tac airlifter

You didn't answer his question. At what point does magazine capacity limitations infringe upon our right to bear arms? You don't think 30 is the limit. What about 10? What about 7? What about limits on semi-automatic weapons that even have a detachable magazine? You started this discussion with an immature ranting paragraph about how no one is coming to take our guns.... Etc. Some people feel otherwise based on existing and proposed laws which render, in our opinion, the 2A impotent; want to discuss that? Answer the questions posed on the actual topic- attempting to equate magazine limitations you view as reasonable with limitations on private ownership of A10s is intellecually dishonest; no one feels infringed by not owning one. If your argument hinges on the phrase "common sense" then you need to define what exactly you mean by that. If you want to have a grown up talk, why don't you answer the actual questions posed to you? Your opinion on what you need for self defense is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Where does it say i don't? You think these limits are acceptable, I disagree with you; why is your opinion any more valid than mine? And what about a 7 round limitation? 5? What about no detachable magazine? Should the federal government ban pistol grips and barrel shrouds? How about we call your 12 gauge an assault weapon and restrict everyone to double barrel shotguns? What is reasonable, and what do you mean by common sense regulations? Personally I think the NFA is reasonable and existing controls on automatic weapons are reasonable. Why don't we start from there and drop the whole "you want an A10 and Patriot missile battery" bullshit? Ultimately the courts will have to provide some more specific guidance. Until then, you are incorrect in thinking there aren't legislators out there who want confiscation and a total ban. I'm glad you feel comfortable sheepishly laying down your rights to use standard capacity, 30 rounds magazines. While you are free to give up your own rights, you aren't free to fuck with mine.

Ha! Got me; cheers.

'kchsload' You're an idiot. There have been numerous calls to repeal the second amendment, and even more to render it impotent by severely restricting the arms allowed. Additionally, there have been numerous calls to both take away existing arms and prevent the manufacture of new ones. Repeating a chant doesn't make it true, it makes you look like an ignorant zombie. Or just terrible at conveying sarcasm. Either way, that was an idiotic post.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2013/02/gun-control-joe-biden-interview Noted firearms expert Joe Biden with new advice to simply "fire your shotgun through the door" in a self defense situation; unknown whether he'll be called to testify in the Pistorius case.

Sure. Fit & finish are top notch. Would prefer the A1 stock instead of a slightly wobbly 2 position folder, but everything else appears excellent. Will know more after a few hundred rounds; hopefully before I deploy.

Just grabbed an M6A5 (for me) & also an umarex .22 for my son. Now if I can find some .22 we might be in business.....

Great post, quoted for truth.

some less so, some more so. Most cops don't do IST or compete on their own dime. Really depends on the community. Regardless, I agree with hacker in principal, but will still call any loosening of any gun regulations a win for freedom.

Redbreast is also a winner.

I still frequent scotch. JW gold is one of my favorites and the shoppette sells it for only 55$; typically 90$+ in my local liquor store. I also have a bottle of Yamazaki 18 and a few other notables. But bourbon has it beat man, sorry.

MM got me interested in bourbons initially, of the alcohol in that price range it was the first I learned to enjoy neat or with a few rocks. Im also sorry to hear this news because I still have a mental image of MM and bourbon companies in general as being a classy breed apart. But it's just business in the end..... With some notable exceptions. There really are a small number of companies that enjoy their reputation as a bastion of quality over capitalism. Sure they make money, and maybe they've simply decided this is the best way for them to compete with major manufactures who have them beat on production capacity, I don't know. But I've met a few guys here and there who genuinely seem to enjoy owning a company that sells a product known for being exceptional and have resisted opportunities for extra dollars by watering down their product. I highly encourage you to give Jefferson's a try if you're looking for a classy company with a great product. Jefferson's 18 specifically. And if you're in the HRT area let me know and we'll take 10 bourbons for a blind taste test.

Haven't heard of this one; must have been kept pretty quiet.

Posts # 19 & 20 for the win. Well played.

If you aren't going to buy, where will you live? There's a long wait for on base & rental properties are scarce.

Agree with Nsplayr & Winchester. I've looked and been recruited for jobs that have nothing to do with my piloting experience. Whether or not ill choose to take them when my commitment is up remains to be seen, but opportunities do exist.

I'm all for it, equality across the board! I'll expect same PT test of course, and selective service enrollment too. Once we prove the virtues of institutionally forced equality I can't wait to see the rest of our society follow suit...... I'm looking forward to male v female boxing. And prisons too, since the sexes are equal in all regards its just stupid to have 'separate but equal facilities.' Plus it saves $ in these times of fiscal austerity. I'm sure the girls will manage just fine with the crips and skinheads. They are 100% the physical equals of men. Edit to add: don't take my post seriously, I know it's a complex multifaceted issue and I know women are already flying and fighting. I honestly have no opinion about the ground thing since I have no experience as a ground guy!

I think overall, that was some really excellent advice. But do you really think they deploy & go TDY as much as other SOF assets?

