aramike

Zix, a couple of things: 1: The demo forum is where you get support for the demo. 2: This is the THIRD time you've been asked to update your sig. As a result, I've updated it for you. Topic moved to demo forum.

quote: What part of that do you NOT understand?I understand that more clearly than you, obviously. Regulation of rights is NOT infringement. By YOUR definition, we can't prohibit FELONS from owning weapons, either. I'm starting to wonder as to your qualifications in this argument. It seems EXTREMELY right wing and the facts seem skewed, if you will.

quote: Also, registration, aramike, you and I are going to argue this no matter what, you seem to feel that the 2nd amendment is inviolate, but it is not, when the 2nd amendment is given special treatment by liberal constitutional scholars, saying that the states have a right to regulate it, but do not have a right to regulate the 1st amendment, well, something is really wrong.Wrong. You don't understand the Constitution. I'll explain: The First Ammendment: quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Read the part in bold. The Second Ammendment: quote: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.The First Ammendment EXPLICITLY says that Congress can NOT impede the right to freedom of speech and religion. It CAN regulate freedom of speech and freedom of press, however - that's why the government can keep things CLASSIFIED. The second ammendment, however, does NOT say that. It simply says that the people's right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED. Forcing people to register guns is NOT an infringement of that right. [ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Epsilon 5: The speed problem was because of their ISP, not them. I doubt it. Bandwidth isn't the only thing that can bring a server to a crawl. That server they were using was rather low end.

quote: Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Back again, it' was a while back, but several people questioned my comparing US and UK crime statistics, as the US population is larger. I did actually bear that in mind before I posted. The population of the US is what? 150 million, 200 million? The UK is around 60 million. There has been ONE school shooting in the UK in the last 10 years or so. I can think of 5 or 6 such incidents in the US in the last 2 years alone. Now work out the figures. Sorry to burst your bubble, but school shootings aren't a large portion of US crime. They are simply more sensationalized than your street gang murders. quote: There are just plain too many people out there that can't keep their cool enough, to NOT draw their weapon and shoot someone.I'd be willing to bet that 99% of those people are criminals. They aren't supposed to own a gun anyway. quote: I have known far too many people that should never own a gun, to think that there aren't a heck of a lot more people just like them, who DO own guns. And that's what scares me. They do say that an armed society is a polite society. But it's also a violent, deadly society, because there are some people who are just too stupid to own something so easy to kill someone with.True, but you shouldn't ask ME to sacrifice MY rights just because the MINORITY of people can't handle their rights. quote: as people like me happy. The government makes a law that requires ALL people wanting to aquire a gun, take a 2 year course (once a week for an hour or two, no missing a class) on how to safely use and keep your gun (triple this for concealed). This course would have to be extremely cheap, otherwise it is economically prohibitive. Maybe I'm a little overboard on the 2 (6) years, but you get the idea. I may shock you, but I'm totally for this. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not against gun CONTROL. Except two years is a little overboard (as you've said). The problem is that anyone with a clean criminal record could walk into a gun shop today and own a weapon tomorrow or the next day. quote: Now, next, they issue a gun license (some places have these for heavier weapons, if I'm not mistaken). This license would have to be required for anyone to buy any gun. It would have to be renewed every, say...5 years, just like a driver's license (every year for concealed).Sounds fine by me. But to hell with concealed weapons. If people have weapons, they shouldn't hide it. quote: Now, in addition, manditory background checks for ALL purchasers. Manditory waiting periods of up to 2-3 weeks for ALL weapons (tripled if has concealed license). Felons are prohibited 100%. Any who use a firearm in a crime are felons (this is already in place). Any felon who uses a gun in a new crime, is (as Jaguar put it) put in jail and throw away the key (until technology gets to the point where we can edit their brain in such a way, that they'll never commit another crime with a firearm, pie in the sky). Manditory life sentence, no parole ever, maximum security prison.I'm fine with that too. In fact, anyone who uses a gun in an improper manner should be punished this way. quote: If the government would enact this, I, as a rather extremely anti-gun person, would be QUITE content, and none of you would hear another peep out of me about gun-control. I AM against registering what firearms an individual has. I am well aware of that problem. I suppose, I should explain what changed my opinion about all this. The right to keep and bear arms, as expressed by the second amendment to the Constitution, intends for a population to be able to defeat oppression (both internal and external) by keeping themselves armed. The reason firearms should be registered is that law enforcement can more easily track criminals. This helps in the right of safety for citizens by assisting law enforcement. Just because the government knows what guns you possess does not mean that you cannot use them. quote: Thus, IF the government requires things such as I stated above, I would be content. Because I would know that MANY less idiots would have firearms. Simply because it is far too complicated to get a firearm. Only those who really want it for the purpose intended, would stick it out for all that time. Of course, during the classes, they would have to stress the real purpose of firearms in our society, as well as how to use it safely.That's where I disagree. If a criminal wants a gun, he will get it. You know what the result of terribly heavy or overly strict regs would be? A black market. I mean, what if guns were as uncontrolled as drugs. I shudder to think about it.

