Hacker

There's a large body of clear philosophy and federal caselaw that covers this, if you care to study it. The discussion on the RKBA in the Federalist Papers (and SCOTUS case law in Miller, Heller, and McDonald) does limit the scope of its protection to essentially arms that can be borne and used by a single individual (vs a team or crew). US v Miller states that the 2A only protects arms that have reasonable relation to use in a militia. DC v Heller stipulates that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are within the scope of government power. That being said, can you show me that part in the Constitution where it says the conditions under which the government is allowed to deny people their natural, enumerated, and civil rights? Maybe you can show me that part in any of the Federalist Papers where the founders discuss that? Or any of the philosophical works that the Founders were influenced by? So, I don't personally see the philosophical or legal backstop to the restrictions that are given a pass in Heller.

Regarding the discussion about "answers", remember to play chess and not checkers. The RKBA is a philosophical argument, not a policy argument. Gun control folks want to argue policy, and want to do it with absolutely no proof of efficacy of any of it. So, first, make sure you understand the philosophical foundation of why the right to keep and bear arms exists, and why it is protected in the Bill of Rights. Understand that it is rooted in the right to life, and the logical derivation of the right to self defense to protect life and property under assault. Understand further what the philosophical purpose of government is. Philosophy determines the purpose of government, and in a free liberal democracy the purpose of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property. Remember that people have rights and governments have powers that are granted to them by the people. It isn't the government's purpose to take care of people like a parent. Remember that living in a free society means that individuals are free to think, do, say, and possess whatever they please so long as it does not infringe on the natural, constitutional, or derived civil rights of other humans. Again, it isn't the purpose of government to tell us what we can and cannot do outside their basic charter.

What's with so many people willing to give something -- anything -- up? This is the strongest legislative position the 2A has been in for decades. I'm not voting to give *anything* up.

That sure sounds like a lot of sustained fire in that video. A big magazine and bumpfire or full auto. :(

They are not synonymous in the social sciences, and they have very specific meanings in the context of this discussion. Equality refers to the quality of being equal in objective status in society -- that people are all the same under the law. Equity refers to the equal quality of balance and fairness in society in terms of means and ways -- it is most applicable to discussion of relative economic means and perceived/actual social power. One refers to opportunity and access, the other refers to outcomes. One is the core of individualism. The other is the core of collectivism. But, thanks.

Race is neither an analog for culture nor economic status, FWIW. There are people from every race that have a "disadvantaged background". No race has the market cornered in western society on "advantage" or "disadvantage", because race is a meaningless quality in a meritocracy. Nonetheless, even when speaking of economic or social status, "equality" doesn't mean "equity." We don't have equity, nor in a society that values both individual liberty, egalitarianism, and personal responsibility do we desire such a thing. It is the "land of equal opportunity", not the land of "equal outcomes".

Can you give a specific example of this "oppression" in the United States?

It isn't worth the breath to even try and rationally discuss use of force philosophy with someone trying to attack the treatment their violent criminal relative received from a fellow citizen.

Terrific nickel-on-the-grass and piano burn for Doc last night at the Nellis Club, fitting for a man like Doc. As said, if you want to help, go hit that youcaring link to help out Julie and the family.

Funny to look back at the beginning of this thread, 10 years later, at how .40 has begun to fall from favor after a decade. I bring it up because in the last two weeks I've picked up two used .40 former LEO trade-ins -- a Sig P229 and a Glock 23 -- in absolutely ripping deals. All courtesy of the trend to move away from the .40 and back to the 9x19. Both are in terrific condition, typical police trade in stuff, light holster wear on the outside, dirty and needing a good cleaning but barely worn on the inside. Seems like I just got done buying some great cheap LEO trade-in wheel guns (a Smith 686 and Smith Model 28) back when the "wonder nines" became popular in the early 90s. I also followed that up a decade later when .40 became the new hotness for cops and the FBI here 15 years ago and 2nd gen Glocks and others in 9x19 were hitting the used gun stores. Too bad those Smiths and Glocks are all long gone now, traded or sold for others over the years, but I sure enjoyed them and their budget price, and definitely got more than my money back in the sales and trades. I'd especially love to have that 686 back. I'll be buying more LEO trade-ins in 9x19 when that goes out of style again here in another 15-20 years. Until then, now I finally have something to do with all that .40 brass and random .40 rounds I've picked up over the years at the range.

It is sad when the airlines -- even considering what's happened in the industry in the last 15 years -- are considered a more stable long term gig than most of the DoD contract flying jobs.

Hasn't stopped him from trying... Man's got to know his limitations...

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sordid

Standard answer: it depends. Highly, highly dependent on what kind of aircraft and what you want to do with it. Here's a ballpark number for an airplane that you're probably not thinking about and is probably considerably more expensive than what you're considering: About 6-9 years ago I was in the market to buy a T-6 (round engine tailwheel kind, not Pilatus weed-whacker kind), and the overall ownership/operations/hangar/maintenance/insurance cost was about $30,000/year for 100 hours of flying per year. That included the payments for a 15-year note on a buy-in cost of $150,000.

There's plenty of this out there...EAA chapters...CAF....IAC....you just have to poke around a little bit to find it. I've spent some time with one of the EAA chapters that has a bunch of well-retired military pilots and current Van's RV drivers who do acro, formation, and a little basic BFM on the weekends. It is a blast.

