nsplayr

You can say "I believe in X with certain exceptions," absolutely. I'm not so ideologically wedded to the idea that this is the right policy that I'm ruling out the idea that some exceptions are warranted. The right question to ask is why shouldn't they have the chance to try? There should be some overriding, unchangeable reason to prevent something like basic equality of opportunity. Like someone is innocent until proven guilty, any one person should have the same basic rights and freedoms as any other person until there is a proven need to restrict them. Maybe you can argue that "proven need" has been established by whatever reasons were cited when the policy restricting women from ground combat was originally enacted, obviously the Joint Chiefs and SECDEF believe things have changed that invalidate those original reasons.

Yea, I was specifically talking about the OP's situation where he was proposing to use it for a qualified reason.

If he's talking about earnings from a Roth, or any money from a traditional, then yes, there are different rules is you're a first-time homebuyer. BL: any money in a roth that's been there for 5 years, whether it was contributions or earnings, if fair game for whatever you want. If that's where you keep all your (sorta) liquid assets then go for it with the withdrawal for your down payment. Read up here.

I mean, a woman could be Army COS, it's just unlikely without a combat arms background. There's nothing prohibiting them from being appointed to that position. Just like there shouldn't be a rule saying women can't, by rule, serve in X position (some extreme exceptions are probably reasonable). If they can't make it, then fine, they can't make it. If you don't grind enough pepper in D.C., you're not gonna make COS anyways even if you're a man and the best GD infantryman the Army has ever seen, that's also a pretty solid requirement for that particular job. But banning one gender, or one race, or one whatever just by rule rather than by reason of they can't hack mission requirements I think is the wrong set of values to express.

That wasn't my point at all, my point was centered around how to interpret the Constitution, which the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on. If by "change things" you mean interpret the Constitution in ways different than our predecessors, I'll just disagree with you then, because the Court is explicitly authorized to rule as they see fit on questions they have jurisdiction over, regardless of the precedent although precedent certainly plays a part in their decisions. By definition, no currently standing federal law or other legal framework related to the federal government is "against the Constitution" because the Court is the final authroity on determining exactly what is and isn't Constitutional. If you think otherwise and have standing, file a case in federal court. Obviously some things are pending, but it's kind like innocent until proven guilty, laws are Constitutional until they are struck down. D.C. v Heller's striking down of the D.C. handgun ban was specifically because of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, yet within that landmark ruling the conservatives on the Court, who decided D.C.'s laws went too far, also expressed the opinion that their decision does not invalidate other restrictions on firearm ownership. So it's all about where you draw the line between your right to have firearms and the government's right (or the right of another person or a business), under the Constitution to make certain restrictions or infringements upon people's rights in order to run the country or ensure a functioning society. That's the crux of every Constitutional debate. My points: A) The Constitution clearly isn't crystal clear on every issue it governs, that's obvious, B) the Supreme Court has the ultimate power, under the Constitution, to decide cases about what exactly is and is not Constitutional. Does anyone disagree with those points?

Man, you even trademarked your response, well played sir.

Which is what ? The Supreme Court has appellate juristiction over all matters involving federal law, the constituion, or matters dealing with treaties. In that Court as well as the other federal courts, lies the "judicial power of the United States." WRT to gun control, here's Justice Scalia's view from the D.C. v Heller Case as found in this article. But he's clearly a crack-pot liberal who doesn't know WTF the Constitution really says about the right to keep and bear arms, right?

