nsplayr

I actually tested a brightline bag via BO.net maybe a year and a half ago or so and only used it a few times. Good bag just not a good fit for my airframe or needs. Free to anyone willing to pay shipping.

They used to be, Mr. LaPierre gave some pretty strong testimony on it back in the day (i.e. 1999); seems like their position is different today but perhaps not if the system is enacted like you just described.

Apparently an amendment to the Senate's version of the continuing resolution to fund the government past March 27th reinstates TA for all military members.

Cool...if you went to the second page of the second link, their survey had 85% of respondents living in households with an NRA member saying they were in favor. That's where that part of the article came from. Sounds fine to me. It takes 2 (or in this case many more) to tango on these debates/discussions...I'm happy to take it to a different thread. You may need to re-hack on the CBT on statistical sampling and how polling works... There was barely any difference when the data was broken down by region in the Quinnipiac poll; I'm assuming Texas was included as part of the South which actually has 93% answering "support" when asked the question, "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Like I said, I'm willing to take it elsewhere or withhold political discussion from this particular thread. Numerous other posters seem to also want to discuss the political aspects of gun laws and gun control.

What do you do when rights come into conflict? If "all rights were equal" being a judge would be fairly easy (or impossible?) wouldn't ya say? It's all about the balance between liberty and security...absolute liberty or absolute security are not desirable, so finding the right balance is generally what laws like this are supposed to attempt to do.

Welcome to the 8%. You can freely oppose it, just realize that the vast majority of citizens, and gun owners, and NRA members, don't share your view. What other "property" of yours is specifically prohibited to certain individuals depending on their background? If you're a convicted violent felon, if you're mentally ill, I don't want you owning a gun and I certainly don't want to sell you mine. NICS is a point of sale check that's meant to prevent people specifically prohobited from owning weapons from buying them. It can and should be improved, but that's all it is...no "show me your papers" requirements and there need not be any with any new laws. Make everyone submit to a background check at the time of sale, if they pass, great, have a nice day. If they don't, no sale. Hell, if you don't want to involve FFLs make it a 1-800 number and a website that anyone can access, fine by me. You don't even need a bill of sale or other record of the transfer as I indicated previously, although if I was a seller I'd insist on one personally. By your logic we should have no laws because law-breakers (by definition) don't follow them. Just be honest and admit you won't change your mind. Not sure how this became part of what I said. Take NICS, improve it to include more data (from all the states, include more mental health records and all felony convictions, etc.), require that private sales must use the system first before proceeding. Involve FFLs if you want or make it open to the public, doesn't matter to me. The hypocrisy cuts both ways...you want to require an ID and registration ahead of time (already a requirement in many places) to vote but nothing at all for purchasing a firearm? My argument is that voting is the most fundamental political right you have in a representative form of government and so it should be as open and free as possible within the bounds of reason (i.e. 1 person, 1 vote, citizens only, etc.). While I find gun ownership rights important and clearly protected under the Constitution, I just don't find it at the same level as voting rights and therefore I'm more willing to accept some limits in liberty for additional security. Seems like you're views are the opposite...you want less liberty and more security in voting (worried about fraudulent elections more than me?) but not in gun ownership (less worried about violent crime committed by people who no longer have the right to own firearms?).

This is valid too...if you're gonna rent rather than sell, you may want to take a deal that will help out your monthly cash flow even if it does increase your principle in the short-run. If that extra $100 or whatever off the minimum payment allows you to rent the place at a profit or at least break even, it's worth it to increase your principle a couple thousand bucks at ~3% interest over 30 years rather than take a loss of $100 per month renting below cost.

This. Yea, the variation in price is due to no regulation of that particular market and as a good liberal I'm definitely down for some additional regulation when it benefits the consumer and does little to nothing to hurt the business (the FFL gets paid for making a phone call...how much is that really costing him?). It doesn't take a genius to figure out a system where licensed dealers give you a receipt of the transaction showing you sold firearm X to person Y on date Z, there is no need to create some kind of national database in my mind and if you design the system that way, I'm not sure why anyone would be particularly opposed to it. Democrats in Congress should do that and move past all the silliness that's not going to pass anyways and just makes people irrationally angry...

