Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 We had a former poster, Paul. He was a tanker stationed at Fulda with 11th ACR. Too bad he's not here anymore, you could have swapped stories. Mostly, we only have jarheads here, with one or two squids. Miss that guy.
/dev/null Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 Well....I mean I was a cavalry scout in the Army for 10 years, with 30 months of combat in Iraq. I think I'd do alright. But that's why I carry so many rounds....when ya start using them, they go quick. Thank you for your service. And now I understand why you need so many rounds. It must be difficult hitting a target when you're riding horseback
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 Thank you for your service. And now I understand why you need so many rounds. It must be difficult hitting a target when you're riding horseback Camel. He was in Iraq.
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2017 Posted March 8, 2017 Camel. He was in Iraq. Goat. There's no camels in Iraq.
The_Dude Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Goat. There's no camels in Iraq. I'm sorry but I can't tell if you're joking....there are a ton of camels in Iraq.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I'm sorry but I can't tell if you're joking....there are a ton of camels in Iraq. I said you were riding a goat, and you can't tell if I'm joking? [This is an automated response.] Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7.
The_Dude Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I said you were riding a goat, and you can't tell if I'm joking? [This is an automated response.] Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. I assumed you were joking...thing is, I don't know you yet. I don't know whether you're serious, or laid back. I don't know whether you're smart or stupid. Educated or uneducated. Successful in life, or unsuccessful. I was hoping you were joking. But did I know you were joking? No. I asked. Now I know you're sarcastic. So, there's that.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I was hoping you were joking. But did I know you were joking? No. I asked. Now I know you're sarcastic. So, there's that. That's usually the first thing people learn about me. Or second, if they don't learn I'm a pedantic supercilious anal orifice first. It's generally a good idea to not take me too seriously unless I'm tossing withering insults in your direction. "You're an idiot" is more a term if endearment.
The_Dude Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 That's usually the first thing people learn about me. Or second, if they don't learn I'm a pedantic supercilious anal orifice first. It's generally a good idea to not take me too seriously unless I'm tossing withering insults in your direction. "You're an idiot" is more a term if endearment. Oh, Tom, I'm fascinated by you. You're writing a book on aircraft carrier tactics and you for whatever reason decided to stop it halfway through WWII. Fascinating. Not sure I'd have gone with ending it at 42...nonetheless, fascinating.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Oh, Tom, I'm fascinated by you. You're writing a book on aircraft carrier tactics and you for whatever reason decided to stop it halfway through WWII. Fascinating. Not sure I'd have gone with ending it at 42...nonetheless, fascinating. Because it's about the evolution of fleet doctrine away from World War 1's Mahanian/Nelsonian "single decisive battle" foundation, and how the battle line came to be replaced by carrier air power as the decisive fleet arm. That story basically ends early on June 5, 1942, when Yamamoto cancels the Midway operation and turns back the Main Fleet. After that, carrier doctrine evolves, but Mahanian fleet doctrine is decisively repudiated. And after 1945, fleet doctrine is largely theoretical anyway, since there hasn't been a major naval battle since (argue the Falklands if you want, but that naval battle begins and ends with Belgrano being sunk by HMS Conqueror.) So it's a logical place to end the analysis. (Fun side note: the Argentine cruiser Belgrano was originally the USS Phoenix, a Brooklyn-class cruiser that was at Pearl Harbor. And HMS Conqueror sunk her with a spread of old WWII-era torpedos, as the guided Tigerfish torpedos were woefully unreliable. So the last surviving Pearl Harbor ship was sunk almost 40 years later by a nuclear submarine using a 40-year old torpedo.)