I might agree if I actually thought that was happening. Many liberals feel that way WRT the PATRIOT Act, drone strikes against U.S. citizens, etc. etc. I have yet to feel that way about a specific U.S. government policy so there hasn't been the need to disavow some candidate or some party I generally support. I've not seen any "non-constitutional" means being employed here. So far there are EOs that, when reading them, are about things clearly within the executive's power to do, and proposed legislation in Congress, the body of people tasked with making our laws. In addition to that, the Courts and the Supreme Court have long upheld that firearms can be restricted in certain ways (i.e. the "machine gun ban" of 1986, many others), although what is legal and what isn't is always a moving target depending on new rulings. And gun rights have been strengthened in numerous recent court rulings as well as in some legislation in case you haven't been keeping track. So where we are in my view is that clearly nothing that's actually happened unconstitutional, and furthermore, every aparratus in our Government has arrived at the conclusion that the Constitutional right to bear arms is not completely absolute, it permits the government to place some restrictions on private firearms. Reagan belived that when he put his name on the 1986 firearms act that included the machine gun ban, the GOP Senate at the time believe that when they passed that bill (along with the Democratic House), and the conservatives on the SCOTUS believed that principle when it and other restrictions on guns have been upheld in the Court. Now, what's being discussed with Feinstein's legislation and some pending court cases is where do you draw the line? D.C. v Heller changed the line a bit saying cities can't outlaw handguns, ok, cool, the line has moved. Other cases or legislation has changed the line before, i.e. assault weapons ban of 1994. All those things are completely Constitutional and part of what living in our system of government means...no one person or institution gets to just make up whatever they want and enforce it indefinitely because they think it should be one way or the other. And anyone that argues that the Constitution isn't a "living document" can't see the light of day because if everything was spelled out so crystal f*cking clear then why do we consistently have a Supreme Court that changes things? Sometimes conservative causes are benefits of those changes (DC v Heller), sometimes liberal causes are the benefit (Roe v Wade), but the fact is that no one can, with authority, say "The Constitution means this and only this, period dot!" because clearly in the practice of the last almost 225 years of the document's existence, people have been having these same arguments. Even the people who wrote it didn't agree on what it meant, how can one argue today that they alone have the right answers to it's sole and complete meaning? Those arguments are very easy to make because all of our rights have been "adjusted" by the government. You have freedom of speech, but there are limits on that depending on what you say, who you are, and where you say it. There are limits on your right to avoid searches and seizures depending on the circumstances. There are limits on due process as Anwar Awlaki found out recently (for right or wrong, that's a whole other debate). So the point isn't that "Well, the government can't restrict my rights!" They certainly can and do, within the legal framework of the Constitution, legal precedent and the outcome of any legal case you choose to bring against those who you think are wronging you. I think it's obvious he'll be a contender at least, we'll see how that works out for him.

My squadron had a heritage patch that was more or less exactly like the original worn by our predecessors. We would rock it every Friday and never heard anything but compliments from other people on base including members of other squadrons, other squadron/group leadership, retirees, etc. We were told no mas about 9 months ago from somewhere on high. Such a shame...glad other units are still able to rock their heritage.

Here's the thing I think might not be clear, I 100% agree. I don't want women in positions where they can't hack it, just like I don't want men in positions who can't hack it. Honest self assessment, I could not hack it as a SEAL or PJ or whatever. Based on the average athletic ability of my wife and myself, I'm about 90% sure there's no way my daughter could make it either. BUT, if for some reason she's an athletic freak and really is hard-up to kick some ass and take some names, I don't see any reason why she should be barred from giving it a shot. I'm not in favor of lowering standards of allowing women just to feel good, but I am in favor of everyone having a fair shot at qualifying if that's what they want to do. So the policy is right in my opinion, the execution is TBD obviously because it hasn't started, but the couple of examples of this being tried so far (Female Marine officers trying out for infantry and getting cut) seem to be working out just fine WRT upholding the standards. The other thing I like in these stories is that mil leaders are talking about how physical requirements should be based on job performance and not some arbitrary measure of pushups/pullups/situps/running. If the result of this is that all services move to a functional fitness test rather than seeing who's fast at running 1.5 miles, that's a win for everyone.

I think I've been over this before, I am serious in the opinions I hold. Are you guys telling me no one one here has daughters in the military? No one in here has sisters who are helo pilots? No one in here has female cousins who pulled convoy duty in Iraq/Afghanistan? No one has female relatives or friends serving on carriers, at FOBs, etc. etc.?? You never want your loved ones to be in danger, obviously, but if that's the career she wants then she'll be a great American for choosing to serve her country. Daddy will perhaps offer up the advantages to being an AF officer flying airplanes vs, say, an enlisted infantryman kicking down doors, but if she really can hack that she's tougher than me.

I have a daughter who's my precious little girl; thought about it and sold. Gotta practice what you preach and if she wants to volunteer when she's all grown up, good on her. And if we were having a draft again at this point in history we've got bigger problems to worry about than women serving in ground combat units...

