HeloDude

So Tree brings up being deployed in the desert/combat environment and your response is that guys not in the desert/combat environment got DUI's. How many guys are getting DUI's in Iraq (when we were there) and Afghanistan? I'm sure it happened a few times, but I doubt it happened much. Here's the deal man for you and your liberal friends--if folks on the left want to allow women to serve in direct/offensive ground combat roles (infantry, SOF, etc) because they believe it's the 'fair' thing to do, then that's your opinion and I'm cool with it as then it's just a difference of opinion, and regardless of what decisions are made we have salute and follow orders. My problem is when people try to sell that this is needed to make those units better or that there won't be any mission degradation because of this decision...even Nsplayr said it won't add to mission effectiveness (though he said it will in the long run, but he didn't give any examples as to how or why). Can women fight in the infantry, of course they can--and so can 65 year old dudes and guys who are 4'5". But are we that hard up for people that we are having to change who we allow into/able to compete for those roles? I seriously doubt we would have done any better in Afghanistan if women had been allowed to fight in infantry units or SOF teams. So once again, I ask--is this decision one of 'fairness' or one that will make us a stronger fighting force?

Called it! Damn I'm good!

You're comparing prostate cancer with menstruating? Are you fisting me? The vast majority of women menstruate, it's a common occurrence that sometimes causes women discomfort/unable to perform tasks. What percentage of men in their 20's get prostate cancer? Resubmit and try again man. Again, if we have no problems with things that can potentially come up in the field, then we should have no problems letting people with diabetes do the job.

So if a woman ever has to miss a day or two of training because of bad menstrual cramps or whatever, that's ok? A guy will never have to miss training for menatrual cramps. And before you say something like "Well, a guy could sprain his ankle and miss 2 days of training/have to be pulled out of the field"...anybody in they outfit could sprain an ankle, but guys will never miss training due a monthly period. Hell, we should let guys with full blown diabetes be in the infantry...and if they have to get pulled put of the field for their condition, oh well...being 'fair' is now above mission effectiveness. Give me a break.

Nsplayr...you support a President and a party that refuses to enforce immigration laws (just one example), yet you speak of values--do you value not enforcing laws? What other laws are not worth enforcing? I think your values are all over the place and sometimes even contradict with one another. I just saw how you wrote a few days ago in another post that youn said the #1 important aspect about the military is the mission/combat effectiveness, yet you point out that allowing women to serve in direct/offensive combat roles is not needed to make the forces stronger, but is the right thing to do because of 'values'. So which is it? ...and to answer your question about the 2 major politcal parties: I think one is pretty bad and the other is horrible. They both suck when it comes to supporting and protecting The Constitution. There's a reason things are so fvcked up right now and why for the last 6+ years the majority of the country says it is on the 'wrong path'. Here's a hint to those people...it's been on a destructive path for a very long time now.

I think that's only half true for you...the other half is that your values are driven by your political views--ie you have more loyalty to a political party/philosophy than what you truly value.

Nsplayr, you mention values and liberties only when it suits your political desires.

I have PMAGs and have never had an issue. When did they buy them? Also, are they sure the mags aren't pro-mags' (somewhat joking)--those things are pure junk.

Thanks nav! You're right, navs are indeed good for something! Dude, if this were a kids book, it would be a story about a sheep convincing itself that the wolf is more friendly than a sheepdog. But as it is not, I think it's safe to say that you could care less about your Right to own firearms. Why do you expect anybody in a 'gun forum' to take you, or anything you say, seriously? You say you are an instructor...in this arena, you are definitely not establishing credibility.

I will not vote for anyone who runs on wanting more restrictions to the 2nd Amendment (it's bad enough that we already have restrictions). Obama has a record of wanting more gun control and said in a debate last year that he supported a renewal of the AWB...so that was a pretty clear reason alone for me not to vote for him. You voted for him, so obviously it didn't bother you too much. I'm assuming that free healthcare and food stamps are more important to you than your Right to bear arms. Like you said in a separate thread...it all comes down to values. Given their current policies/ways of governing, would you vote for Gov Cuomo in 2016 if he was running against Gov Jindhal? Sorry man, I don't feel sorry for you for not being able to get your ammo. You should have realized your guy wanted to take guns away and stocked up early...that's what a lot of us did.

Or you should have voted differently if it means that much to you. The man you idolize in the WH is who/what is generating all the fear. If this was 2005, I don't think people would be too concerned. How does it taste?

You voted for these people...you reap what you sew.

He's being very serious here. Seriously folks...he's being very serious.

I'm sure there won't be 2 different standards...oh wait, we already have 2 different standards.

