billytran

Hmm, America has a violence problem? Only in the places with the strictest gun control, like Washington DC, LA, Maryland, etc. The states with lax gun controls have lower crime rates. That link Denoir provided is a bunch of BS. It lists rates of crimes committed with guns, not actual violent crime stats. Did you know that Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the US? The site also says that 10 kids a day are killed by guns... wrong. In order to get 10 kids a day you need to include everyone under 25, and the majority of those 10 are people with a criminal history. The site goes on to say that you're more likely to shoot someone from your family than an intruder. That's wrong again, there are over 2 million defensive gun uses each year in the US. The number of accidental gun deaths is lower than the number of drownings, falls, or poisoning. For an alternative to the anti-gun site listed by Denoir, go to http://www.guncite.com There's nothing wrong with a bank giving away guns, so long as they do background checks and such. No one in their right mind is going to rob a bank that is practically a gun store. That "Brief History of the US" was a whole lot of lies. It basically asserts that all gun owners are racists. Wrong. The 2nd Amendment was put in to protect against a tyrannical government, not to keep the slaves in check. The KKK was formed by a bunch of Confederate officers after the war. The NRA was formed by Union officers. Yeah, I'm sure they liked eachother a whole lot. You can buy fully automatic weapons in the US. It takes a long background check and the approval of your local Chief of Police. Owners of fully automatic weapons are very law abiding. In the past fifty years only one or two people have been killed by legally owned machine guns. And crimes with illegal machineguns are extremely rare since it's hard to convert a gun to full auto.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Oct. 17 2002,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Oct. 17 2002,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ANyway, this is going to make Bush look reealy stupid, or in his case, reealy reealy stupid.<span id='postcolor'> Nope, this is gonna make him feel stupid : <span id='postcolor'> Go here

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Oct. 03 2002,02:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush killed 5000 people in Afghanistan, lets kill him <span id='postcolor'> No he didn't, those studies (and I use that term loosely) were based on articles in Indian and Pakistani newspapers. More accurate studies, using information gathered from the actual sites in Afghanistan, show that the death toll was much lower. Back on the subject, though... I think the arms inspections will be ineffective. They've already negotiated to have Saddam's presidential palaces placed off-limits to the inspectors. Just like last time, the inspectors will be denied access to military bases because they're "presidential palaces."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 30 2002,21:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 30 2002,21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America also gave the world the lightbulb, Coca-Cola (how many other soft drinks can be bought in almost every country?), Mcdonalds (cheap, tasty food available almost anywhere in the world), nuclear power, space travel, and electricity (kind of).<span id='postcolor'> First Human Being in Space: Yuri Gagarin As well as other things like longest duration spaceflight, longest lasting space station and a slew of other records for space flight also held by Russia/USSR.<span id='postcolor'> d'oh! I should've put "to the moon"

America also gave the world the lightbulb, Coca-Cola (how many other soft drinks can be bought in almost every country?), Mcdonalds (cheap, tasty food available almost anywhere in the world), nuclear power, space travel, and electricity (kind of).

I think this one will be better. You've got Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal this time, and he's really good. Plus Edward Norton's in it and he's a great actor too.

Maybe a static F-22 would be cool for sabotage missions where you sneak into the enemy base to destroy their aircraft. But a flying F-22 would be kinda useless.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Sep. 25 2002,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sadly with Bush putting a blanket ban on stem cell research, his odds of making a good recovery are minimal. He voiced his objections in several papers, it made for good reading.<span id='postcolor'> I don't think it was a blanket ban, I think President Bush just cut Federal funding from it. If you want to do stem cell research, fine, you just can't use taxpayer money.

I've read the new Clancy book, Red Rabbit. I thought it was pretty good but didn't like the way it ended. I won't spoilt it for you though. I'd recommend it. BTW, Jack Ryan never became head of the CIA, he became President of the USA.

Do you know how to make motorcycles? We need a lot more of those. It would need some fast acceleration, since motorcycles get going real quick. As for cars... how about some new cars for stunts: -Dodge Viper -Mazda RX-8 -Ferrari 456M GT And we need some trucks, how about a Ford F-150 or a Toyota Tundra?

I got the 140m distance by ordering one of my men to move one grid box ahead. If it's 128m per square than that would mean 3.2 squares equal a quarter mile, which would definitely make the times more accurate. The way I measure is I line the front of the car up with the start flag. Then I hold down the acceleration key until the car crosses the finish. My times are probably a little skewed because I'm just using the ingame watch... but some of Mehanic's cars are definitely faster than others. Munger, you're probably right about the XJ-220. I had it mistaken for another model. My guess is that it would be on par with the Ferraris.

I used the sub-squares that you see when you zoom in (the ones with double letter, double number coordinates. I found that each of those is approximately 140m, then converted that to imperial and calculated the 1/4 mile distance. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in America most drag races are 1/4 mile.