Plenty of airline pilots I know own and fly GA airplanes. As soon as I dig out of the wreckage of regional and first-year pay, I'll be joining them. As mentioned, many of them own experimentals or something a little more exciting than a Cherokee or Cessna.

The NAACP is demanding the Falcons sign Kaep...or they'll do...something. https://www.fox4news.com/sports/274762065-story ""There will be no football in the state of Georgia if Colin Kaepernick is not on a training camp roster and given an opportunity to pursue his career," said Gerald Griggs from Atlanta NAACP. "This is not a simple request. This is a statement. This is a demand. And if Mr. Kaepernick is not allowed to pursue his career, then on September the 17th, at 5:00, we are going to have the world's largest tailgate, and that tailgate will not go into Mercedes-Benz Stadium. We will take a knee, and we will continue to take a knee on the NFL until they act with one voice.""

Also, if the DoD's official policy toward active shooters wasn't "run and hide".

For one, the WG/CC (likely the Convening Authority) doesn't make the decision to accept or reject the FEB findings -- that is the MAJCOM/CC's determination. The Convening Authority makes a recommendation based on the findings of the FEB, but the actual decision and signature is the realm of the 4-Star. Second, these differences between FEB findings and final decisions happen quite regularly, unfortunately. The process is quite open about the fact that FEB findings are only recommendations. It is moronic that the system has this "due process" and Commanders can do whatever they please regardless of the findings of that process, but it is part-and-parcel with other administrative things Commanders are authorized to do under the UCMJ. The FEB is essentially just a decisionmaking aid for the Commander.

I think you're missing the point here. You can say, "it is in fact prejudice" all you want, but that doesn't impact the rules by which these administrative processes are governed. There's no rule that says the Commander can only be influenced in making their FEB decision by certain types of information. So, with respect to this situation, no, that MFR isn't wrong, illegal, against any rule, etc. I get that you think you got a raw deal, but here's a dose of reality: the system doesn't care. You came here asking for information and help, and there are several people who have actual experience with the FEB process, as well as the follow-up processes I mentioned before, like the BCMR. We are trying to give you a straight answer. If you don't like what we have to say, then pony up the cash to get yourself an actual attorney's opinion. Some of us have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on attorney's fees to even get this knowledge in the first place, but suit yourself.

That's what my entire post was discussing -- what your options are going forward. At this point, there aren't many that are going to get you back in the saddle with your current organization (e.g. the AF Reserves, apparently). Other services aren't going to be interested in you flying with this kind of baggage, regardless. I know guys who have been cleared by their FEBs, yet grounded by 4-star leadership anyway, and could not get hired by guard/reserve units at all, much less in an aviation job. The decision to convene an FEB is an administrative process, and one in which you don't have any "right" of recourse, so the idea that there's "prejudicial material" involved makes no difference. The IG and the BCMR will answer that argument by saying, "it was within the Commander's authority to make the decision he did," and that will be the end of it, unfortunately. If you want to fight it with the IG or the BCMR, go for it...but be prepared to get no satisfaction, and get on with moving on in your professional career and life.

Honestly, the time to get civilian legal help was before the FEB, not after. There's very little you can do now if the FEB has already taken place, and you're now just waiting for the 4-star to sign off on the Board's recommendation. There are a few options going forward...but WARNING: none of them are likely going to change the outcome of you being grounded. You essentially have to wait for your FEB to be ruled on by the 4-star, and then try and overturn the results. Option 1: Ask for an appeal: If there is evidence or testimony that wasn't presented to the FEB that should have been considered, you can ask the 4-star to overturn his/her ruling. There is not an official process to appeal an FEB inside USAF channels, but there's nothing preventing you from trying if you believe you have a legitimate argument (and not just a hail-mary). Option 2: DoD IG Complaint: If there was some sort of improper action taken by AF leadership in the FEB process (for example, Unlawful Command Influence), you can report it to the DoD IG, who can investigate if they see some illegal actions. Option 3: Board of Correction of Military Records: The BCMR has a wide variety of things they can do if you file with them to correct a mistake or injustice to your records. If you believe a documented injustice has occurred, then the BCMR can do everything including removing the FEB from your records and reinstating you to the position you were removed from. This is a long, slow process and not likely to change anything. Most BCMR appeals I've seen change nothing, but there are very rare wins here at the "USAF Supreme Court". All of these options will cost you considerable money for a civilian attorney to work on, and have very minimal chance of changing anything.

It doesn't really matter which -- the penis is a concept that is a social construct: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf

Just to be technically correct, they were aileron rolls.

From my perspective as a career fighter/trainer guy in the AF, and now having flown at both the regionals and the majors...could not disagree more. Herding airliners around the sky, from both an airmanship/decisionmaking/judgment/thinking perspective and a stick-and-rudder perspective, is "vastly" easier than 90% of the tasks I had to perform even as a wingman in the Strike Eagle. The military flying required greater "headwork" and flying skills on an acute basis, task-for-task and hour-for-hour. There are a good number of airline pilots that I work with now who would not last a day doing what I did for a career in the AF -- and I now, sadly, have to include myself in that description. My skills have atrophied even in a couple years of droning in the flight levels and babysitting the FMS. Even the most challenging situations I've run up against -- maintenance issues, challenging weather, dealing with unruly pax -- don't require the skill and proficiency I had even a handful of years ago when I was turning-and-burning for a living.