I mean, I sorta understand the intellectual argument that for some people, gender identity and your god-given physical sex are not aligned but it's still weird, even for me as a liberal and big supporter of gay rights. Probably will take a lot more time for people to accept it but I have no doubt some day it will be...progress marches on even though I'm sure someday I'll be one of the old cranky white guys shaking my fist at all the weird sh*t kids are into "these days."

This has been said during every single sociological change ever implemented by the military and I'd argue exactly the opposite. In the military you have people who work closely together to achieve common goals under harsh and stressful situations. That's a pretty good place for people to see past their inherent biases and realize we're all underpinned by something shared and decent and good as human beings. That doesn't preclude problems, but I think it makes it easier to integrate "X" population in the military than it does in just a random group of Americans in some other average profession. This is hard to argue with, she seems truly awful.

Correcting pilot's obvious/lazy mistakes? Yes, navs are good at that from time to time. Disagree, it just doesn't keep me up at night because I'm aware of the political realities that face any attempt to institute a new AWB or high-cap magazine limit. I find the President's position, although I disagree with it, totally consistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled, in several cases and even recently, that the government can restrict and regulate some types of firearms. With that precedent established, now we're just arguing over where to draw the line and there are numerous opinions on where that should be. Credibility is unneeded and frankly I'm a rather amateur gun enthusiast compared to some of the pros around here. Feel free to tell me I'm full of shit when discussing which firearms are better than others of similar type, the ballistic merits of one caliber vs another, etc. I've enjoyed range reports in this thread and learned some things I didn't know before. I'm expressing my opinions on gun control (which line up with many people here, those who want to give civilians RPGs notwithstanding), and my credibility in particular on the political analysis that an AWB will not pass Congress I think has been established elsewhere. If any of the political geniuses who were recently predicting a significant Romney victory or that the GOP would retake the Senate want to educate me on why I should be scared of an AWB passing even though a full ~50% of Congress, including numerous Democrats, have an "A" rating from the NRA, I'm all ears...the votes are not there. Universal background checks might pass. Increasing funding to states and local governments to hire or train armed guards in schools might pass. Mental health reforms might pass. The high-cap magazine ban, maybe 5-10% chance of passing the Senate since some of the conservative, "A" rated Democrats have come out and said they don't know why people should have high-cap magazines, 0% chance in the GOP House. Feinstein's AWB - 0% chance of passing the Senate or the House. I'll bet my credibility on political analysis on that. Rog

"I disagree with you, therefore I must question your credentials!" It's the same story with Obama...that boy must not be from 'round here... Jebus...yes, I am a proud member of the United States Air Force. I am personal friends with two other fine members of BO.net and know of several others, who also know of me out in the real world. Hell, HeloDude has my name and squadron and an offer to have a beer on me based on our debates about the election, why don't you ask him? Do any of these facts change my views? Have you literally not ever met a single liberal military aviator or someone who supports the Democratic party? Open your eyes dude, not everyone shares the same set of political views or values, surprising as that may be.

