sburke

We'd really like some pics of vehicles blowing up. Tell your men to get to work, fireballs, explosions, flame, smoke..you get the idea.

You mean when other player's men run away right? Your men don't do that. Just clarifying.

Absolutely not, and don't even consider surrendering yet. You still have a shot.

LOL I think it has to do with a previous story of 2 overly polite AA tank commanders.

Yeah really, I might not have minded if the hornet's had at least correctly identified their attacker. Unfortunately I must have looked guiltier.

I first learned the difference when some "friend" of mine took it into his head to chuck a horseshoe at a hornet's nest with no warning when I was not more then 25" away from it.

Make sure to expand your map to the expected size of the overlay otherwise it may end up so distorted you can't really tell what you are seeing.

I get that feeling every April 15th. For those of you outside the US- that is tax day.

How could it do that, it's flat.

I have only one question- what the hell is with the hay bales? Is someone trying to spell something in that field for Allied pilots. Maybe this was a field visited by Tom Hanks in Castaway.

They are both nice, but this one is a beauty. Nice camera eye.

Thanks Rambler, very interesting article. While I don't think it fundamentally alters the character of the civil rights movement, it certainly points out the complexity of the issue. Before anyone gets too ruffled, the red neck crackers comment was about those opposing the civil rights movement. My buddy here votes democratic and has 16k rounds of ammo. Go figure. However all these citations point to one glaring fact. Having an armed populace, far from being this bastion for protecting democracy is very much a two edged sword. To restate my view though, I don't think gun control is an answer to the level of violence in our society. I don't understand this love of firearms many of my fellow Americans have, but I think it is a distraction not an answer.

You had me up to cocaine. Heroin though would lead to the umm... plugger? not following through on their job. They would likely instead stand next to the leak and see if they could match the stream while they urinate.

The civil rights movement forced the government to act. That they required guns in Little Rock was simply because a bunch of white red necked crackers were armed to the teeth. Same ones who keep crying about their supposed second amendment rights which they can't even seem to read. Again for you gun advocates who keep flouting how an armed populace is required to defend freedom- it took government force of arms to force that same bunch of armed morons to back off and defend the rights of a minority- the supposed whole point of being a republic. Geez do you even have any idea how flawed your logic is? Wasn't the point of the populace being armed to protect freedom? Christ do I really need to point that out to you? But no, the government desegregating one school does not suddenly change the fact that it was unarmed men and women mostly young (and black- amazing eh) braving the established authority and an armed hostile white population that forced the government to stop segregation. Remember Rosa Parks?- no gun. No I am not too dense and I entirely agree. I would never ever want to be equated to you. Jeez dude do you really think I would want any association to someone who adheres to such fruitcake bigoted ridiculously poorly informed ideals as you have espoused on this thread alone? Don't flatter yourself. Here you go, it seems you have forgotten most of the major events of the civil rights movement and focused on one government intervention to stop the armed populace from undermining our freedoms. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The African-American Civil Rights Movement encompasses social movements in the United States whose goal was to end racial segregation and discrimination against black Americans and enforce constitutional voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South. The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts such as the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–56) in Alabama; "sit-ins" such as the influential Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina; marches, such as the Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities. Noted legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[1] that banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to take action. You are welcome

That grade school response is beneath you. And you are wrong. Though I am white, I consider the civil rights movement to be one of the culminating moments of the realization of our highest ideals- and that was primarily non violent. Armed force rarely brings justice, just a new breed of despots. America has played that role often enough for anyone with even one iota of knowledge about our history. Does that make us any worse than any one else - nope. It however also means we aren't so much better than everyone else as you seem to feel. I think you've read one too many Superman comic books.

I actually had hoped I had read it wrong and originally abstained from replying to it. However unfortunately while he never used the word Gene, he certainly implied it. I think your example is a good one for showing the issue is a lot more complex. Not that it matters, Mord is right. This really isn't going anywhere and isn't the place for this anyway. Yes I say that as a total sop so that Mord doesn't deny me the pleasure of more unit icons. Yes I am completely craven when it comes to my CM mods. Mord feel free to use that in your sig.

What level of fog? When checking this out for GL I found a very wide range depending on time of day and fog setting. In playing around with an urban setting I even have it that you can barely see across a narrow street. Some settings appear to have a negligible impact. It's is really hard to visually tell, only using the LOS tool can give you some perspective. If that vehicle was visible at 500m I expect your fog setting is really light.