I did some calculations on distances in OFP, and found that 2.9 map squares on Nogova are equal to a 1/4 mile. So, I set up a flag on the Nogova runway at 1/4 mile, and raced all of the vehicles. Most of them were waaaaaayyyy too fast. On the scale: 10.5 seconds All Ferraris - pretty realistic Aston Martin Vanquish -also realistic BMW Z3 - Way off, should be about 14 seconds Jaguar XJ-220 - Realistic, but really ought to be around 11-12 seconds 11 Seconds BMW M3 - Should be about 13 seconds BMW M5 - Realistic 60's Camaro and Mustang - Should be 15-16 seconds Dodge Challenger - I'd say it's realistic because this car probably has a hemi or something under the hood. Lincoln LS & Boss Hogg - Should be around 16-17 seconds Mazda 6 - Should be around 15 seconds Mehanic's SUV's (Jeep, Tahoe, etc.) - Way, way off, should be around 19-20 seconds. 13 Seconds OFP Cars - These regular old cars run the same time that a brand new Camaro or Mustang runs. That's fast! 15 Seconds The Bus - This is one fast bus, most buses would have 1/4 mile times in the mid to high twenties. 5t Trucks - Also very fast, should be in the twenties. We've got some fast cars in this game!!!

Major Richard Franklin, 101st Airborne, was racing to get his AH-64 Apache into Tora Bora. Just minutes before, the Colonel had ordered him to provide support for some of his fellow Screaming Eagles. When Franklin heard the words, "downed helicopter" his heart nearly stopped. It always hurts to hear about your fellow pilots going down. Franklin had a full load of Hellfires, FFAR's, and of course his trusty 30mm cannon. Franklin's chopper, along with the other two flanking him, screamed in over the hilltops in a wedge formation. "We got smoke up ahead," reported Franklin's gunner, Warrant Officer Dan McClay. The three Apaches made a quick circle of the area. The smoldering UH-60 was surrounded by AQ and Taliban fighters. "McClay, light 'em up with a Hellfire!" ordered Franklin. The missile streaked to the ground and exploded, vaporizing the Black Hawk and the fighters around it. Franklin's wingman, Lieutenant Bell came over the radio, "I can't see any of our boys... wait... there's a lot of guys under that ridge over there... they look like ours but they don't seem to be moving." Bell's chopper swooped over the men before his voice came back over the radio, "They're ours sir, but they're all dead." Franklin felt like a failure, how could he have been late? "Wait a minute, I see a couple guys running down that valley over there, they look like ours sir... SHIT!!! WE GOT AT LEAST A HUNDRED TALIBAN!!! They're about fifty yards up from our boys!!!" "Fire at will gentleman, let's not lose these guys too," ordered Franklin. The other two Apaches fired off salvos of FFAR's as McClay opened up with the 30mm.

How about a Mazda RX-8? Please, Please, Please!?!?!?!?

I was in second period when the planes hit, of course I had no clue that it happened. The moment the principal at my high school found out about it he disconnected the cable television and internet access (except for teachers), then sent out a message to all teachers that under no circumstances were they to talk about it. Incidentally, my principal's last name is Nutt, which is quite fitting. Luckily, the people in weight training were watching TV as it happened so the information slowly got out from them. I didn't hear about it until fourth period. My friend told me "Jeez, everybody in the hallways is talking about some planes hitting the World Trade Center." I thought it was some kind of joke, but then as class started my teacher announced that we were under attack. She thought it was bullshit to hide this huge news from us. I learned that the WTC towers were gone and that the Pentagon had been hit. My mind started racing... my uncle is a Captain in the Navy and he worked in the Pentagon. Through the rest of the day, my only source of information was from teachers who got it from the internet. The whole time, I was worried about my uncle. When I got home, I saw the footage on TV of the planes hitting and the towers collapsing and I just thought, "Oh shit this is bad." My mom told me that my uncle worked in the section that was hit, but that he had left the day before to inspect a submarine... so he was safe. For the next couple of hours and for the next week I was glued to the TV.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Sep. 11 2002,00:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 10 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if civilians were killed, its the Taliban's fault for using them as human shields.<span id='postcolor'> I want you to have the guts to go up to the victims families and tell that in their face. I would put your life expectancy at about 10s after saying that.<span id='postcolor'> It's the Taliban's fault, not ours. How can you blame the American military for bombing huge clusters of Taliban troops?

