TMF

If they don't have a GT above 110 I would advise them to take it again when they get a chance. I took my first ASVAB when I was a sophomore in high school; it was a compulsory event. They took us all into the gym, passed out these tests and then said it didn't matter if we didnt know the answers to all the questions. I Christmas treed the test, like a good 15 year old kid would do when you say effort/correctness isn't required. If I had used those scores going to a recruiter I would have been qualified to be a pop up target on a range. I retook the test later on when I decided to join, and getting a high GT score opened up all the doors I needed opened at the time. I believe Tanker is spot on with the draw down. Even if recruiters have a mission of a few guys each month, once they meet that they won't be interested in signing others up until they need them, or at least that was my experience when I joined active service. My entry date wouldn't have been for several months after signing, but the recruiter didnt want me signing until the following month. Really, dealing with the recruiter was a pointless endeavor anyway. He acted like a used car salesman and didnt much care for what I was interested in. I ended up making my deals with the liaison at MEPS, since he wasn't a mouth-breathing halfwit. I'm pretty sure they still have entry contracts for guys that want to be SEALs. No reason not to get a SEAL contract up front if they're available. There is no benefit to waiting. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, but I think you're failing to acknowledge the point I was making. I would agree that it is just as absurd to make someone guilty of public urination a registers sex offender and require that person to forfeit certain rights he should not have to. But that isn't the point. The point was there ARE people who should permanently lose certain rights once they commit certain sex offenses. While I agree that a child rapist should be put to death, at a minimum, they should lose the right to live near certain areas, the right to have any interaction with children, to include their own, and be registered with local law enforcement for the rest of their lives. Same as violent offenders. They have proven they no longer deserve the right to bear arms. They don't. Non-violent felons though? Well I think that would be in a similar category as someone who is is categorized as a sex offender because they really had to pee. And just for the record, they have different classes of sex offenders. If you get hit with public urination you aren't screwed for life the way rapists are. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So child rapists should have no stipulations on where they live, coming into contact with children or registering with local law enforcement when they move? Those stipulations involve forfeiture of rights past their incarceration sentence. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There was one in Clarksville last year who had pulled over a few. They caught him in short order. He was targeting women, of course. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's already known to be automatic, so it goes without saying. I suppose that a judge could throw that in there, and maybe some do that to remind the felon they have messed up royal. Does a judge need to remind a person who is locked up for a misdemeanor that they have no right to keep and bear arms while they're behind bars? They don't? Well why can't prisoners have firearms? Obviously their rights are being violated since a judge never told them it was part of their sentence! Regardless, it remains part of the punishment so it has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When someone has served their time that does not mean their sentence is over. It just means they've served the physical part of their sentence. I don't believe there is a constitutional argument for restoring the rights they forfeited with a felony conviction. Just like sex offenders must register and be tracked. Just like I believe those guilty of rape should be castrated. Anyone guilty of felony neglect or abuse should lose their right to raise children or produce another one. Just like when someone murders they should lose their right to life. I realize these are extremist views here, but I'm attempting to illustrate how a sentence may be more than a few years in a cell. The argument regarding false convictions isn't relevant here. If it were then we would be exploring the option of no punishment whatsoever for any conviction. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure, why not? He didn't prove that he is predisposed to unprovoked violence. Someone who steals should be locked up long enough to make the issue of owning a firearm moot anyway. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  You're ignoring the intangibles here.  Yes, if a criminal really, really wants to have a firearm, he's gonna get one.  But making it illegal to possess one certainly plays a role in preventing many of them from acquiring a firearm, which, in my opinion, is a good thing if they have already proven themselves to be a violent criminal.  Just like someone who has been proven to be loony tunes.    The plus side, also, is that it throws an extra charge on there if they're caught with one or commit a crime with one.  All the better.  Everyone is born with the same rights.  When you victimize other people you lose rights.  Some you never can earn back.  My heart doesn't bleen for those folks; we all make choices and have to live with those choices.