Features versus behavioral changes...it's a thin line. I wouldn't take anything said previously as an absolute. BF seems definitely to be still finding their way on the new support model and how Modules/patches/upgrades and what not all fit together.

Interestingly enough it is the subject of an article in the American Journal of Medicine- a known liberal hotbed. My highlight http://news.yahoo.com/more-guns-equal-more-deaths-study-finds-130400565.html Places with higher gun ownership rates also have higher firearms-related deaths, a new study finds. In the study, published today (Sept. 20) in the American Journal of Medicine, researchers analyzed gun ownership rates, crime rates and deaths from firearms across 27 developed countries around the world. "The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rates and also has the highest rate of firearm-related deaths," said study co-author Dr. Sripal Bangalore, a cardiologist at the New York University School of Medicine. Despite the prevalence of high-profile mass shootings, such as the recent Navy shipyard shooting, where the attacker showed signs of mental illness, the prevalence of mental illness in a society is only weakly correlated with gun-related deaths. Contentious issue Gun rights advocates argue that having more guns in society makes people safer by deterring crime and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against would-be attackers. Gun control proponents argue that guns lead to more violence, not less. Past studies have shown that gun owners are much likelier to be shot with their own weapons than they are to use it to thwart a crime. Other research has shown that gun laws are linked with lower rates of firearms deaths. But teasing apart causal factors can be difficult: After all, more people may feel compelled to purchase a gun in a crime-ridden neighborhood, but that doesn't mean the guns themselves cause the violence. And states that pass gun control measures may simply have different cultures than those that enshrine gun rights in their laws. Cross-country analysis After several high profile shootings, such as the Newtown, Conn., school shootings, Bangalore and his colleagues wanted to see whether guns actually make people safer, or whether inadequately treated mental health issues played a role. The team looked at the fraction of people who owned guns across 27 developed nations, including the United States, Switzerland, Finland, Australia and Japan. Gun ownership was lowest in Japan and highest, by far, in the United States. Gun ownership rates were strongly correlated with higher death rates from firearms. In contrast, the incidence of major depression was only weakly linked to firearms-related deaths. (Data on other conditions such as schizophrenia were not widely available.) And crime didn't seem to be correlated at all with gun ownership rates. That suggests purchasing a gun doesn't have an effect on overall crime rates, which include both violent and non-violent crimes. "We can show that guns don't make a nation safer," Bangalore told LiveScience. The study "provides some very convincing evidence that firearms-related deaths are very strongly correlated with prevalence of guns," said Dr. Eric Fleegler, a health services researcher at Boston Children's Hospital, who was not involved in the study. Causation difficult Still, it's difficult to say that gun ownership actually causes more gun violence. The current study lumped together suicides and homicides. And countries are very different. "There are many factors that could influence both gun ownership and homicide rates," said Dr. Michael Siegel, a community health researcher at Boston University School of Public Health, who has separately found that states with more guns have higher murder rates. One clue for causality comes from Australia, where tighter restrictions on gun ownership were instituted in 1996 and gun-related deaths fell dramatically, Bangalore said. But the only way to untangle the links between gun ownership and violence is to do studies that track both over time, and that research has been limited because the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health don't fund gun violence research, Siegel told LiveScience.

