Eddo36

It's just the same as a porn site, porn sites have disclaimers that they can't enter unless over 18/21 before anyone can enter?

Well it's not like I'm going to meet anyone online in real life. Just wondering if stripping on cam is bad when asked if they are over 18 and they say yes. I am wondering if there is something that can be done to remedy that OTHER than not doing it, cuz it is fun to meet consensual non-lying ADULTS online and have fun with them without going to prison for some lying kiddie.

Greetings. I wish to know about the laws on conduct on the internet. I understand that the internet is filled with minors, and it is impossible to completely verify if someone you are chatting with (in chatrooms, (IE myspace, friendster, notebook, etc) is an adult or minor and I have absolutely NO intentions of chatting with a minor, but I have found some great adult friends online whom I chat intimately with on webcam. I do ask everyone if they are over 18 before I talk to them, and if any says they aren't, I promptly delete them from my contact list without another word, and block if needed. However, I'm worried I'll get in trouble from those kids who SAY that they are over 18, and there is no way to verify their age (not practical to ask them to scan drivers license and email it to you, etc), and I HATE talking/soliciting with minors and especially liars for I am not interested. Can one of them have the potential to get me into trouble, if I ask if they are over 18 and they say they are but really aren't, or is it their parent's fault for getting their lying kids on the internet? If so, how can I remedy that while meeting cool new consensual ADULT people I get well with online and do and chat intimately with via webcam? I wish to know and seek advice here. Thanks in advance.

Well the artillery barrel does not have to be aimed directly at him. He can just shoot into the hole and the bullet will ricochet from inside the barrel until it hits the round? And it doesn't have to detonate the round, just enough to damage it so it won't fire out of the barrel. Either that or damage the rifling inside the barrel.

He did shoot a German sniper who was aiming at him.

Remember in the last battle with the team's sniper in that clock tower with that tank aiming at him and blowing him up? Why didn't he just shoot into the tank's barrel. Wouldn't it cause the artillery shell inside to explode, or ruin the barrel of the tank?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F94xhGTgCJc Who listens to death metal?

If the kids grow up and become conscript soldiers as adults anyways, how different would it be than if they just started soldiering as a kid?

Clearing the myth. Gun Control Saves Lives New York City and Washington, D.C. are two of the most restrictive cities in the country with respect to gun control, yet they are also two of the least safest cities in the country. Criminals buy guns outside of the restrictive areas and bring them in illegally. Arlington, VA has a significantly lower crime rate than D.C., but it's right next door (see the FBI "Crime in the United States" reports). Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a member of your own family than an intruder. The study by Arthur Kellermann from which that statistic is pulled doesn't say that. The number includes suicides. The study doesn't take into account defensive uses in which a shot was not fired (99% of the uses), and it doesn't reflect intruders avoiding homes with firearms inside. Your gun is more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder. Less than one percent of defensive gun uses results in a kill (see Gary Kleck's book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America). According to the National Institute of Justice's report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense. With tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, that means that firearms are used 40 times more often for protection than for murder. We would all be safer if there were fewer guns. Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous, but in the right hands they are used for protection and deterrence. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Georgia's homicide rate dropped 21% after making it easier to get guns, whereas Wisconsin's rate went up 33% during the same time period after making it more difficult to get guns. There are a lot of factors that go into homicide rates, but gun ownership is definitely not one of them. We don't need guns in a civilized society. How many people living in or around urban areas leave their cars unlocked or their front doors open all the time? There are civilized and uncivilized people in the world, and there are places and events that lead to some very uncivilized behaviour (like hurricanes). Having a gun means that people in the area can defend themselves and others against those uncivilized people. Guns should be banned because thousands die every year. Most of those people are criminals killed by criminals, according to the FBI "Crime in the United States" report. Also, many of those deaths are suicides. If someone is going to kill themselves, and they can't get a gun, they'll try something else. Again, guns are used far more often in self-defence. We need to do something about the increasing access to guns. Over the last half-dozen decades, the government has steadily restricted our right to keep and bear arms, and access has been decreasing. However, none of the 20,000 laws on the books are making it any harder for criminals to get guns, because by definition a criminal won't abide by the law. The police can protect us. In several cases, the courts found that police do not an obligation to respond to emergency calls. Even when they do, though, it's often too late. According to a story in US News and World Report, G. Witkin found that 95% of 911 calls are dispatched too late to stop a crime. When someone breaks into your home, you don't have time to call police. When a gunman charges into a diner and shoots up the place, you don't have time to call police. It is too dangerous for the average citizen to deal with criminals. Citizens fighting crime happens all the time. However, even better is to have crime not happen, and gun ownership is an excellent deterrent. After a series of rapes in Florida in 1966, women began buying guns and the police department ran training sessions in handgun use. After 36 rapes in 1966, there were 4 in 1967 (see Paxton Quigley's book "Armed and Female"). The safest way to deal with criminal assault is not to resist. The US DOJ found that of 32,000 attempted rapes in 1979, 32% were successful, but in the case of an armed victim, only 3% were successful. Should a victim just sit back and let an attack happen, or should they defend themselves? What about defending your children when someone comes after them? Criminals avoid armed victims. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring the head of household to keep a gun, and burglaries dropped by 89% (see Gary Kleck's "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force). Allowing people to carry weapons means every disagreement will turn into a shootout. People currently have many weapons, including lawn implements, kitchen utensils, sporting goods and household appliances, all of which have been used in murders. In states that have liberal carry laws, crime rates are generally lower. Florida's carry law in 1987 was followed by a homicide rate drop of 39% according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The average citizen with a gun is a bigger threat to himself and others than a criminal is. Proper training is very important. The NRA has spent millions of dollars on training adults and children. In fact, the NRA is the only organization spending money to try to educate kids about gun safety, but they're being stopped at every attempt by knee-jerk politicians and soccer moms who want to hide their children from the realities of the world. Accidental death rates from firearms have been declining steadily for 50 years, and armed citizens shoot and kill twice as many criminals as police do. Firearms drain resources because of medical costs. Most of the medical cost is because of criminal violence, not lawful possession of firearms. Did you know that medical malpractice causes more deaths per year than firearms, according to a Harvard Medical Practice Study? Countries where gun ownership is severely restricted have a crime rate that is much lower than ours. England and Japan have lower murder rates than the US, and they have restrictive gun laws. However, Switzerland and Israel have high rates of gun distribution and have even lower rates. South Africa's murder rate is even higher than the US, and they have very restrictive gun laws. The police favor gun control, and they know more about crime than we do. The 12th Annual National Police Survey produced in 1999 by the National Association of Chiefs of Police showed that police reject gun control as an effective crime control and that they support private firearms ownership. Only police and trained and responsible enough to carry guns. According to the Washington Post 8/28/94, pA1, 19 out of 1000 officers in Washington, D.C. were arrested. According to the Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, only 9 out of 1000 carry permit holders in Florida had licenses revoked. There's nothing wrong with a waiting period for a background check. So if someone is threatened, they should ask the criminal to wait a few days so that a background check can be completed? Criminals don't wait for background checks -- they buy on the black market. Guns should be registered. Would that help make life difficult for criminals? No. New York and Washington, D.C. required registration years ago and promised not to ban guns. Then, politicians decided to ban some guns and used those registration lists to round them up (see 9/5/92 Daily News article "Weapons Ban Defied"). A man named James Wright was a gun control advocate who received a grant from President Carter's Justice Department to study effectiveness of gun control laws. He found that waiting periods, background checks and other gun control laws were not effective in preventing or reducing violent crime ("Second Thought About Gun Control" in The Public Interest, Spring, 1988). http://www.westnet.com/~levins...l5.html