I stocked up very well in the last couple of years of just about every caliber I shoot...except in .22. I always thought that it would be the most abundant caliber if we had another scare/shortage--the lesson has now been learned. Additionally, I think the lesson also to be learned is that ammunition is a strong commodity to have as well as having it availavble in an abundance of supply. I think it comes down to those who have and have not, specifically with trading/bordering of ammunition. I actually would be willing to trade some of my .223 and 7.62 for some .22 if the deal was right.

You're just saying that because you like their AK's...wait, correction...you 'used' to like their AK's. Darn boating accident.

Just like it's hard to take people seriously who believe that asking for an ID when voting (to know then who is actually voting) infringes against somebody's right to vote or constitutes a poll tax. Or that the 14th Amendment, as it was originally constructed (to allow the freed slaves to be citizens), should then rightfully apply to an illegal Mexican woman who is 8.5 months pregnant and then who jumps the border in order to have her child be an American citizen. You mentioned 'those types of people' who will not follow a law because they believe it goes against The Constitution and their Rights?...just like Rosa Parks and other Civil Rights leaders? Everybody is allowed to make their own choices, however, they then must live with the consequences of their decisions...whether the consequences are justified or not. And yes, I did compare our 2nd Amendment Rights to Civil Rights...Rights are Rights. Liberties are Liberties.

So you concur that the rate changes (ie not constant), as I said? I'm glad you are in agreement. I'm also glad you realize that Pawman was correct--we get a significant portion of a financed debt from foreign sources. Keep going--you're almost there!

You do realize that the percentage of debt owned by foreign countries/investors is not constant, right? No, of course you don't. When 'W' and the GOP ran up the deficit from 2001 to 2007 it looks like the foreign debt (as a percentage of total debt) went from 30% to 43%...sounds like during this time (and afterwards), we were asking foreign countries to fund a higher percentage of our debt compared to years past. It looks like it has stayed constant as a percentage from 2008 to 2011, but that just means that the foreign debt value itself still greatly increased because the debt has increased, or should I say more correctly, it has exploded. BL: We rely very heavily on foreign countries/investors to fund our out of control debt and I don't see this stopping anytime soon, and if does, we are screwed. https://seekingalpha....u-s-bond-yields

Then I think you need re-phrase what your wrote earlier concerning how if the Congressmen want to reign in spending then they shouldn't appropriate it in the first place. That's the problem with these big government programs (ie Obamacare), very hard to change/do away with once it's been passed and implemented. But let's be honest--big liberals like yourself love it. We're screwing the future generations.

So are you trying to say that every dollar spent by the federal government in each fiscal year was a result of specific appropriations made by the Congress the year prior to when it was spent?

Nsplayr, you still have yet to explain yourself--why do you still politically support a guy who wants to limit your freedoms? The President has told everyone what he wants, regardless of whether he gets what he wants or not. Is his liberal agenda more important to you than your freedoms and liberties?

Here's the deal with Nsplayr (as always, feel free to respond) as I see it: NSplayr may be a big gun guy, if he says so, I'll take him at his word. The problem I have is that for a year+ he kept on bragging how Obama and the Dems in Congress had not tried to get any new gun control legislation passed and thus calling Obama 'anti-gun' wasn't warranted...even though if you read what he said in the past about guns/gun control and what he said in the debates (also what was in the DNC platform), it was pretty clear to me what Obama and the Democratic Party would like to do. Now we have Obama, not having to face another election, and a recent tragedy to exploit, which now allows him and many more Dems to come out more freely and be up front in what they would like to do. How does this affect Nsplayr?? Well it goes against everything he was saying about Obama (concering guns) and possibly puts Nsplayr at odds with a President that he idolizes as a champion for liberal and big government causes. But yet, Nsplayr's only real repsponse to what has been said by Obama and top Dems is "well, I don't see anything happening due to the fact that there are still pro-gun Dems in the Senate and the House is still controlled by the GOP". NSplayr has said very little (if anything) about how this is a bad move his beloved Dems (Feinstein and Pelosi are not small fish in the Dem Party) or his beloved President. This only further suggests that Nsplayr is more than willing to stand by his guys no matter what, as long as they continue to push the liberal agenda. This is what happens when somebody blindly supports their political party no matter what--they are willing to sacrifice liberties in order to get what they want...in Nsplayr's situation, he gets a more liberal/big government society and all he has to do is be willing the sacrifice some of his freedoms and liberties. The folks blindly supporting the GOP is just as at fault on the other spectrum--ie The Patriot Act, increased debt for prescription drugs, etc. Would Romney have supported this anti-gun nonsense? Possibly as he did sign simillar legislation before, though he did say he would not have signed any new gun legislation whereas Obama said that he would. I have no doubt that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would never have signed any new gun legislation.

They can ask me about firearms all they want...doesn't mean I have to tell them anything.

Same thing can be said about the Democratic Party...unless suddenly a majority of Americans approve of the Obamacare Bill or the Gun Contol measures the Dems want to pass. Both parties are extreme in their own ways.