Calax

And apparently I have movement induced vertigo. Which requires physical therapy to dislodge from my inner ear. And my health insurance died a week and a half ago.

Made my move on Rome. Managed to smash their armies before attacking the walls. Then the Brutii (who had more men than I) started throwing armies into Europe. Had to withdraw from one city (it had 600 people and a very small damaged garrison, and got another city taken from me. At the same time I managed to beat the living tar out of three Brutii armies, two of which were 2:1 in favor of them (it was sieges). Currently I've managed to take the rest of Germany and am moving on greece with four Legions of Urban cohorts (backed up with calvalry).

And for the record Vas, what does the Articles of Confederation or Magna Carta have to do with the posession for firearms? Articles basically say "federal government exists only to deal with foreign powers" (but every treaty must be ratified by each state), and the Magna Carta is an agreement between feudal land holders and their king about the rights of the landholders, in terms of taxation and the parilaments rights in relation to the monarch. Unless you're trying to argue that the federal government should be reduced to the whims of the various states, and therefor each state sets it's own gun control laws and you could be put in prison for crossing into california with your texas guns that have no permit.

The frustrating thing is that mirrors edge kinda hates combat. So the areas where you want/need to take down the blues can be frustrating ordeals if you can't get your timing right.

Rome again. I own most of Europe, with the brutii only controlling the south eastern portion of germany and the Aegean. Except Byzantium... because that was a "free city" for almost 60 years (I think) because the brutii just didn't want to take it. I was a mite bit angry when my best general, who'd conquored all of northern europe for me, died... in a riot. http://cloud-2.steam...940E4232356F6C/ That's him. In the siege he's about to pull off after that screen shot, he killed 400 men with his body guards.... of 900 garrison troops. However, overall, I ended up with a 26 year old with one or two less stars who's going to be leading the charge on rome and Italy (currently I've basically hit every button I can for recruitment). Current forces under arms is about 20 thousand men. The Brutii have more but I don't think they're the same tech level (a good portion of mine are Urban cohorts).

I was thinking more along the lines of ... why can't I be shooting a dragon or mutated slugworm with my sniper instead of some stereotyped commie insurgent or whatever. Or why can't I be on a planet made of sanddunes, or 80% water, with both human spacefarers and oddball aliens, instead of some dull jungle or real-world location. It's not the "military combat" I mind (kinda goes with guns and shooting) but the setting it's put into. eg, I want more escapism/variety in the shooter, not army reality. I don't really know. One reason might actually be budget in a strange way. The military shooters don't need to really be very creative about their art and worlds. Because they're in this world, fighting enemies that the people know. So instead of having to make up strange weapons, enemies, and environments, they just have to come up with a story to tie their "awesome" together. Also, if you did something like a sand world, or a water world, You'd have to come up with mechanics to bring those into the game, otherwise the game might just be better in a city.

... All I hear is

See Tsuga C's post about on your 'well regulated' statement. And getting your religion recognized isn't that hard. That 501c(3) organizations exist in the first place is one of the great evils in our nation today. Not necessarily the organization itself, but the designation and how money is hidden behind it by many an evil organization. The IRS should be abolished for so many reasons, non profits being a big one, but that's another topic. I totally disagree with Tsuga's statement because the phrase "Well Regulated" is still around and maintains it's previous meanings. Just because you want it to mean that doesn't mean it is, it means that whatever it's doing is doing it well NOT it's being well equipped. As to the IRS, let's not get into tax bs, beyond that taxation is necessary for the operation of government. Except that you're trying to make the 2nd amendment unassailable beyond weapons that aren't designed to be used on humans. A better analogue would probably be porn stores, as sexuality is a free expression, but you still can only do it very specific areas. And yet freedom of speech and freedom of expression are attacked far more often than your "right to bare arms" (including by the NRA) because more and more things are being considered "unPC" and thus have bans starting to attack them. And yet firearms, which are MUCH more of a danger than a nipple popping out on national TV, have a rabid group of supporters who refuse to have any form of control or limitations placed on what they can or cannot own beyond the current minimalistic system. You lost me. How does this have to do with anything.

Fantasy fulfillment. And the fact that the military is where most armies fight. And a shooter with only 6 bad guys that you shoot in a corral doesn't really scream "fun". Also, because of the nature of games, you have to be the "Specialist" because you're the one who pops off headshots every 20 seconds.

It may be true that anyone should be able to form a militia, but it's also true that anyone can form a religion. This doesn't mean that it's recognized by the US government as existing and getting the tax breaks and other benefits therein. Nor does it mean that those 501c(3) organizations get to break the federal statutes because human sacrifice is a core part of their belief system. Which is where "well regulated" comes into play. By a similar token, I wish that the first amendment was as unchangably sacrosanct as your 2nd amendment. And yet I still can't walk into a theater and scream "Fire" or go to a train station or airport and discuss how many bombs my call of duty character has. Because those constitute threats to the society at large, and create a rediculous amount of chaos. Why aren't you fighting for the ability to have unregulated, completely free speech in any situation? Instead you're sitting here saying that the 2nd amendment covers every type of firearm and that the miniscule regulations placed upon the purchase and ownership of guns is A-ok as it is, even if it means that one person can put 30 bullets into the crowd at a movie theater in 28 seconds.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/10/two-reported-hurt-in-california-school-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1 And you wonder why we're talking gun control? My point about that magical graphic was that it ignored the largest form of murder in the USA because it was guns and went against the NRA's narrative (that guns save, they don't kill). By the logic you're using (rifles aren't such a big threat) we should be banning handguns instead of Assault rifles. Why am I not doing the readings you oh so "helpfully" provided is because they're relatively irrelevant to the current discussion. Nobody is going to go before the supreme court and argue that while the constitutions second amendment (which is magically unchangable or unlimitable... even though the first amendment is) says one thing, the the Articles are saying something else. Fine, you want your assault rifles? How about this. They can only be owned by organizations that are regulated and governed by the ATF, with stringent requirements about what those regulations can really do... we'll call them "Militias" and be done with it. After all: And some yahoo from the south isn't exactly "A well regulated militia"

How many were killed with hand guns son? And nice over the top "END OF THE WORLD IF YOU TAKE OUR GUNS" essay. Got anything reasonable?

