[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/anl5zod0r6wd5pk/2017-06-10_22-24-18.png[/img]
[quote](HOUSTON) — A new warship named after former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded during a deadly 2011 shooting, has been put into active service following a commissioning ceremony in Texas.
During Saturday's ceremony in the Gulf Coast city of Galveston, Giffords told a crowd she was honored the ship will carry her name and the vessel is "strong and tough, just like her crew."
Various speakers, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said Giffords' strength and courage made her worthy of being the namesake of the Navy's newest ship.[/quote]
[url]http://time.com/4813851/uss-gabrielle-giffords-active-service-commissioned/[/url]
That's really cool. It's amazing that Giffords has made such a massive recovery, things seemed really grim back when she was first shot. I saw some hubbub on Facebook where conservatives were shitting on this story because she's "anti-gun".. Admittedly I don't know a lot about her policies but if I remember correctly she's not anti-gun at all, and even after being shot in the face all she suggested was that we enforce background checks for firearm purchases, never any actual hardware bans. Even putting that aside, whether she's pro or anti-gun, she got shot in the fucking face and came back from it. That alone seems like reason enough to name a ship after her.
If anyone has a [I]reason[/I] to be anti-gun, it's Ms. Giffords, but as far as I recall, she's never been anti-gun, only pushing for better background checks and stuff. This of course still agitates the loony paranoid far righters but nothing will ever make them happy.
I think she might be pro-AWB, but I really don't remember. Either way she's not a grabber.
Cool another incapable ship that we still don't know what to do with. The LCS program is such a dumpster fire it's embarassing. Aside from that good to know Giffords got a ship named after her, not many people take gunshots to the head and nake such a recovery
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52339379]If anyone has a [I]reason[/I] to be anti-gun, it's Ms. Giffords, but as far as I recall, she's never been anti-gun, only pushing for better background checks and stuff. This of course still agitates the loony paranoid far righters but nothing will ever make them happy.
I think she might be pro-AWB, but I really don't remember. Either way she's not a grabber.[/QUOTE]
They oppose better background checks because they're worried they'll be labeled as loons and not be given their God-given guns.
I shit you not. I've seen people argue against not letting people on the Terror Watch List because "what if they label [I]me[/I] as a terrorist?!"
I live in Galveston. This ship was parked across from my campus. Tried to go on the tour of it but the lines were insane and they were only open for 4 hours. They had to turn a bunch of people away. Galveston was crazy packed this weekend with all sorts of tourists, dignitaries, politicians, military officers, and the like. Even some celebrities.
Pretty cool to see it all in person.
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ta16;52339385]Cool another incapable ship that we still don't know what to do with. The LCS program is such a dumpster fire it's embarassing. Aside from that good to know Giffords got a ship named after her, not many people take gunshots to the head and nake such a recovery[/QUOTE]
It's a great looking ship, though.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52339432]They oppose better background checks because they're worried they'll be labeled as loons and not be given their God-given guns.
I shit you not. I've seen people argue against not letting people on the Terror Watch List because "what if they label [I]me[/I] as a terrorist?!"[/QUOTE]
what does that even mean? what is a "better background check"? lol
[QUOTE=Whibble;52339586]what does that even mean? what is a "better background check"? lol[/QUOTE]
Better sharing of crime and mental health data between state governments and the FBI. If it doesn't get put into the NICS that Joe Whackjob has been adjudicated mentally defective, or that A.J. Wifebeater has a misdemeanor domestic battery conviction, guess what? They can buy firearms. Not legally of course, they're still prohibited persons, but they'll slip through the cracks because they come back clean on the background check.
I know their design is more functional than anything else, but modern warships look so fucking [i]cool.[/i]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52339432]They oppose better background checks because they're worried they'll be labeled as loons and not be given their God-given guns.
