btq96r

  Not necessarily.  While I agree with you that there are people who are ill with things like dementia brought about by Alzheimer's that shouldn't have a gun, the SS administration wouldn't look at this from a medical perspective, but rather a binary yes/no standard, so the slightest reason could be used against someone.

Trying to move everything from my current 500GB drive onto a 640GB one so I can install a dual boot Linux setup and still have plenty of room for storage, but Clonezilla isn't cooperating and of course the forums on SourceForge are down at the moment. I have three partitions on my current drive, SYSTEM_DRV, Windows7_OS (C:), and Lenovo_Recovery (Q:). For some reason, copying that exact configuration over to a new drive isn't working. See the pic for reference, but I get the same message for sdb2 & sdb3 as I go along. Suggestions, thoughts?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dc1d5a9e37154b36aaa913a4fde57bf0/army-chief-security-recruiting-posts-will-be-reviewed   A quote from the Army Chief of Staff who said: "I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries."   That's the culture of military leadership in its purest form.  No doubt in my mind that ND's are the biggest topic at the Pentagon in this debate.  And in that light, of course this happened: The comments came as Navy officials confirmed a separate incident outside Atlanta, where a recruiter accidentally shot himself in the leg with his personal .45-caliber pistol while discussing the Tennessee shootings with one of his recruits. Officials said he showed the sailor the unloaded gun, then reloaded it and inadvertently discharged it as he was putting it back in his holster.   Yeah, this guy didn't exactly give the best performance for the cause of arming military recruiters.  :shake:

I can't see any way that call was legit. 

Weapon bought and issued by the service, no issues with. There would be some some additional requirements on the admin side for small unit leaders, but nothing outright prohibitive to the process. Getting the chain of command to sign off on it is another matter entirely.

Here's another link that may help.

  What makes you think that?  They did it in Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.

  Partly because professional Soldiers are supposed to carry issued equipment, provided by their government.  Yes I know that Soldiers have had to or choose to buy some of their own kit, but arming a Soldier is a different category.  There is no reason that procurement of arms should be an issue after funding is authorized if an increase is needed to get more pistols versus just using M4's and M16's.   Partly because the Army makes sensitive item control a nightmare, and adding personally owned weapons to that would be a miserable experience for all involved.  Also, there would be issues of can they only use Army appropriated ammo, qualification standards with a different weapon, how that time and resource requirement is dived up between issue and personally owned weapons, and the inevitable issue of the Army keeping official "records" of personally owned weapons.

Recruiters are always going to be at risk just because they put themselves into the open population.  It's not like we can have armed security checkpoints at the recruiting stations, that's just not practical.  Allowing them to CCW a pistol if they are wearing ACU's/Cammies would be practical.  Not sure of the current uniform for recruiters, but if they are in some sort of dress uniform, even if it's just what the Army called Class B's with a tucked in button up shirt and slacks, CCW wouldn't be practical, even open carry in that situation would have it's pros and cons.   As to military post's, as we discussed in another thread, that's a harder issue.  No way in hell would a  professional Soldier be allowed to carry their own weapon on duty, as it should be.  At the least, increased security at access points, and extra scrutiny for all visitors would be appropriate.  Unless you have a DoD ID, getting onto a military base should require a legitimate reason, not just meeting a few broad criteria.   I will say that if somehow carry is approved for on base personnel, it needs to be open carry.  Soldiers shouldn't be hiding weapons.  The common reasons for concealed vs. open carry go out the window in an active shooter incident on a military base.

  MLK and the civil rights movement in at the predominant used the "long push" method I mentioned, not the crisis into results.  Though they did know how to pick and choose the right person as the face of a cause through the prism of political reality.  That's why Rosa Parks, and not Claudette Colvin or the others in the actual Browder v. Gayle became the public face of the bus boycotts.     You're right that they used hard work, but it was a long term fight and they knew the eventual turning point would be when enough of white America supported their cause.       What do you think I should call them, Moral Majority, Christian Right?  Labels that get your knickers in a twist aside, the fact remains religious figures and organizations engrained into right wing politics fit that title.       Allen West and Ben Carson are not "black leaders" in the sense that they can move the needle of the black community.  Honestly, I don't know who can be a leader of enough influence in the black community today.  They're increasingly fragmented, with different goals and aims, with a lot of people unreceptive to a "collective good" type of message that isn't really about individual benefits.  They are also losing what power they have left inside the Democratic party to Hispanics, who are now the parties preferred minority due to their increasing numbers and electoral importance. 

