they can do is ignore you, best bet is a published article, a little bit of beer money, and maybe more writing.

Second...

Giggity... I'm a bad man...

14/15 + 1?! That is some serious firepower for the long haul. Nice review.

This essay by Slate (left leaning pub) predates the recent SCOTUS ruling by a few months: https://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Argue with what I actually wrote. Did I say society will collapse? Why don't polygamists and others have the same argument now regarding 'marriage equality' as gays did prior to last week?

Does it get old never addressing the argument directly? Ad hominem attacks are the equivalent of, what do you whippersnappers call it? - chaff/flare but can still be defeated by the good old-fashioned gun. Other than to point out my retired status - out of touch, couldn't/can't lead, and am "haughty (fabulous word choice!) - your post did nothing to counter my basic argument of equality. Is my opinion therefore irrelevant because I am retired? That seems a little close-minded which seems to counter your position here. Surely you aren't claiming that only one viewpoint is tolerated? The personal characterizations may or may not be accurate, but I'm still waiting on you or anyone else to demonstrate to me the difference in logic between homosexuals obtaining what is due them under this SCOTUS ruling and others who are 'different.' Other than the implementation of DADT, you are absolutely correct. No changes/adjustments/PC minefields for that. Same for the addition of women in combat flying squadrons. That was just done with the stroke of a pen and no upheavals/changes required. Sure do look back on my 'hetero white guys only' time with great fondness. (Paula Deen, get me a sam'mich...) No LL applicable for what to do or, as importantly, not do when a major Big Blue societal change is imposed upon the folks that have to make it work. Lectured? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Please to point out where I have instructed anyone on what or how to do anything, let alone related to this thread. I had hope that you were getting it when I read this sentence, but then I continued reading and it was simply more of the "you are old, bigoted, and late for the early bird special at Denny's." I have asked how commanders will deal with the issues of this ruling or of folks who will be commanders and most likely will have to deal with some weird sh1t due to this ruling as well as others as the boundaries continue to shift. Finance Guy's reference on BAH was but one example (and I am not bringing him on my side, for or against. Merely pointing out that the rules were written for the 'normal' situations). You (thank God ((religious reference admittedly so there's me nullified as to reason and objectivity)) and others still and to serve will have to handle these situations. Which, I believe, mere mortals will have to devote extra time and attention to instead of running a military organization focused on killing people and breaking their stuff. That 100% effort dedicated to being the best at being a warrior won't suffer dealing with social science effects at all. I'm sure you can handle it however. You've already said you would. I believe you are conflating my posts/arguments with those of some others who don't see things the same way as you. I don't recall basing my argument on religion. I will acknowledge my error if you find I did so in this thread. My point in bringing in polygamists and any other weird combination that might want to get married is that they now have a Supreme Court ruling setting precedent for their argument about "marriage equality." Therefore the rest of your paragraphs regarding religion as it relates to my argument are moot. Copy, I'm dismissed. But before I go, what are those "real issues" and how will you and Big Blue "take care of them?" As to the illegality of homosexuality in the past, I refer you to Lawrence v. Texas where the great state of Texas had, indeed, enshrined in their legal code that two men fukcing was illegal. SCOTUS eventually overturned that law. So there's one example which seemingly pokes a hole in your thinking (no sts). If my argument is "inflated and unrealistic" is it invalid? I've yet to see you address the logic of why one group that has been considered "abnormal" until recently is any different that other groups that are currently "abnormal." You seemed to try with the "freedom of religion" paragraphs; a religious belief over sexual preference, but for this ruling, by this Supreme Court, I don't see the difference. Folks are free to marry who they want, providing it's consensual, or they aren't. Gotta go; commissary got a shipment of Lucky Strikes in and the electric fat bastard carts go quick if you aren't at the front of the line.

Allow myself to quote myself: Still looking to see the logic explained on why others seeking their position as valid are wrong.

Hey, I've acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling. It is the law of the land. It is something that must be dealt with in both society and in a practical manner in the military. But why is not just as applicable for the other scenarios described? Polygamy, consenting incest, other combinations still TBD? I'm not arguing for any of these, far from it. But those that would, and they will (already are, I'm sure), can take this finding and run with it. Why are they wrong?

No, I gathered your point. Mine remains valid. You, and others, are arguing that 'this' is the end of the matter. Now that homosexuals can legally marry, the issue is settled. I don't think it is. I see many legal challenges arguing for legal equality and recognition of these different combinations using this same logic. And they'd be correct. As noted above, you (and those supporting the same including the Supreme Court) have substituted your opinion/values/judgement for what has been. So you state that your opinion and judgement is the end of the matter? No other combinations can be or should be considered valid? Convenient, if illogical.

Err, is this the exact argument used to pass and support gay marriage? "Equality of marriage" either is a valid concept or it is not. That you don't like the examples given or the potentials for further combinations is ironic indeed.