Losing your rights is part of the punishment for committing a felony. You lose your freedom for a while, you lose other rights permanently. Everyone who commits a felony knows what the punishment may be. Sorry, you want to play the game you're gonna pay the consequences. We can debate on whether we should change the law based on the type of felony committed, but I simply don't buy the Constitutional argument. If people are entitled to life and liberty we wouldn't be able to imprison or execute them when the are convicted of a crime. Personally, I don't see an issue with changing the restriction to violent criminals only, but then again, I also believe felons convicted of violent crimes such as rape, murder, attempted murder or unprovoked assaults resulting in permanent disability to the victim should be put to death. But that is my personal belief, not the belief of society as a whole. Just like it may be someone's PERSONAL belief that a felon's punishment ends when he is released from prison. The law says different and the constitution has nothing to do with it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Probably. They might not have thought as much into it that so many folks would find it offensive. Of course, I qualify what is "offensive" by intent. Things intended to be offensive should be classified as such. Things which are taken differently than the author's intent should be classified as misunderstandings. It's the reason why words which could be classified as slurs towards race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, etcetera, are not offensive to me unless the intent of the use was to be offensive. It's why comedians can say such offensive things in certain context without most folks getting huffy about it. It's why, in my old job, we could make jokes regarding stereotypes of coworkers and they don't get offended, as no offense was intended. I don't think Coca-Cola meant to offend anyone or suggest something sinister or un-American, so I'm gonna choose not to be offended. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Since George Washington could order it in French I think he'd get a Royale w/ cheese. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Poor George. He just can't catch a break. Guess he'll have to stick to his career as an artist and woman abuser. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But I should be able to order my Big Mac in 'Merican, the way George Washington did! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do warrants generally come with stipulations on how they can be executed or is it at the discretion of the one executing the warrant? I think there in lies the problem. I'm sure the vast majority of no-knock warrants are conducted for reason, just as I'm sure there are no-knock warrants conducted for the purpose of feeling like an action guy. If it makes sense, for the safety of officers and citizens, to have that specified I'm on board. Until then I'd rather blame the system for being broken, that it allows for such things to happen. So we must first address the system, not individual officers and judges. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I dipped briefly out of necessity during several army courses, but never as a habit. Having been around so many people who dipped I've always wondered how their wives and girlfriends handled that. My wife would never come near my mouth if there was dip in it, and I love kissing my wife. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Zimmerman is a coward. A anorexic, heroin-chic crack addict could whoop him in one punch. Not because Zimmerman is physically weaker, but because he is a coward. 4 women have accused him of abuse, some before some after his "celebrity" status. That tells me everything I need to know. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well I'm not saying there isn't a purpose for a SWAT organization within PDs, I'm just saying that they should use the no-knock option for dire circumstances only. Executing a warrant for pot and legally owned firearms isn't dire. That describes half the houses in my hometown. There are times for kicking in doors. The tragic cases we hear of aren't those times. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Geez, I feel for everyone involved. Seems the upper echelons of law enforcement agencies would shy away from these no-knock deals. If anything, for the safety of their personnel. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wasn't aware of the dog fighting thing. Well now I'm just hoping for simultaneous, spontaneous combustion for both of them. My opinion of DMX was simply that he was a third rate rapper and wannabe action star. Dog fighting? Yeah, he needs bad things to happen to him. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes. These don't look like mental giants to me. I'm assuming their interrogation was pretty easy. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

She was five. A two liter bottle may have been 15% of her body weight. Hold up a two liter bottle of soda to the chest of a five year old. Then think about drinking a proportionally sized amount of soda. Think about forced drinking a container of soda you can barely lift, and is larger than your torso. You may live, but a child is frail. They're estimating 2.4 liters. I'm assuming that estimation is based on the interrogation of the scum balls as they were playing one against the other. That is only a liter shy of a gallon. I can't imaging drinking that much soda as an adult. Now consider that this child is probably around 35-40 lbs. I'm about 180 and average sized. The proportional amount for me would be somewhere around 5 x 2 liter bottles of soda. I can bet that if I drank that much soda I'd be going to an emergency room and potentially dying. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

.

Yeah, poor guy just seems to have so much bad luck. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  Slapping a woman around and holding a shotgun on her didn't do much for his financial stability.  Maybe getting punched in the face would help out.  In a strange way, he's making better choices than he ever has.  I support him in this endevour.  In fact, I'll pledge $50 to his bank account if I can punch him in the face too.

Death sentences should be mandatory for people who kill children, whether it be intentional or through negligence.