Jaguar, in what brigade did that have full auto M16s? Also, when firing an assault rifle full auto, it isn't any more difficult to hit the target than firing bursts - one surely doesn't just hold the trigger and spray (an M16 would expel its ammunition too fast for that). As for why they changed the '16 to burst, it had nothing to do with hitting the target (the Army still employs OTHER full auto assault rifles). It had to do with the fact that GIs during Vietnam were expending their ammunition WAY too fast (the M16 has a very high rate of fire and a relatively low magazine capacity). Also, I'd challenge you to show me ONE Army doctrine that uses assault rifles for enemy suppression. That was what the M60 was for (and later, the M249 SAW and FN MAG). Assault rifles are useless for suppression because they do not have the ammunition capacity of a belt fed or box fed machine gun. As for D-Force requirements, now yer stretching. They don't let guys "try out" for that - Special Operations Detachment Delta is invite-only - as the government still doesn't officially acknowlede them. Their guys all come from other special forces squads such as the Rangers.

LOL!

quote: Actually, after reading the "HISTORICAL BASES [sic] OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" I've come to revise that view of mine and realize that it has a dual purpose where both you and I are correct Aramike.Thank you. I appreciate that there is someone here willing to research their opinions. quote: I'll never get away from that one now will I? I know he's right, you know he's right but who are we? Certainly we are not authorities on the subject at hand but there are authorities with concrete information that would allow each of the readers/posters here to rightly judge for themselves what the facts say.Heh, you were right - 85% of statistics DO come out of thin air. Just not that one. And, you're also right that people should research the topic. quote: This is the point I was trying to make on more than one occassionSo I read. That's why people should rely on per capita statistics, and, more importantly, TRENDS.

quote: You dont wanna be a FC, Zix. The works hard, the hours lousy, you get no appreciation for you efforts and as a rule, you should completely re-develope a new website every six weeks or so....and never finish it. Yeah, my intel guys are watching you, Blades. quote: I get it. But theres ne thing i still dont get. What is the purpose of CL's post.I don't get it either. Now, as for your signature, ZIX, a few things need to be noted: there are NO clans, here. You are NOT a clan leader. We have fleets and fleet leaders. All of the fleet leaders are long time contributers to the game and community. If you want a position of responsibility, you must work for it - asking won't do.

quote: Originally posted by Herro YuY: Im sorry Jaguar, but im gona have to disagree with you... Yes guns are tools, but they were made for only one purpose, to kill, whers a knife was made for more pratical reasons as stated above, to cut food or anyother use that you can think of that doesn't result in killing another human being. Don't get me wrong tho, but I haven't seen a gun being used for anyother reason then to kill except on the "simpsons" where homer uses his gun to open a beer can or to get a ball thats on the roof (Roflmao!) Unfortunately, it is not that simple. While what a gun does can kill, it doesn't mean that is what the tool is for. For example, when I look at a hammer, I see a tool used to build something, when in reality, all it is doing is whacking a nail. A gun is very similar - I see it as a tool to keep peace, defend (and SAVE) lives, etc., when in reality all the tool is doing is shooting a bullet. The tool known as a gun is like any other tool - it has a GOOD purpose and can be dangerous in the hands of certain people. A gun helps to keep our police safe, to keep my family secure, to keep peace in war torn areas. A knife? Helps to cook and kills people. I think the safety of good citizens and the peace of EVERYONE is more important. This is why guns should never be banned. Controlled? Yes. I do not have a problem with not allowing felons to own guns. I also do not have a problem with having to register firearms. But banned ... ridiculous.

There is an overuse of antibiotics. This is well documented. It is also the suspected cause for bacteria gaining strength, thus requiring larger doses to kill.

Heh, I just thought it was damned hilarious.

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... [Commlink Re-established.] ... [Connection Secured] ... Guess who just got ICQ? Heh, good. Send an authorization request to 61536295 please. Thanks.

LOL! That tank thing is a riot.

Jaguar - only one thing. I believe that it was little boy that was dropped first. Little Boy used an uranium core, while Big Boy used a plutonium core. Edit: Confirmed this at Britanica.com. Other than that, Jaguar, the post is right on.

Here's my take: you all are right, the stations do seem a tad too weak. However, if realism is your goal, interceptors are a tad too strong. A single, well placed missile should take one out - at least send it out of control.

Blades, you mind keeping your lemmings in your own forum? You wouldn't want me to POW anyone yet, I assume. E5, dammit, post conservatively in our forum if at all.

Oh, and Epsilon5 - are you trying to defect, or what? Do I have to lock down this forum to Insurgents only?

Menchise, if you wish, email me what you've got. I'll post it on my Web space. Eclipse, I'll just grab your work from ICQ. Btw, that reminds me - Menchise, you got ICQ? Time to get your comms online, commander.

Oh, boy... If Canada ever becomes part of the US, who will be left to make fun of?

Well, from what I recall about World War 2, the ONLY reason Hitler declared war on the US is the fact that their treaty with Japan required it. You can find this at britanica.com. Eclipse confirmed my thinking. The fact is, Hitler did not want to fight EITHER the British or the US - it was initially searching for peace accords with the British after Hitler invaded Poland. The British did not acceed to these accords, in part because Britain and Poland were allies.

Yep, if you wish, put it in your sig. Eclipse is currently working on a new incarnation. He has a couple already. In the next couple of days, we'll vote on which one to use.