Rare Shit!

[ficelles]

When I was living in Madison, WI before I moved to Colorado the Air National Guard unit stationed there flew A-10s out of Dane Cty Regional Airport. My place was directly in line with the approach to the runway they'd land on so they'd turn final right over the house about 1000' feet up. There was no mistaking the sound they made.

One year the airport hosted an air show and one of the demos was an A-10 doing it's thing on an old tank they had parked just off a taxi way about a 1/4 mile or so from where the crowd was standing. The pilot flew circles around that tank at a very low altitude and just turned it into a smoking pile of rubble. Craziest thing I ever saw a combat aircraft do.

I know the AF has been trying to get rid of them for quite awhile now and use other more recent aircraft in their inventory to supplant it but it looks to me like none of them can do what an A-10 can. Just like the iconic B-52 bombers it's a nearly perfect design for it's tasking. It's one scary aircraft to deal with if you're the enemy.

They used to fly around my area when I lived in Suffolk (UK) in the 90s and the local airbase was still USAF... they seem to be able to fly at about 5mph and you can't hear them coming. Apparently they are heavily armored and can take a huge amount of fire and keep going.

 

[soulman]

But I ask them: "OK, given that, what do you propose that we do to keep people who should not own guns from getting them?"

Which is a fair question that follows logically from their stance that it's people who are the problem.

Therein lies the question and the problem. How do we know and even more so what happens when someone who may have been perfectly sane when he purchased a firearm suddenly goes off the deep end and becomes a murderer? We really don't other than as ituobrey posted depend on those around that person to speak up. But even then do we have any laws that are effective enough to strip that person of their right to gun ownership? Not that I can tell.

I know this is not a popular stance here or anywhere these days but IMHO and only IMHO I have never seen the wisdom of allowing everyday Jill's and Joe's to own and carry a military grade assault rifle whose only real purpose is to kill as many bad guys as quickly and efficiently as possible when in a fire fight. It would be far more difficult to kill dozens of people with a hand gun or a hunting rifle than with a semi-automatic weapon many have turned into a fully automatic weapon.

 

[soulman]

Now here's some really rare shit.....and ancient too. It's a dinosaur dung fossil. We get a lot of those in Colorado.

Who knew dinosaurs knew how to ski?

 

[soulman]

They used to fly around my area when I lived in Suffolk (UK) in the 90s and the local airbase was still USAF... they seem to be able to fly at about 5mph and you can't hear them coming. Apparently they are heavily armored and can take a huge amount of fire and keep going.

There are videos about them on YouTube that demonstrate their handling ability in slow flight and one example of the A-10 of a female pilot that was shot up so bad she was left without much of a vertical stabilizer and rudder and all that was left of one wing was a stub and yet she was able to fly it back to base and land safely. The cockpit is essentially a titanium steel bathtub to protect the pilot from small arms fire at the low altitudes required to fly ground support missions. They're a flying tank with a wicked gun.

 

[armyadarkness]

Exactly. This is the only place online I feel I won't be forced to defend myself after posting that. I think @soulman is right - the Sureme Court screwed up royally.

The gun lobby keeps saying: "It's not the gun, it's the user."

I agree.

But I ask them: "OK, given that, what do you propose that we do to keep people who should not own guns from getting them?"

Which is a fair question that follows logically from their stance that it's people who are the problem.

I have never, ever, received a coherent or thoughtful response. And that failure to acknowledge the need for meaningful action is a big part of the problem.

Agreed. People need to understand that it's okay to disagree. There's no need to go to war over opinions, and if "facts" are used, then the truth will reveal itself, with very little help from the sponsor.

Evidence is always conclusive, however, that doesn't mean that it's recognized... in fact, likely the opposite.

 

[soulman]

Agreed. People need to understand that it's okay to disagree. There's no need to go to war over opinions, and if "facts" are used, then the truth will reveal itself, with very little help from the sponsor.

Evidence is always conclusive, however, that doesn't mean that it's recognized... in fact, likely the opposite.

Amen brother, Amen.

 

[Andyman]

Agreed. People need to understand that it's okay to disagree. There's no need to go to war over opinions, and if "facts" are used, then the truth will reveal itself, with very little help from the sponsor.

Evidence is always conclusive, however, that doesn't mean that it's recognized... in fact, likely the opposite.

 

[Pilgrim]

Agreed. People need to understand that it's okay to disagree. There's no need to go to war over opinions, and if "facts" are used, then the truth will reveal itself, with very little help from the sponsor.

Evidence is always conclusive, however, that doesn't mean that it's recognized... in fact, likely the opposite.

Facts are often much more apparent than the willingness of those involved in discourse to accept those facts.

 

[soulman]

Facts are often much more apparent than the willingness of those involved in discourse to accept those facts.

Yup, as I've often said there are those like my former bride whose OS was often "don't confuse me with facts my mind's already made up".

 

[knuckledust3r]

A former coworker was the grandson of one of the foremen at Gibson Guitars in Kalamazoo. At the very end of production, right as Heritage Guitars was kicking off, he built this 3/4 scale Explorer for his infant grandson (my coworker).