The Brooks Ranches

User Profile: Lt_Scrounge


Member Since: November 14, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • August 26, 2014 at 10:08pm

    I don’t know about New Zealand or Mexican armies, but the US Army has these guys called “Jump Masters” who tell people when to exit the aircraft. When someone gets tangled up, they STOP the next guy and try to reel in the first one before he gets too hurt. I’d lay odds that the jumper in question failed to keep his elbow up to keep his static line from wrapping itself around his arm before he exited the plane. That can REALLY mess you up. The wind from the open doors tends to make the static lines whip around quite a bit so if you don’t keep it where it needs to stay, you can seriously injure yourself. One girl at jump school had it slip under her arm and it slammed against her bicep so hard that it disconnected her bicep at the elbow. She had to walk around jump school in a cast with her arm propped up at shoulder level. The instructors warned us all that it could happen so we needed to be careful. She wasn’t as careful as she needed to be, but the rest of us got VERY serious about it from there on out. It was a shame too since she was one of the women that we thought would make a good officer. She was smart, fit and on top of her game. Unlike so many of the others who were overweight and only there because they were told it would be good for them to go.

  • [1] August 26, 2014 at 9:47pm

    Firing automatic weapons is fun and can be safe, but you have to be smart about it and neither her parents, nor the instructor were.

  • [2] August 26, 2014 at 9:45pm

    It really depends on the child and the weapon. There are ways to teach a child that young how to fire an automatic weapon, especially something like an Uzi. It involves standing BEHIND them and holding the weapon for them while they operate the trigger. That, or teaching them to fire it from either the prone or seated supported position. Basically have them either lying down behind it, or sitting behind it with the firearm resting on sand bags. Even then, depending on their size, I would probably have on hand on the weapon to make sure it stayed pointed in a safe direction. Some parents are idiots though and some instructors aren’t much better. Keep in mind that there are thousands of 10 year olds running around Africa and the Middle East toting much harder recoiling AK-47s.

  • [4] August 26, 2014 at 4:27pm

    And heaven forbid we give the thugs a little old fashioned street justice. I’m sure that more than a handful of Marines would love to stop by those two restaurants and give the thugs responsible a little payback. For that matter, I would bet that more than a few soldiers, sailors, and airmen would be more than happy to help.

  • [6] August 26, 2014 at 4:23pm

    You know how to stop this crap? Take the convicted assailants out to the public square and reintroduce the whipping post. 50 lashes will end it. No jail time, just 50 lashes with a bull whip across the back. If you want to be a real sadist, throw some salt on the wounds to act as a topical antiseptic. (Which it is) It will take ages to heal and act as a constant painful reminder as to why you don’t assault strangers. Seeing their gangsta buddies crying and soiling their drawers from the pain will greatly discourage his pals from ever doing it again either. Nothing destroys a tough guy bully like public humiliation.

  • [1] August 26, 2014 at 4:15pm

    They had ordered dash and uniform cameras but hadn’t received them yet.

  • [2] August 26, 2014 at 4:11pm

    How about we base it on the evidence, and not the testimony of a wanted felon? The evidence indicates that Brown was shot from the front. It also indicates vertical stringing of the shots which is indicative of someone firing very rapidly or at an advancing target, or both. A pause in the firing is an indication that the officer was checking to see if his first volley was effective in stopping Brown. This is normally against policy since a break in firing allows the subject to possibly advance to an unsafe distance. There is no manner by which a round fired at brown could enter the top of his head and exit the bottom other than if he were advancing towards the officer with his head down. Unless of course the officer is in a helicopter. Due to the history of injured felons attacking and disarming police officers, officers are now taught to keep firing until the subject is on the ground. It can take over 2 minutes for the brain to shut down following a fatal gunshot wound to anything but the central nervous system. Sometimes longer depending on the adrenalin level of the victim or what other substances may be in their blood stream. A 6’3″+, 290+ lb violent thug with possibly drugs in his system is highly unlikely to go down after being shot once anywhere but the head. Even unarmed, Brown was potentially lethal due to nothing but his size, that did not change because he had been shot in the arm.

  • [3] August 26, 2014 at 3:58pm

    He was carrying a 40 S&W Sig 229. Lower muzzle velocity than a 9mm so the report is slightly lower in pitch. You might be right about the sound being spliced in though. The race baiting cretins are certainly capable of such fraud. By all standards, until proven otherwise, this was a good shoot. It’s a damn shame that the kids parents couldn’t be bothered to raise him to actually respect other people, and their property as well as law enforcement officers, but they didn’t and he paid the price.