Has something changed? When I finished TUI in 2011 they used ACE to determine what military schooling equated to in the academic world; at the time I had been an IP in 2 aircraft that were unfortunately not evaluated by ACE, so no dice for me, but IIRC IP in every fighter & most heavies granted a few hours. That plus SOS IN RES should knock out at least one course.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Again, frequency of exposure is irrelevant when the outcome is death. If I'm attacked only once in my life, but the attacker bashes my head with a crow bar and kills me, I'm going to wish I had the best tool available to prevent that outcome. If a police officer faces the same threat 30 times in his life, how is that an argument for him having better PDW's than me? He might need it more often than I do, but the tool we need is the same. Because the threat is the same. I guess my main confusion is with your last statement; I don't make a habit of arguing for things I'm actually against. Apparently you do; either that or I've convinced you of the rightness of my POV, which was faster & easier than I thought!

You are expert at twisting words to gain the apperance of winning an argument. The only cop to speak in this thread so far has 100% disagreed with your premise that he (as a now private citizen) should be limited in what he can carry while active LEO's should not. And your premise has actually changed and evolved in this debate.... you started by flat out saying cops don't face the same threat we do, which is what I have asserted all along. Fact: police face the same threat citizens do. Just becasue an LEO faces thugs daily, why is that justification to have a 30 round magazine but my unlikely encouter is not justification for a 30 round magazine? A single encouter = need for an unknown number of bullets, but more is better when misses outnumber hits. You and I are at a logical impasse. Please explain to me, in simple terms as I'm a simplton, what threat an LEO faces that justifies them having an M-4 with 30 rounds that is not a possible threat for me to face? And why should I be denied the best tool for the job of self defense? And yes the DC ban was ruled unconstitutional..... 30 years too late for a lot of victims though, as CH pointed out. i won't even touch the argument about the reasoning behind the second amendment. You say constitutional scholars disagree.... well i dont care what people who word fuck for a living think, the amendament plus copious letters and papers from the founding fathers themselves make this a very clear cut issue to me. There's no point in arguing that one as there's no way you can convice me otherwise, or me you, so why bother? But I think if you examine the logic I can get a sharp kid like you to understand that in the 1% chance someone kicks your door in tonight you'd feel better with an AR & 30 rounds than a bolt action rifle or 7 shot revolver.... and it's just as likely for that to happen to you as a cop, and far more likely for it to happen to either of you than the gov of NY.

So what more serious threat do police face than me, average joe citizen? Frequency is irrelevant WRT a need for standard capacity magazines or semi-automatic rifles; if they face 10 incidents of home invasion and I face one (as an example) we both need the same tool for the same task. And again I reiterate: thier weapons are for their personal defense, not the defense of others. An individual police officer can choose to use his weapon to defend others, and many brave ones do; but they have no duty to do so. Since they face the same threat (more often, again, is irrelevant), why should they be allowed better tools to defend themselves? And all this is tangential to the purpose of the second amendment, which is an armed populace as a last defense against tyranny. I suspect George Washington would barf on his knickers if he knew we're now debating the degree to which a citizen is allowed to defend themselves. Having lived in DC under the gun ban when crime was peaking in the 90's I can tell you first hand that gun bans have two certain effects: emboldening criminals (resulting in an overall increase in violent crime) and wasting time/resources from police who now arrest otherwise peacable citizens suspected of owning a weapon for self-defense. Oh, I guess there is always that third common theme WRT gun bans: somehow elected officials still need to be protected by armed cops.... which any way you slice it smacks of hypocisy. I wonder, whats more historically/statistically likely: the Gov of a state (or mayor of a major city) having his house broken into or being mugged on the street, or an average citizen having their home broken into & being mugged on the street? I guess we'll agree to disagree here.

Those were two excellent sounding wordy non-answers to my questions. And you are wrong if you think cops would protect me, they have absolutely no duty to do so, and the courts have been very clear that the public has no reasonable expectation of protection.

Yes, cops face the exact same threats civilians do (copy all beaver, but I don't have a better wording). Can you name me a threat police officers face that I don't have any chance of facing myself? The people they go after are in public.... You know, where I am. And unless you're clairvoyant you don't know the intentions of anyone around you. So tell me: why does the NYPD need an M4 with 30 rounds but I don't? Is it more likely for a civilian to be assaulted violently or a uniformed police officer? I know they aren't carrying those weapons for my safety since SCOTUS has held there is no duty for them to protect us. And yes, these laws were passed by people being actively guarded (in a statehouse) by armed men who were and are excluded from the provisions of it.... I don't know or care who has 24/7 coverage so dont make assumptions; fact is: all those officials felt a need to be guarded by armed men that day, and every day they meet. You know otherwise? Instead of calling hyperbole, why don't you prove me wrong? Or you can admit that your liberal buddies stood on the graves of children to pass freedom hating, crime encouraging legislation as soon as the political winds felt favorable, and you've been duped into supporting them in the past but have now seen the errors of your ways; I'm fine with either of those responses.

No, possession of a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is going to be illegal; I think new Yorkers have a year to sell them out of state. 8-10 round mags still legal (granfathered in) but only allowed to have 7 bullets in them.... And all new manufactured or purchased mags must be 7 rounds or less. No discussion of keeping one in the chamber. I haven't read the exact wording, but the assumption right now is that cops will be exempt from these laws and the NYPD will still have assault weapons and 17 round mags for their Glocks; which is ridiculous since civilians face the same threat cops face. Even more ridiculous since the people who passed the law are all protected by body guards who aren't affected by the law. Truly a case of hypocritical elite shitting on our founding principals.