  I'd add tax season to this category.    2015 being my first tax season on TGO, I was surprised how many members were selling guns to raise funds for their returns, or make up for the hole it left in their savings.  There were some good deals around then, and I'll make sure I have my eye out come Feb-April of 2016 for a can't miss deal.

  That's the pleasant outcome to that scenario.  A bigger worry is being identified as a threat and fired upon with bad results.

  Tell me one significant black issue that they took from start to finish without a long term push or by taking advantage of a crisis, but rather though overt political power.   Now try the same exercise with political groups like the Religious Right, Trade Unions, the Defense Lobby, the NRA...the disparity of power is a big one.

Per the sub-debate of black political power, or lack thereof...   Yes they have political power, but it's not as great as people make it out to be.  On their own, the black community can be marginalized and ignored just like other groups of their limited size and power.   They certainly don't get to set an agenda nationwide or even statewide anywhere, only influence it.  With our two party system, black political power is diluted still.  Inside Republican politics, they have no way to push something, and within the Democratic party, they are just another competing interest group in the large scheme.    If you look at when black influence made a major change in American politics or culture, it usually came only after an event of importance that they seized onto to amplify a cause, or as the culmination of a long effort.  Nothing they have gained came easily, including the repudiation of the Confederate (battle) flag.  That was a long time coming on their side, and they simply pushed the issue when the chance presented itself.   Black politics is all about cultivating their resources for the long fight, and pressing an advantage when the time is right.  They don't have enough power to wield it any other way.

A few quick thoughts...   1)  Much like how gun owners don't like to be held accountable for the lawless among us with negative attention and reactionary laws, so is it for the Muslims in the US.  There are ones that didn't kill anybody today because they were too busy working, paying taxes, obeying the law and participating in our Democracy just like everybody else.   I'm not going to let the actions of this guy change that.  If they're silent, it's because they are laying low, knowing the eyes of mistrust are on them yet again.  While I'm sure there is some radical ones among the flock, I'm not going to let fear turn me against a community.   2)  Per his alleged yearbook quote...sounds about right, and worth mentioning we don't know the context he wrote it in.  The fact remains that his time going through security at the airport had to have been different than yours by virtue of nothing more than his name to bring it about.  I'm sure it had something to do with his radicalization taking root, and it's worth the conversation about if we're creating enemies with the policies we're using to fight them.   3)  As to any ISIS connection, all the social media postings will be analyzed, but I doubt he was "controlled" by ISIS in the sense of they recruited, trained, and tasked him to go do what he did.  Most likely is that he reached out to them via Twitter with his intentions, and they simply said something to the equivalent of "go for it, dude."   4)  Worth monitoring is what knee-jerk reaction may come with guns, ammo, supplies.  For what it's worth, Primary Arms had a sale start today, Gen 2 PMAG's on sale for $9.99.  Fortuitous timing in retrospect.

This is on the "someday when I have the money to blow" list.  I was able to hold one at a gun store once, and it just felt awesome. 

  Yeah, the difference is, one is governed by rules, and it's participants are supposed to have a code of conduct, the other is politics.   I was in the Military Intelligence company assigned to the Brigade responsible for Mosul, Iraq in 2003.  I was involved in interrogations in a security role for a while because we didn't have any permanent facilities and all the MP's were assigned out in sector and unavailable for a while.  Basically, we had a small series of room on the logistics base set aside for our use, but it wasn't manned 24/7 until the latter part of the deployment.  Until then, we would get a call that a unit took a detainee, meet them there, the interrogators would do their thing, and we'd have the line unit return take the detainee to the division cage if it was determined he was a threat or he confessed, if it was determined he wasn't a threat, they just took him back to the point of capture.  I was in Iraq at the same time West was.  Different area sure, but we had our share of the threat in our AO just like he had his.  So, if I'm not talking about this subject from anything less than a background of direct experience.    What bugs me the most about what West did is that he was in a very important leadership position, and he didn't just ignore what happened, he sanctioned it.  Think of the example his junior officers, NCO's, and soldiers would infer with "the boss" saying we aren't playing by the rules.  With that experience, they would feel free to adjust their own behavioral standards accordingly there and in the future.    The problem with their methods is that the line units just don't know how to do interrogations, and they're not supposed to.  They go into it with punitive aims instead of interrogative ones and generally cock it up thinking they're going to be the ones to get the information from a guy.  The Army has an MOS for enlisted specialists and warrant officers to handle interrogations for a reason, it has to be done right.  It's also worth mentioning there are clear rules stating they are the only ones able to conduct interrogations, and all other personnel are limited to "tactical questioning" only.     Take the emotions of guys on the line who spend their time getting shot at.  When they question a detainee, they tend to think they are "dispensing justice" and what not, and it becomes a downhill snowball, getting worse, and worse real fast.  By West's own admission in his sworn statement, he and his men had custody of the detainee for approximately 25 minutes.  There were four guys who confessed to assaulting the detainee, and just imagine how much damage they can do in 25 minutes of beating a guy out of frustration.  West could claim he didn't let it get out of hand, but he let it get out of hand by letting it happen in the first place.  Restricting blows to the body isn't any guarantee of health when overzealous guys start swinging on someone they think is trying to kill them and their buddies.   Now, I'm not saying you treat them like a kid who needs to go to their room and think about what they did with three hots, a plush cot and all the creature comforts, but the process has to be controlled by people who know what they are doing when it comes to getting information from detainees.  At the unit level, if you have to beat a guy, you failed, or you just wanted to from the beginning.  This isn't an episode of 24. 

