btq96r

Well, we're onto other social issues and conspiracy theories alone rather than the main thread. Seems this thread has cemented itself in our politics forum.

GlockSpock has expanded well on my initial thoughts along how I was going with it. Most qualified is a bit of a misnomer. Qualified is often a binary yes/no condition. Within those qualifications, there can be those with abundance of dubious relevance. Example being someone with 9yrs experience vs. another with 6yrs when the requirement is 5yrs. Both candidates clear the experience hurdle as a pass/fail check, so what makes the time above that useful as a qualification? That not a failure to acknowledge the difference in varying levels of experience, but unless it can be quantified in some way, the difference isn't useful as a standalone item. The candidate with the longer experience might be the wrong one if their getting the job enacts the Peter Principle that was otherwise being guarded against where they're coming from. It's admittedly subjective, and not something you can write a manual around. But most people don't make it past HR screening unless they meet the stated qualifications. So from there, you want to get the best candidate for the role.

Organic DEI works great when correctly harnessed. Look at any army unit and you'll see what DEI is and should be. Different backgrounds, experiences, and processes of thought working for a common goal tends to bring out innovative and adaptive solutions. Forced DEI for metrics or optics is where we have problems. I'm all for striving to achieve it, making sure it's not prevented, even if you select diversity as a deal breaker between two or more candidates who clear the requirements. But when you force it as an absolute requirement over standards, it's a liability, not a positive.

I'm fine with her getting fired because of this stupid statement, and in general because she hasn't shown the urgency needed to address the shortcoming. Improper response is worse than the mistake in my book. She's not making me think there is a basic understanding of the gravity in this situation, just some wagon circling. But let's not pretend it was her job to do site security that day. The levels of failure start at whoever left a wide open rooftop like they did and up a few more levels.

Some folks might see me making comments on this as knocking on Trump, it's not. I admittedly think he's nowhere near someone I want to be President, but that's not relevant to any of what happened here. He's a politician, image matters as you say. Two things came to mind when I saw the images of him with the blood smears. 1) He has a political advantage from it. Even if it's going to make Democrats less aggressive in how they go after him and his policies, that's something. I think it'll bring his supporters out even more than anything else, which is the opposite of how Biden is losing enthusiasm in his base. 2) The response he had was very human and indicative of his character. He has always been a defiant type, and with the adrenaline flooding his system, he wanted to stand up and be seen as such. Part of that is maybe it's hard to get a 6'3" guy who I assume can't bend over that well to keep his head down, but he very clearly saw the moment, even if it was a spontaneous reflex.

He'll know how to turn the assassination attempt to his advantage. Was already starting when he realized the shooter missed by the images we saw. He's very attuned to image presentation. The timing of it with the convention is something I think he'll make use of as well.

Are we talking about the same Donald Trump? Subdued isn't in his style...especially after he experiences some kind of massive and turbulent event and comes out in a better position.

Still deciding.

The best available agents likely go to the President and Vice President protective details. Then the advance teams for both. Given the issues we've seen reported (which makes you know there's more unreported), those details have their own issues. The details for a candidate and former president are probably less than top tier.

I was taking a nap and haven't done more than scan some feeds for info yet. I'm already cringing at the word "sniper" being used.

It's amazing what our physicians can do these days, hoping for the best outcome.

Arguably 10x more entertaining than what's coming out of Hollywood these days. Between the decline of good content, and Netflix snagging up some of the better from what does come out, foreign and old isn't a bad way to be competitive.

If you couldn't smoke in the theater when it was released, it's not a "classic". But year of production aside, the way they upscale these movies for the modern screen is impressive.

With few exceptions, for new releases, unless it's a James Bond, or Star Trek movie, I'll wait for it to hit streaming. AMC theaters was doing this cool thing where they would show old movies remastered. Getting to see Lawrence of Arabia in a theater was a very cool experience. That's worth the time and cost.

I know. I'm slacking on something that might be one of the most essential firearms to own. One day an old boss and I were talking guns and which one would be the most useful in a classic SHTF, breakdown of society and services scenario. We came down on a 10/22 being that gun for a whole host of reasons. Plentiful ammo (back when you could buy by the bucket easily and cheap), perfect for small game hunting, and at the top of reliability.

Always enjoyed his work. Dude was great at his craft for sure.

That did it. Wonder what's driving the sale prices on these. And why the 7.8" barrel isn't getting the same...that's the one I'd be hard pressed to resist.

I'm seeing $899.00 on that link.

I just saw this and had to hide my wallet. Oy vey. https://battlehawkarmory.com/product/cz-scorpion-3-micro-9mm-4.2-201-pistol

Good aside to my search, but I have a GSG 522, so I'm good on a .22 rifle equivalent. I looked at the M&P option back when buying the GSG and thought it solid, but wanted something different from an AR at the time. That said, I've noticed the GSG is a little picky about what ammo it will cycle, so I may switch or upgrade someday. It would likely come down to the M&P and a Ruger 10/22 for that decision.

Mechanically it'll be perfectly fine if you want to shoot it. Aesthetically, however...

It's nice to say I'll just buy everything I can afford, but like food gone to waste, I don't like the idea of buying guns that just sit there, especially new ones. Aside from taking up space, getting a CZ isn't a one time contained purchase considering I'd put at least a micro red dot on it. A decent plinker of a .22LR pistol is easier on cost, and diversifies my stable more than a Scorpion would. But yeah, I'll get the Scorpion too someday.

Thanks for the recommendations, all. I knew I'd get solid recommendations to consider. Lots of love for the Taurus', though I can see why. I'll have to whittle down the plethora of TX22 offerings to one I like. Then I'll have to make a choice between a .22LR handgun, or a CZ Scorpion 3+. Tough life for me, folks.

Thinking of buying a new gun for the first time in a long time. One option is a .22 LR pistol, which I think will be just fun, and pretty useful in a bunch of situations. Anyone want to plug their favorite make and model? M&P22 by S&W, and Walther P22 are my leading contenders, but quite open to the gestalt if different. One thing to consider, this isn't going to be some heavy use, competition gun, so I don't need top end/top buck. Some fun and plinking are my main ideas for this gun, figure throw it in the range bag whenever I go shoot something else just to enjoy.

Was just wondering the other day why we hadn't seen you posting in a bit. Sorry to see it wasn't just needing an internet break. Hoping the health issues are resolved with the best outcomes possible.