Well, not everyone needs to wear body armor. It is their choice. Only those who want to be safe from a shooting like that will wear it. Like me.

13. Is it legal for civilians to buy Body Armor? In general, yes - for law-abiding folks. A felony conviction makes possession of Body Armor illegal under federal law and in many states. We have had civilian clients with many different civilian needs for Body Armor so we understand the need for vests for civilians. Our policy is to only sell to law-abiding adults who have a lawful purpose for Body Armor. (A parent or guardian may buy for a minor with a legitimate need.) Residents of Connecticut are prohibited from buying Body Armor unless the sale is face to face (or unless the buyer is a police officer, Police Department, or military). We cannot ship to residents of Connecticut who are not police or military. Some states are considering new legislation to prohibit or restrict sales of Body Armor to civilians, e.g., New York. If you are in a state that passes such a law, you would be well advised to make your Body Armor purchase now before it becomes much more expensive and inconvenient, if not prohibited altogether

No, he was South Korean. And if you want to ban guns, why not ban fertilizer and bleach so IED's can't be made in car bombs? It's worse than any gun.

Isn't Virginia Tech the reason why body armor is needed for everyone? And the groin protection stuff already exists. Look closely at the pic in my original post. And I'm not a nut, I just collect these stuff.

www.bulletproofme.com I'm thinking of ordering a concealable vest and a non-concealable vest. Level IIA is the minimum they would recommend, if I wanna wear IIIA, it has more protection but it would have to be non-concealable since it's too big. I'm thinking of buying the upgraded interceptor vest with SAPI plates. It costs a grand tho. The concealable small vest is going for just around 300 bucks. I want stab protection for the big vest. I don't know to go for stab treatment, which would make the vest stiffer, or just get stab pabs.

www.darthwho.com

See in real time, if you favorite sites are allowed to be viewed in China. http://greatfirewallofchina.org/test/ Well this place is allowed, so China can't be that bad.

Hmm would people of different ethnicity taste differently?

Well, nobody here probably ate another person before. But I have been around buddhist monks who burned incence on their arm as part of their customs. It would burn the flesh and make small lumps, making smoke, and it would smell almost exactly the same as smoking hamburgers on a barbeque grill. I think we would taste more like beef than poultry/fish since our flesh structure is more related to those bigger lifestocks. But what I am unsure of is whether we would taste more like beef or mutton?

If you people knew what issues John Edwards support, 99% of you would be voting for him.

How can a handgun get you in trouble

Why night vision scope? I'd use night vision googles and an infrared laser to aim.

Since 4th barely came out, and 3rd is relatively new, it is probably 1st or 2nd. Any look familiar? 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Hmmm. do you recall which generation it was? 1 or 2?

The Orbital Express http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/03/09/s...reut/index.html

Any LEO/military people here who used the PVS7 or similar night vision? Was it generation 1, 2, 3, or 4? I'm thinking of buying one (just to be able to see in the night/dark), and I know it is very freaking expensive, especially the latter generations. How much better are each progressive generations compared to its previous?