My first reaction was yes. That was an emotional knee jerk reply. Fortunately I shut my trap before replying. Hey once in a while I do exercise some discretion - it's a fluke don't get used to it. The problem with statistics is you can usually make them say anything you want. Understanding what they mean and figuring out a course of action based on them is a lot trickier. Is the disproportionate amount of gun violence in America amongst young men in minority communities? Undoubtedly yes. Is the Third World more violent than the First World, again yes. So what is the point? You could draw the conclusion that non European society and culture were more intrinsically violent.... or as Jason seems to indicate - Latin Americans and Africans. I didn't say you'd be right, I just said you could. Or you could suggest that poverty is one major aspect of violence. Jason threw out a couple bizarre examples of poverty not leading to that. Exceptions don't prove a rule, generally they indicate that the rule has other variables. He also used China as an example- how you get reliable statistics out of China I have no idea. I guess if they suit your purpose you don't question that. Not to mention it is one of the most regimented societies on the planet. You could probably use that to make an argument FOR gun control. Statistics in India on violence? I think I'd have the same question, with the caste system, does India really track violence among the poor? So let's just look at what Jason actually said. So yeah Jason essentially feels Blacks and Latins have some deterministic genetic propensity to violence driven by their sex drive. It is bigotry clothed in some BS social dogma. It is racism make no mistake with not a shred of science to it. Just for a moment look at one aspect - Latin America and Africa historically have a completely different political/social history than India, China or Micronesia. China and India while suffering the effects of colonialism essentially mantained their national identity and cultural standards. Africa and Latin America can not make that same claim. The indigenous population of Latin America had it's social structures destroyed by the Europeans powers and even into the 20th century had every attempt at forming popular governments crushed by Western powers particularly the US to prevent any interference with our business profits. That is actually a good tale compared to Africa. Oh but yeah all that violence is their own genetic fault, we didn't have anything to do with that did we? And the drug violence - hell where does all the profit in the drug trade come from - yeah White America doesn't do coke does it? Hell it is much easier to just blame them though isn't it. Thinking is too friggin hard. Back to the OPs question. Personally gun control is to me the wrong answer to the wrong question. I don't personally care if guns are outlawed..other than maybe missing that wild boar on my table.. The problem is it doesn't fix what is I think at the root of the violence in our society. The mass shootings aren't the issue, it is the daily level of violence that is the problem. A nut who wants to kill a bunch of people will find a way. The social inequality in our society however isn't going to be fixed by gun control and that is the source of most of the violence.

Hey I didn't bring up the history, I just pointed out the inconsistency. Can we only discuss our history if it is in a good light and anything bad is "dwelling"? I'd suggest you have an inability to look at your/our selves objectively if that is the case. I also wouldn't express that "why are you whining attitude" in the Philippines. So your parents may not have gotten all the breaks- that isn't quite on the order of killing somewhere between 34,000 and a million people. Yeah the range based on source is huge. This site suggests 200,000 civilians http://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/War. I know I over characterized Jason's position. It just goes to the point of why we Americans so often get described as juvenile and arrogant that we take credit for all the hundreds of years of social political development that led up to the movements of the late 1700's as if everyone else just went half way and we showed 'em how to do it right. I expect that from an idiot like Sarah Palin. I expect better from folks who love to get into the nuts and bolts of stuff. History is a process, social developments are incredibly complex. Wrapping ourselves in the flag, taking the credit for what people had been struggling for over centuries and being in absolute denial that we rarely live up to our own hype does us no good. However you get bonus points for correcting me- yes we are a Republic. Note the definition of a Republic. (From http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm) The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights) In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. Yes we are a Republic and a flawed one. The Civil Rights movement was/is essentially a struggle to apply the law of the Republic. It is to our credit that we are gradually correcting those flaws. The ability to honestly evaluate our actions and motives is essential to insuring we do follow through on these ideals. Ignoring our past actions as "dwelling" undermines our ability to (as the Army would say) be all that we can be. It isn't about flogging ourselves and feeling bad, that does no one any good. It is about understanding mistakes to avoid repeating them. How do we verify the success of our republic if we do not judge how well we have lived up to our ideals? Suggesting that looking at past actions is simply dwelling undermines the very foundation of what a Republic is all about. If you get to dismiss the concerns of the minority how long will the Republic stand? Man I really tried to stay away from this thread, the gun issue to me is flawed from both sides, but hey I like eating wild boar. I just don't particularly like folks legally walking around my neighborhood armed to the teeth who can't even read the second amendment.