  • August 22, 2014 at 5:55pm

    I know that the DoD doesn’t shepherd its money well, I’ve seen how the system encourages waste. The entire spend it or lose it situation is ludicrous and completely opposite what goes on in the corporate world when it comes to financial responsibility.

    The fact remains that the bulk of federal government spending is NOT authorized by the Constitution. It says PROVIDE for the common defense, and PROMOTE (not provide) for the general welfare. Under the Constitution, military spending is authorized but all of the welfare programs are not. The BULK of the US budget SHOULD be on Defense, but defense is less than half of the budget.

  • August 22, 2014 at 5:49pm

    The quickest and most sure fire way to bring down the cost of college is to pay professors based on the number of students in their classes. It would eliminate the worthless (Insert your minority of choice here) studies classes and get people studying things that have a real use in the world outside of academia. If you stop paying professors a six figure income to work about 12 hours a week teaching a handful of students who have no hope of finding a job outside of the federal government, you will save a fortune at the average large university. If you eliminate 20 such professors, you will save a university with 10,000 students over over $3 million dollars when you include taxes and benefits, or the equivalent of over $300 per student. That doesn’t include the substantial costs of maintaining and operating the office and classroom space that they occupy.

  • August 8, 2014 at 2:52pm

    Those countries also have societies unlike other western nations.
    Those include:
    Minimal minority populations
    High work ethics
    Low percentages of the population living on the public dole
    High educational expectations (Dropping out of high school isn’t acceptable unless you are already an internet entrepreneur.)
    Those societies also do not glorify unwed mothers or subsidize their becoming so.

    If you eliminate those factors from other western nations, they are no better than we are. But when you have major segments of the population that have no qualms about committing crimes, dropping out of school, living on the public dole, or any other manner of being a parasite on the public teat, you have higher crime rates, more pregnant teens, and lower standards of living. With the importation via executive fiat millions more members of those segments of the population, you will be seeing the overall standard of living for all but the wealthy dropping even further.

  • August 8, 2014 at 2:42pm

    Things are going to get interesting very soon. As soon as people realize the full implications of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case, some attorneys are going to get really wealthy taking these atheists to court. Atheists are NOT exercising a right, they are unconstitutionally violating the rights of others. The Constitution does NOT guarantee that someone will not be exposed to someone of a differing faith. It DOES guarantee that that person will be allowed to exercise that faith according to their own choosing. Of course some things are illegal whether done in a religious context or not simply because of the extreme harm that they do to others, but praying and giving discounts isn’t among them.

    What I am waiting to see is the atheists speaking out against all of the accommodations that are being made for the Muslims in this country. Funny how they won’t say a thing to people who will not only take them to court, but might take them out behind the wood shed as well.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 8, 2014 at 2:35pm

    The first amendment of the Constitution reads “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, OR RESTRICTING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…” The letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Congregation that contained the phrase “separation of church and state” was written to allay the fears of the congregation that the government would interfere in their religious rites. It was NOT to tell them to **** out of politics. In fact, (IIRC) it was James Madison who said that the Constitution was only adequate to govern a moral people, for it was inadequate to govern an immoral one, nor could one be written that could be. The first amendment was not in the Constitution to protect the government from religious influence, it was put there to protect religions from the governmental control. They really need to start teaching history again. Half of the people in this country are too poorly educated as to realize that over half of the original colonies were founded as enclaves for one religious sect or another. Georgia was a penal colony. They are also so intolerant of others that they will happily violate the rights of others just because they don’t want to see someone else engage in something that they don’t believe in.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] August 8, 2014 at 2:25pm

    Here’s a thought. How about a few dozen Christian business owners file a class action suit against the “Freedom From Religion” group for violating their Constitutional rights? The Constitution does NOT guarantee that an atheist will not be exposed to Christians exercising their faith, but it does say that no law shall be passed that restricts the free exercise of religion. Hence any law that the “Freedom of Religion” foundation might try to sue under, would be unconstitutional if it prevents someone from exercising their religion as they see fit. This business owner feels that she is being lead to offer those who exercise their faith a discount. To deny her that right is to deny her her right to freely exercise her religion. Therefore the “Freedom from religion” ******** are in fact violating HER rights and should be taken to court for their actions. Seeing as they have a long history of engaging in this kind of discriminatory activity, a hefty settlement with punitive damages into the tens of millions is in order.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] August 2, 2014 at 9:51pm

    True, but I think what the article is trying to point out is that some of the worst offenders had more cost effective travel available but opted to stick the taxpayer for the cost of a charter instead.