The guy that compiled the report on Afghan Civilian casualties didn't post his methods of research. I did a search for his name and came up with this article in which he says that he relied on Indian, Pakistani, and Afghan Islamic Press newspapers. I really don't think that's very reliable information. Even if civilians were killed, its the Taliban's fault for using them as human shields.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 08 2002,23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, I know this is pretty a pretty extreme statement, and I do not necessarily agree 100% with it myself, but it is worth to think about. The bombing of Afganistan killed far more civilians then the WTC attacks. Who is really the bad guy then?<span id='postcolor'> Bullshit, prove it. Show me a reliable source where it says that the US killed more civilians in Afghanistan.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Sep. 10 2002,00:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 09 2002,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fox News, they're the only non-liberal news channel.<span id='postcolor'> what a stupid remark. Lets try this one. Fox News Channel is a tool of the GOP, that grubs for ratings by pandering directly to the conservative party line, while at the same time claiming that they are an unbiased news source. I turned it on last night, and they were STILL bitching about Clinton! I mean COME ON! Its been almost 3 years since he left, and you fuckin republicans just cant let it go, can you?<span id='postcolor'> I find Fox to be unbiased in their reporting of the news. Their commentary may be conservative, but they don't put a slant on every little thing like CNN does. What's wrong with reporting about Clinton? The guy is still in the news. The recent evidence that Bin Laden was offered to Clinton by the Sudan government is one thing that comes to mind. Once a president leaves office, you can count on him being in the news for years to come.

Fox News, they're the only non-liberal news channel.

Yeah, Patton was an asshole, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a brilliant General. He'd attack the Germans with no air support and three quarters strength and still whip their tail. Patton's losses were a lot lower than Zhukov's. The Russians lost millions of men in their fight against Germany, does that say "good tactics" to you? If they didn't have the strength in numbers they would've lost badly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 07 2002,01:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If your having Monty and Co., I'm having Zhukov. Look at the list of battles he won, he never lost, he was a genious! He defended Moscow, I think he had soemthing to do with Lenningrad, he was in control of the battle of Stalingrad in the later phases, he won the battle of Kursk, and of course, conquered Berlin. Another dude, Rommel. Rommel was genius. If he had had all the equiptment and men he needed, he would have kicked the allies back into the sea.<span id='postcolor'> Zhukov wasn't that smart, all he did was throw lots and lots of men at the Germans. And Rommel got his ass handed to him by Patton. Patton would attack with only three quarters of the strength of the Germans and win, and that's with inferior tanks. I'll take Patton any day. The man I really want to talk to, however, is Thomas Jefferson. I want to see what he would think of the world today.

Why do people need a carbine? Just look at the LA riots. Several Korean shopowners stood on top of their stores with AK's to defend against the many rioters who were trying to kill them and loot their stores. During hurricanes, floods, and other emergencies people have defended themselves and their property against criminals trying to take advantage of a crisis situation. I claimed that the nationwide crime rate went down because the majority of the states eased up on gun control. That caused a nationwide downturn in violent crime. There are other states with large urban areas that have lax gun control and low crime. Look at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, etc. Virginia is right next to "gun-free" Washington DC and has lax controls; yet, it has a much lower crime rate. You claim that gun control lowers crime, which might be said for California, but does not hold true for the rest of the US. Most of the statistics listed under the individual states were taken right from crime reports published by the states. You cannot ignore that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A forward grip provides more accuracy? Â I guess that's why most precision rifles have forward grips... oh wait, no they don't. Â Even if it did help with accuracy, would you want to ban a gun because it's accurate? Â And a folding stock can only hurt your accuracy. Â A flimsy plastic or wire stock is not as solid as a fixed stock. Â You ignored all of the other features. <span id='postcolor'> so US army, with it's M4 variations with folding stocks is compromising accuracy, right? instead of making me explain rest of the features why don't you do that? your responds has been shorter and shorter and more defensive. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rimfire .22 pistols happen to be used a lot in crimes. Â They are also generally cheap. Â So the California law which tried to ban cheap guns failed. Â The assault weapons ban had no effect on crime because the scary looking guns aren't used in all that many crimes. Â So basically California's gun control laws couldn't have had any effect on the crime.<span id='postcolor'> yes, they are cheap, around 250 bucks but not as cheap as SNSs who ran about 70-150 bucks. another sign that you don't understand my post shows here. SNSs, along with its cheap price was easily concealable and was favorites of criminals for that matter. THAT's why it was banned. you constantly argue that gun contorl doesn't work, but crime rate reduction says it all. also, the link you provided is basically from biased source. it's same as Al Qaeda saying america is wrong by quoting from PLO site. <span id='postcolor'> The US Army is compromising its accuracy for a lighter weight weapon. They shortened the barrel and added a collapsing stock so that it could be easily wielded in an urban setting. California's law did not ban SNS's. It tried to, but it failed. If you look on the California DOJ site you will find several types of SNS's. Therefore you cannot claim that it had any effect on crime rates. The reduction in crime rate began after states started easing up on gun controls and allowing concealed carry of weapons. The states with the most lax gun controls have the lowest crime rates. You just can't refute that. The link I provided uses information from published law enforcement reports and surveys done by nationally accredited scholars.