In terms of your break-even point, figure out how much principle you were paying off each month and add that into your calculations. Say for example it was $300 a month; you do "save" one months payment by "skipping" a payment but you also lose out on paying down that principle which you would have under your old loan scheme. So say you missed a month and you need to make up now $2,350 in principle to be at the same place principle-wise today as if you had not done the refi. If your payment was, say $1,350 and you use that "skipped" payment and pay it direct to principle on the new loan, you need to make up another $1,000. If you're saving $100 a month off your minimum payment like RTB did, and you continue to put that saved $100 toward additional principle each month, your break-even point is 10 months from now. Unless you plan on selling in less than 10 months sounds like it was a good deal to me. I just did my own refi, saved about $175 per month (5.00 to 3.375%) and the break-even all said and done was 7 months. Easy decision.

I think there's a real chance some kind of universal background check will pass since it's so popular and especially since the NRA said they won't oppose it if there's no registry. And I don't see why there needs to be a registry...run it exactly like background checks are run now, just require a FFL to make that phone call even for private sales. Seems like those dealers would be in favor since they can take a cut for the service. Exempt sales to direct family members or something like that. If you're qual'd to buy a gun from a dealer, you're cleared to buy one from Joe Blow on the internet via a FFL...win-win. Let's hope...high prices aren't good for anyone but the manufactures who I'm sure have been pretty happy with sales for the last 6 months or so. Hope the good ones are taking some of that extra cash and investing in some cool new products to release in the next couple of years.

Especially since that's not even who I was even talking about...+1 on the T&A penance.

What's your current rate? What's your break-even time for getting your principle back down to where it is now (assuming you roll in closing costs)? Speaking of that...what are the closing costs? Lots of questions you need to consider other than the simple number of the rate.

You Generals and CMSAFs (mostly) are already "praised/rewarded" above anyone who earns a purple heart or BS w/ V in several different ways. Maybe you think that's f-ed up too...just sayin' Fact of the matter is there are already three medals other than the DWM ordered higher than the those two that have absolutely nothing to do with risking your life or doing anything heroic at all. Do I think the order of precedence should be a little different...sure, I'd probably put it below Airman's medal but then again if this is supposed to be given out like a DFC for RPA/cyber then I can see the argument for putting it where it is. Not gonna "throttle anyone through the monitor" over it though, maybe try one of these

Say what? There are annual limits on contributions, not monthly. If you want to deposit some money you have just sitting in your checking account (from past months you haven't been able to contribute, from a bonus, etc.), just put in a huge TSP contribution for a month or two (i.e. 99% of your pay) and use that money in your checking account to live. Repeat until you've deposited all the "extra" you want. Problem solved.

As pcola pointed out already, what do you think the Wings use to determine who gets a DP? Oh, right...AAD and PME in res. Until that changes it really is about having those boxes checked because they are what will give you a huge leg-up on getting the DP that will get you promoted.

Because local guidance can always be more restrictive, even when doing so completely flies in the face of the higher-level guidance! I always love those conundrums... FIFY. Both Democrats and Republicans signed off on this mess hoping it would force them to act, and now we're all here holding the bag because they were collectively incapable of working together even to avert a self-styled kick in the balls.

Maybe some confusion here...just to be clear, the Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB will net you a 4 year concurrent commitment and must be taken after having already served 6 years. Taking TA will net you the 2 year concurrent commitment. So the risk of "getting caught" after having done TEB is 4 years, not 2. So for younger pilots especially, yea, doing the TEB right at your 6 year point is no-risk since your commitment is already 10 years from when you got winged. It's the older dudes who have already put in 10+ and who are at the end of or beyond their initial UPT commitment, you get saddled with a 4 year debt to Uncle Sam starting the day you transfer. Same logic goes for TA (when it existed...), it's no-risk so long as you have more than 2 years on your longest commitment.

Phillip D. Snuts Ben Dover Barry Mirrodinner Oliver Closehoff Similar topic addressed here.

Admirable technique for passing the time on a deployment

So THAT'S where Rainman has been...staring in North Korean propaganda videos!

Way to work in a Top Gun reference...I lol'd. Just to play devil's advocate, no way. You signed on to that 2-year concurrent commitment the day you took that first dollar in TA...it's in no way related to you actually finishing that degree. If you had the thought that you maybe wanted to get out in less than 2 years (and didn't have any other ADSC), you shouldn't have signed on the dotted line and accepted TA in the first place.

Yea, agreed.

What's your problem with Texas Christian University?

Can you clarify? Not sure what you're saying here. It's not surprising that he cleared a background check, it's surprising that he would buy weapons he advocates banning, even if he was "doing it to make a point" which seems to be what his FB post about it implied.

Here's hoping for a moderate Republican revival...it is possible, however crazy it may seem, to be a "real" conservative and not absolutely insanely right-wing