>>4412086 (pb)

Exactly. You need some regulation, quality control etc. but it has gotten to the point with the FAR that it is an obvious attack aimed at crippling our ability to unleash the beast that is American innovation.

Our enemies can maneuver (in an acquisition perspective) so much faster than us it gives them a distinct advantage.

So I started asking why “knowingly” hamstring your military in this manner? The only answer is anti-American corruption.

>>4412183

This may seem obvious, but to call the FAR an anti-American denial-of-service attack on our military is definitely not even hinted at in the community.