Angry enough to punch them in the face ? I get rather annoyed when people call me by the diminutive form of my first name, seems to be mainly an English thing. Being upfront and telling them to not call me that does get some funny reactions, though. Almost. I go by Oliver. My first name is Dustin, and the boss decided to start throwing out "Dusty" and all sorts of "hilarious" other nicknames... "Dusty Bottoms" being another one.

Pretty good discussion of gun control on daily show last night.

Somebody started using my legal first name (I go by my middle name, I like it better) and then giving me little nicknames based around it. Didn't realize just how angry it'd get me.

Whooosh right over your head it seems went most everything I said. If you don't know and appreciate the difference between a judicial opinion (I suggested you read a few above) and whether or not you think apples or bananas taste better I give up on you. I'm wagering you've not read anything I suggested you read and wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't read 1984, Animal Farm, or a Brave New World though you refer to 1984 and dystopia at large. Heads up, by many people's estimations (including my own) we're a bit past 1984 in many respects at this point. If you haven't read all those books, I suggest you actually read them, as well as A Brave New World Revisited. So you think there's a CIA guy (well FBI due to jurisdiction) parked on the other end of your tv, watching you zone out or screw or whatever in front of it? That somebody is going to torture you into thinking that "if the government says it, it must be true"? That we're all chipped and having our every action and thought sent to some mindless government agency for sanitization? Because that's what 84 and those like it say are going to happen (maybe not the last part... but not because those governments didn't try). The fact that you're allowed to be on this website, saying what you choose shows that we're not in 1984 or brave new world. The fact that there is somebody with a different opinion proves it. If we were, the Cops would show up and cart whoever was "wrong" off to be "re-educated" so that if a government person says that the sky is poo-green it IS poo green. Also, if you're really gonna hammer the point home, in what judicial opinion did Ginsburg throw out the "South Africa's constitution is better than the United States"? I mean from everything I can tell, it technically should be because it tackles 20th century problems. And if you're gonna scream at Bruce that he's living in a fake democracy, you better cite reasons. Particularly given that the Apartheid government was ejected through non-military means rather than the "AMERICAN" way of kicking the **** out of the Empire, and the leaders of that citizens movement are currently in charge. You weren't? THEN WHY ON EARTH DID YOU BRING IT UP!? I specifically brought it up because it relates to the thread, and rather than attack the actual point you decide to turn around and leap off on a pissed off tangent about the Court not following your personal opinion and interpretation of how they should act. I misspoke with the Chief Justice remark, I freely admit that. But Scalia, who you said you have no problem with, in his opinions on the subject of this thread, said that your point about AR's and similar weapons being covered by the 2nd amendment is flat out WRONG. Specifically, hunting rifles and pistols are reasonably protected by the 2nd amendment (meaning that they won't be banned, but it's unreasonable for them to be entirely available to everyone), but that Assault rifles and other "Weapons with military characteristics" (specifically cited the M16 and AR15 variants) are not supported by the 2nd amendment because they are not peoples first choice for protection, and aren't built for home defense or hunting in any way shape or form. And just declaring "but they can be used for it!" doesn't help your case. Saying a cars back seat is suited to two teens getting it on, is certainly not going to stop a citation of public indecency.

I find it interesting that he's flipping out over government and corporate conspiracies.... but he's also screaming about the FBI facts, even though they would be one of the largest support structures for that particular... oddness.

*sigh* and apparently I'm not gonna have an easy time getting in over summer because they notified me today. The first day of classes for the local CC is YESTERDAY, and I need 6 credits to be able to get back in.

To be fair, he was probably picked to go on the show for that reason. And he's an AM radio broadcaster it seems like (they mention it at the very beginning), and that place is a NUT HOUSE as you probably know.

Welcome to the real world. not really, It's a lot worse when you're considered the lowest rung of society... so people think they can get away with everything.

The only things that really count for me are either foreign language or upper division courses.

... I am not exactly a the best type to do 'net courses. I'd be forgetting work left and right, and I'd spend most of the "lectures" on facebook.

Yup, now have no financial support. And the local community college started yesterday, so all the satellite facilites (those that are logistical possibilities) are full.

And I'm out of school for the semester... 40 hours a week of dealing with idiots HERE I COME

Different Calls of Duty, played some of the original, and am at the mission with the Brits where you attack a dam Some of World at War and some of Modern Warfare 3. Playing them side by side by side like this is kind of... boggling really. You get to see how the level designs have changed, and the health system. CoD's health system is... schitzo. When they flipped to regenerating health everyone grumbled, but really that was just because they tuned it to easy. You hide for two seconds and your fine. With Modern Warfare it was well built so you could get your hp back and still be in danger during all firefights. World at War feels like it went to far in the other way, you get taken down really easy, and then stay low for a MUCH longer time. Modern Warfare 3 is closer to MW1 but is a slight bit tougher on damage taken.