I shit you not. I've seen people argue against not letting people on the Terror Watch List because "what if they label [I]me[/I] as a terrorist?!"[/QUOTE]
The problem most gun rights activist have is not so much a "terror watchlist" but rather quiet a few gun control advocates are asking for FBI watchlists and NSA watchlists to be used. Considering that neither of those lists have congressional oversight, it can literally turn into a game of disarming certain people because you do not like them or they protest at things like Occupy Wallstreet.
Background Checks as they stand, namely the 4473 and NCIS checks, are perfectly on-par for what we need. What we really need is to make this stuff easily accessible in such a way which would not violate the rights of individuals, while still being accessible so that people can do private trade and sales and have the ability to verify and individual as not being a criminal.
We should also get rid of the shitty system that disallows me to order firearms online and have them delivered to my household. Something which could be easily solved with a simple background check online, and videochat with customer support for a gunstore.
Even after all of this, most gun control comes down to really shitty attempts to either ban certain cosmetic features on weapons or making the hobby of shooting guns at a range to be feasible financially for those who make under $50,000 a year. Effectively, taking firearms away from the people who need them the most. The people who actually have to deal with the possibility of breakins.
Depending on how you look at statistics, such as myself, you can find these types of laws tend to push racism and classicism, by disproportionately effecting those in the lower-class, as well as hurting people of color in low-income areas.
[QUOTE=Ta16;52339385]Cool another incapable ship that we still don't know what to do with. The LCS program is such a dumpster fire it's embarassing. Aside from that good to know Giffords got a ship named after her, not many people take gunshots to the head and nake such a recovery[/QUOTE]
Aren't the independence class LCS less of a shitshow than the freedom class though?
And they've already dented it, bunch of numptys. :v:
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52340362]Aren't the independence class LCS less of a shitshow than the freedom class though?[/QUOTE]
i think there was some serious rust and structural issues involved with the catamarans
[QUOTE=OvB;52339477]It's a great looking ship, though.[/QUOTE]
They are, had a chance to meet up with some old friends and be on the USS Fort Worth (Before they broke down in Singapore and got stranded for like a year lol)
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52340362]Aren't the independence class LCS less of a shitshow than the freedom class though?[/QUOTE]
They're identical ships just different hull designs, I don't exactly remember the reason behind the decision to just make two totally separate hull types. I will note the Tri-hull type does have the advantage of being quieter to subs on sonar, our [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Victorious_(T-AGOS-19)"]Victorious class [/URL]ocean surveillance ships use a similar design for that reason. As Sableye pointed out though, they've had a myriad of problems with that hull type.
Originally the point behind the LCS was to replace our [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate"]OHP class frigates[/URL] with a similar ship that could easily swap out 'mission modules' at will, almost everything is in self contained cargo containers so they could just swap out modules to fix the job that needed to be done such as Mine Countermeasures (MCM), Surface Warfare etc.
The problem was and still is the fact that they don't do ANY of the mission areas it's suppose to cover well let alone anywhere nearly as well as the Frigates it replaced. It lacks any real AAW capabilities, it's surface capabilities are limited consisting of a 57mm and two 30mm guns (aft facing), they're testing out a bunch of different missiles but haven't really fully decided what they want to use, I think they shot a Harpoon AsHM off one awhile back. The class lacks any stand-off capability, easily out ranged by similar ship classes in most other modern navies.
So they scrapped the modules idea and now the plan is to group a mix of hulls into squadrons and each ship will be permanently dedicated to one specific mission area which hopefully will allow ships to be much better specialized, this will mean groups of these ships each with a hard specialization to tackle specific missions, they intend to continue to run them like subs doing dual crew setups and keeping them forward deployed.
A major problem with the whole thing is they went into this with module setups that weren't very well fleshed out and were pretty underwhelming and they still don't have a very clear way forward with the program. I mean people shit on my program (Zumwalt Class) but at least we have a plan and are doing a good job so far of executing it:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5ZDbele.jpg[/IMG]
I like the Zumwalt... I think it's an even better looking ship than the LCS ships. (I like Freedom, too). Future navy sure is going to look good even if it can't do it's job.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