That's your prerogative, I can't say I'm a one-issue voter on anything and the whole package (sts) matters more than specific issues, even ones that are very important to me. As long as you're willing to realize you're in the about 5% of the population that does not support any, gun control measures of any kind (automatics, RPGs, tanks, etc.), then cool, vote as you please. I'm not sure there will be a lot of viable candidates that are able to meet your litmus test. Even the most conservative justices of a fairly conservative Supreme Court have interpreted the Constitution differently than you have. Yep, his views were clear and should not have been a surprise to anyone. The fact that I disagreed on that one issue did not change the overall calculus of who to vote for, Obama vs Romney. And it does come down to values, and the values expressed by President Obama and the Democratic Party generally are in much better alignment with my own than those express by Romey et. al. Republicans. FIFY. And yea, I'm almost positive I'd vote for Cuomo over Jindhal if they were the nominees. Although I like Cuomo significantly less than Obama and would support someone else in the primary over him, his values are much better aligned with my own than Jindal. Jindal isn't my least-favorite Republican, but then again neither was Romney by a long-shot. Then don't feel sorry for me, I don't shoot a ton anyways so it's not cramping my style too bad. Feel sorry for those people out there paying insane $$$ for guns and ammo out of fearful, emotional reactions to legislation that is not going to be come law. Many people on BO.net (not sure if you specifically, don't remember) frequently accuse liberals of acting emotionally and in knee-jerk ways. Care to explain the current state of the gun industry any differently? I'm saying everyone, especially gun enthusiasts would be better served by toning down the fear to at least start to alleviate the panic buying that's driving up prices and doing nothing but line the pocketbooks of those in the industry who are profiting greatly while providing no new or different or improved product or service to consumers. Maybe that will come down the road...all that increase in profits can lead to some new and awesome shit at SHOT Show 2014 or 2015...one can hope right? Do you get it that my support for him is already a forgone conclusion and that his victory in the last election of his life is as well? Like, there's virtually nothing that's factual you could bring up about Obama that would surprise me or make me recant my support and also that other than impeachment, there is no way for him not to be the President for another 4 years? My values align well with his and most of the policies he's enacted as President have been ones I supported, wouldn't you strongly support someone with whom you had that kind of agreement? Ok, with that cleared up, is anything he said in that video untrue? Does Feinstein's bill actually confiscate any guns that you already own? It says right in the text at the link above that any firearms legally possessed before the enactment of the bill are exempt. Has President Obama signed any executive orders that confiscate guns of any kind? Thought not...he supports an AWB and high-cap magazine ban, I do not. I'm also about 99% sure these proposals will not pass Congress. So I sleep well at night and am unwavering in my overall support despite disagreeing on this one issue. That's a quality most conservatives used to possess.

So you're saying I should have changed my vote for a person who I agree with politically and policy-wise on most issues, because of this one issue (high prices/low supply of guns and ammo)? Changed my vote to Mitt Romney because gee, now it's frustrating to try to find 9mm ammo? Really? Do you swing your vote because of one issue from someone you agree with the vast majority of the time to someone you totally disagree with except on that one issue? I doubt it. Dude, I'm perfectly willing to accept a 90% solution, I would advise that conservatives learn to do the same once again. And you're right, Obama has been the country's leading gun salesman, 5 years running. He should get an industry award or something. I'm sure that the manufactures and distributors, in the strict pocketbook sense, were fairly pleased with his reelection because it (along with, ya know, numerous mass shootings and the reactions to them) have been driving sales through the f-ing roof.

So all you had to do to greatly strengthen your argument, which I agree with BTW, was a 6-9 second google search to find something, anything with a little more cred than reddit, yet you failed to do so? Got it. Do I? Can't say I remember that, feel free to show me where.

Thank you, that is a significantly better source. Citing reddit just made me lol a little bit, as well as the whole "not sure if this is true, but I'm sharing anyways!" attitude. I'm pretty sure I agree with almost everyone here that this bill is ridiculous but what I also think is that it's na-gu, na-gu, not gonna pass, so my level of fear about the whole thing is near zero. If other people started to catch on to that attitude then maybe I could find some damn ammo again.

Great source. Spread the fear!!! Like you said, a new AWB is 100% not gonna get through Congress, so can we agree to tamp down the fear just a little bit so firearm and ammo availability/prices can slowly, someday, fall back to something resembling reasonable?

I certainly hope so. I uphold the same standards regardless of gender or whatever else when I'm instructing students, hopefully the ground combat dudes at the various pipelines schools will continue to be empowered to do the same. If that's not the case at some point down the road it's bad implementation of an otherwise good policy. I agree with you that men will try to protect women, but are you really saying that gay men are somehow different and don't protect women in the same ways as straight men? You must know different gay guys than I do...what's your basis for that claim? 100% agree there are problems caused by this, that's obvious. But the problems are worth getting the values question right and at least in my experience the benefit of having some ass-kicking chicks flying with me has far outweighed the costs of a little gender-based friction from time to time. YMMV.

Cool, my views are so fantastical and unrealistic that they're now official policy. Congratulations on your dissent, the DOD will march on.

Seems like it depends on who owns the meters, is it the city or the company or the homeowner? Unless it's the third option (which the story implies that the county owns the equipment), tough luck even if it's attached to your house.

Unlike all those clown-show communities that just go out when the WX is good and fly some acro in the MOA, ya know, for fun Seriously...get over yourself.