  I'd say focus on a good plate carrier you can put the pouches on, or a rig you can clip onto the carrier.  I'd go minimal size carrier with a belt if you need extra storage for things like a pistol and pistol mags.   As to the 4 vs. 6 mags, you have to ask how much you want to have sticking out, adding weight, making more things to get stuff caught on, and placement.  Also, take some time to think about what needs to be on your kit, and what can be better stored in a bag, or on a belt if you still need it within a quick arms reach.  A good compromise is to put four mags on the rig/carrier, and the last two mags on your belt. 

I'm guessing she's one of East TN's many meth users.

This so depends on what you want it for, what you expect it to do/carry, and how you think you'll be moving around with it.  Any info you can provide can help us tailor the advise a lot.

You can also add a credit card to a PayPal account for payments.  I use it for all my purchases, but you have to manually select it for each purchase, only a bank can be the default payment mode.

  No idea.  I just know that the magazines are loaded in specific amounts, so that you have to do a reload in the middle a few times during the qual.  From the time the exposure of the target that uses the last round of a magazine ends, eight seconds pass until the next one comes up.  One of the mag changes comes between firing tables as well.    Pistol shooting in the Army is only slightly more difficult as the TN HCP class.  The only hardships from it come in how rigid the Army runs their ranges with full battle rattle required for wear.

  With pistols, hell no.   We used to call it the "officer qualification" because on the qual ranges, you would get more ammo than targets.  To quote directly from the field manual on the qual standards... a. Extra Rounds. For each table of the CPQC, the firer is given extra rounds to reengage missed targets. Although only 30 targets will be exposed during the entire course, each firer will receive 40 rounds of ammunition. Hitting a target with an additional round during the exposure time is just as effective as hitting it with the first round. Consequently, the firer is not penalized for using or not using the extra ammunition. However, any unused ammunition must be turned in at the end of the table, and may not be used in any other table.   They also get eight seconds without a target present to change magazines...which is absurd.     Pistol shooting in the Army is a close to checking the block as it can be while actually still putting rounds downrange. 

  You're looking at this from a logic based, ballistics and reliability standard.  That's your first mistake.   This is the Army.  It's pistol will needs to be just right for females, limp-wristed men, and just bad shots overall to fire well enough to qualify on pop up targets out to a max distance of 31 meters (33.9 yards) with on a semi-annual basis.  Non pop-up targets are fired at from about 25 meters (27.34 yards).   The Army will make sure the pistol can ensure people can meet the standard.  That's the primary factor in selection. 

  I'm sure it hasn't.   :rolleyes:   It'll be 9mm, the whole JHP ammo inclusion sealed that.  They wanted something better than 9mm ball ammo, which would make you think .45 is the way to go, but then you have to remember that this gun will be carried by officers, senior NCO's, and a handful of combat support troops that go to the range 2-4 times a year on average.  Switching them to .45 will make qual scores drop, and the Army doesn't want that.  Using 9mm JHP is the best all-around decision they could come to, they just need the lawyers to make it good to go.   For Special Operations troops, they will keep on using what they want based on operational needs.  No change there.