Not for me. I do not need a gun to vote. Don't get me wrong, I have friends who target shoot and hunt and I have been the very happy recipient of some of their culinary treats. I just don't swallow this BS that somehow guns are a necessary part of democracy. If the Native Americans had been that well armed there likely wouldn't be any US today. They'd have been better off just gunning us down on the beach or letting us starve our dumb a**es. I'd also note that every time I hear someone say how the oppressed should have guns, they freak out when they learn who the oppressed are when they get guns. Black Panthers for example. How quickly the gun rights advocates seem to decry the arming of Black self defence units. Or the resistance movement by Puerto Rican independence activists. oh yeah, those are terrorists because we disagree with them. Taking up arms against an oppressive power gets viewed completely differently depending on your relationship to that power. AIM at Wounded Knee, The Panthers, the MLN, FALN all groups using armed force against a perceived oppressor. How many of them did you support? Who gets to define them as terrorists, aren't they just doing what the gun advocates say is the very core of their right, to defend themselves against an oppressive gov't? Maybe, maybe not. No one will ever know, but despite Jason's patronizing nationalistic rant, democracy did not burst out in full bloom in America with no prior history. We Americans owe much of our tradition and concept to what had been going on in Britain and elsewhere for hundreds of years. Democracy and economic change have a somewhat synergistic effect. America can't claim any sole patent on the idea. As to bad things potentially having good effects, you could say the same thing about the British drug trade- for those not familiar, the British Empire in the 19th century essentially ran on a financial engine driven by the opium trade - makes today's drug cartels look like chumps. Poor Marx, Das Kapital should have had a chapter on that. Global trade and relations in the long run are a good thing, but I somehow doubt China saw it that way. We do our country a dis-service when we try to excuse the things we have done wrong. It is no different than trying to excuse your own behavior when you screw up. You want to earn people's respect and provide an example- then you own up to your mistakes and do what you can to make them right. Jingoistic bombast just shows them you are as f**ked as they already think you are.

Dude you are so far out there it is kind of scary. Manifest Destiny was a BS excuse for theft in the 19th century and is no more legit when you express it now. So basically your whole underpinning to being anti gun control is "We are the biggest bad asses and we can do what we want cause we have the guns/power. We stole this continent at the point of a gun, we then went on to put the world under our thumb and somehow distributed democracy". Tell that bit of BS in the Philippines. Earlier you mentioned how many people we saved from concentration camps-that wouldn't include the folks that we put in them I assume. from Wikipedia Concentration camps Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words “dead zones.” Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these “reconcentrados” are generally acknowledged to have been inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and 'home' to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed."[96] In Batangas Province, where General Franklin Bell was responsible for setting up a concentration camp, a correspondent described the operation as “relentless.” General Bell ordered that by December 25, 1901, the entire population of both Batangas Province and Laguna Province had to gather into small areas within the “poblacion” of their respective towns. Barrio families had to bring everything they could carry because anything left behind—including houses, gardens, carts, poultry and animals—was to be burned by the U.S. Army. Anyone found outside the concentration camps was shot. General Bell insisted that he had built these camps to "protect friendly natives from the insurgents, assure them an adequate food supply" while teaching them "proper sanitary standards." The commandant of one of the camps referred to them as the "suburbs of Hell." Stick to being a grog, your rose tinted glasses distort your view too much to be objective about America. The reality is guns add nothing to American democracy. Never did. Whether it be the Pinkertons or MacArthur in DC, guns have only ever helped the status quo and if you get out of line and have a gun, they just shoot your a**. Your average citizen with a gun is not going to overthrow anyone no matter how much it strokes their ego. One of the best examples of democracy in the US was the civil rights movement and it's success was primarily due to the non violent portion of that movement. I particularly liked this part. It turned human beings loose on a sparsely populated continent with more freedom to do whatever they heck they felt like than anything seen before in human history. And in 2 centuries, it turned 3 million poor farmers in a colonial backwater into the greatest power in world history, on the back of a gusher of achievement in economic vitality, invention, practical building, voluntary cooperation taking ever deeper forms. Let's just ignore it also included genocide and institutionalized slavery on a scale that even made Britain blush. Yep them poor farmers through plain old hard work just made us great. If everybody would just do what we did.... PS you may want to take some history courses. American Democracy didn't develop in a vacuum or spontaneously. Hint- google Magna Carta Again returning to Wikipedia- really this stuff isn't hard to find! Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[3] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status",[4] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701). Perception in America The document is also honoured in America, where it is an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. In 1957, the American Bar Association erected the Runnymede Memorial.[115] In 1976, the UK lent one of four surviving originals of the 1215 Magna Carta to the U.S. for its bicentennial celebrations, and also donated an ornate case to display it. The original was returned after one year, but a replica and its case are still on display in the U.S. Capitol Crypt in Washington, D.C.[116]

Well it is good to know the Capt was able to retire to Green Acres.

I love that MG the Germans are firing. . almost as much as I love the tank. C3K is obviously the Col. Lee C3K Marvin.