    Considering the number of days that the Senate takes off annually, I doubt that there is anything so pressing that the senators from New York can’t spend an hour more on a commercial flight than a charter might save them. Because of the size of Texas, Cruz might have no choice but to take a charter since parts of the state are over a 2 hour drive from the nearest airport with commercial service on a regular basis. The major nearest airport with regular commercial traffic is over 2 hours away. The nearest county airport is less than 30 minutes away. Flying a charter into there might save 6 or more hours over flying commercial into DFW and driving the rest of the way depending on where you are departing from and returning to. That could be the difference between actually getting to a town hall meeting or having to cancel it. Just driving from Houston to Texarkana would take over 7 hours but a charter would get you there in 1-2 hours depending on the plane involved. BTW Houston and Texarkana are both on the eastern side of Texas. It would take a Gulfstream or a Lear jet to make it from El Paso to Texarkana without having to stop to refuel.

  • [2] August 2, 2014 at 9:34pm

    I can understand why Cruz might need to use a charter. Texas is huge. Where I live it’s over 2 hours to the nearest major airport. Even the small Texarkana one is over an hour away by car. Some places are even further. Regional airports are about the only way to get around this state if you need to get anywhere in a hurry. El Paso is almost 100 miles further from Houston than Paris, France is from Berlin, Germany. By pure acreage, Texas is larger than the country of France. If Cruz is supposed to represent his constituents, he sort of needs to get out and talk to them.

  • [12] August 2, 2014 at 9:14pm

    My thoughts exactly. Simply pull the curtains aside so you can keep giving the police an update on your location.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] August 2, 2014 at 9:12pm

    And some of us are smart enough to not take a pop gun to a gun fight if we can avoid it. A larger caliber handgun would’ve fired directly through the front of the trailer and into the cab of the truck. Of course an even more fun approach would’ve been to simply sit back and wait for them to stop and come into the trailer. At that point, a 12 gauge pump would’ve had the first they say it, then they do it effect. Nothing better than sending a pair of thieves to jail for booking with their pants full of the brown and smelly.

  • August 2, 2014 at 7:11pm

    He may be a pitbull, but his underlings at DoJ would be lapdogs to the liberals. There in lies the problem with the DoJ. It has been progressively overrun with liberals who are next to impossible to get rid of and who will refuse to actually investigate and prosecute a fellow liberal. They care not for justice or their country, only their political agenda. Research how the DoJ and the EPA are colluding with environmental whacko groups to implement regulations without congressional approval or public input through a method called “Sue and Settle”. Whackos at the EPA are passing desired regulations that wouldn’t pass muster in front of Congress to the whacko groups to sue the EPA for not implementing and the DoJ settles the suit out of court for exactly what the whackos want without any defense and the regulations are then implemented as a court order. A court order that can then not be challenged or overturned as it was an agreed to settlement. It’s time for a special counsel that has the power to bring RICO charges and use civil forfeiture actions against numerous EPA, DoJ and various environmental group officials. See how fast the EPA and DoJ crowd start giving up names when it’s THEIR home and bank accounts that have been confiscated. See how fast the Environmental whackos decide that maybe they were wrong about their positions when it’s their bank accounts and offices that are confiscated and THEY are forced to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them back.

  • August 2, 2014 at 7:00pm

    He would need to fire over half of the Dept. Like most governmental depts, it’s been staffed with rabid liberals who are guided not by a sense of honor, or integrity, but by a sense of what will advance their political agenda. As each liberal administration comes in, they hire more liberal bureaucrats who then use their positions to force out an conservatives working there. They then fill those positions with more liberals. Unfortunately with the public employee unions and the civil service laws, it is nearly impossible to get rid of them for anything other than theft. Look at how many bureaucrats have been caught downloading and watching porn at work with NOTHING being done. Private sector employees are almost always fired for doing that. They MAY get a warning the first time they’re caught, but are fired immediately the second time. Government workers don’t even consider it as unacceptable behavior.

123 To page: Go