The_Dude Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 Because it's about the evolution of fleet doctrine away from World War 1's Mahanian/Nelsonian "single decisive battle" foundation, and how the battle line came to be replaced by carrier air power as the decisive fleet arm. That story basically ends early on June 5, 1942, when Yamamoto cancels the Midway operation and turns back the Main Fleet. After that, carrier doctrine evolves, but Mahanian fleet doctrine is decisively repudiated. And after 1945, fleet doctrine is largely theoretical anyway, since there hasn't been a major naval battle since (argue the Falklands if you want, but that naval battle begins and ends with Belgrano being sunk by HMS Conqueror.) So it's a logical place to end the analysis. (Fun side note: the Argentine cruiser Belgrano was originally the USS Phoenix, a Brooklyn-class cruiser that was at Pearl Harbor. And HMS Conqueror sunk her with a spread of old WWII-era torpedos, as the guided Tigerfish torpedos were woefully unreliable. So the last surviving Pearl Harbor ship was sunk almost 40 years later by a nuclear submarine using a 40-year old torpedo.) As a former soldier, "boat stuff" is very foreign to me. I'm a huge Churchill fanboy. Reading about Churchill you inevitably read about boat stuff. They always seemed to measure their loses in "tons." I never understood that. Why wouldn't they say 'damn Nazis sunk 4 boats today' instead of 'well they sunk x amount of tons today.' Always so confusing.
GoBills808 Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I live in the country, and I'd say 75% of people I interact with on a daily basis are gun owners. I have three myself. I use them as tools...all three are different caliber bolt action rifles for hunting, varmint eradication, hog protection when I'm running a fence line or dealing with a wild bull (it happens). I think bolt action long rifles and shotguns should be the only firearms citizens can legally carry. I'd outlaw handguns and anything high capacity or semi automatic..leave those for the military and law enforcement.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I live in the country, and I'd say 75% of people I interact with on a daily basis are gun owners. I have three myself. I use them as tools...all three are different caliber bolt action rifles for hunting, varmint eradication, hog protection when I'm running a fence line or dealing with a wild bull (it happens). I think bolt action long rifles and shotguns should be the only firearms citizens can legally carry. I'd outlaw handguns and anything high capacity or semi automatic..leave those for the military and law enforcement. Well done. Your law should be very effective in regards to disarming criminals, who will clearly respect your law. Once the guns are out of the hands of the criminals, who will clearly turn over their firearms, law abiding citizens will have no need for them. You also have a very good understanding of the Second Amendment, and a tremendous amount of respect for Constitutional protections of our basic rights. /golfclap
Hank II Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 As a former soldier, "boat stuff" is very foreign to me. I'm a huge Churchill fanboy. Reading about Churchill you inevitably read about boat stuff. They always seemed to measure their loses in "tons." I never understood that. Why wouldn't they say 'damn Nazis sunk 4 boats today' instead of 'well they sunk x amount of tons today.' Always so confusing. Former Soldier? Where? When?
Gary M Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I live in the country, and I'd say 75% of people I interact with on a daily basis are gun owners. I have three myself. I use them as tools...all three are different caliber bolt action rifles for hunting, varmint eradication, hog protection when I'm running a fence line or dealing with a wild bull (it happens). I think bolt action long rifles and shotguns should be the only firearms citizens can legally carry. I'd outlaw handguns and anything high capacity or semi automatic..leave those for the military and law enforcement. And when some Islamic fanatic mentally unstable lone wolf attacks a crowd in a mall or school with a machete, a concerned citizen can run to their house or car and grab their rifle to take him out. dumba$$
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 I assumed you were joking...thing is, I don't know you yet. I don't know whether you're serious, or laid back. I don't know whether you're smart or stupid. Educated or uneducated. Successful in life, or unsuccessful. I was hoping you were joking. But did I know you were joking? No. I asked. Now I know you're sarcastic. So, there's that. We've know him for years and we still don't have the answers. I think bolt action long rifles and shotguns should be the only firearms citizens can legally carry. I'd outlaw handguns and anything high capacity or semi automatic..leave those for the military and law enforcement. I would love to hear your reasoning for this. It should be interesting.
Joe Miner Posted March 9, 2017 Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) We've know him for years and we still don't have the answers. I would love to hear your reasoning for this. It should be interesting. I think he gave it to you. In his life, he only sees the need for rifles. Ipso facto, abbra caddabra, alarm kazaam, people only need rifles. It's ironclad proof that law abiding citizens don't need handguns or semi automatic guns. Edited March 9, 2017 by Joe Miner
Recommended Posts