The title, "Six days in Fallujah", seems, in protesters eyes, to be the problem. Had it been named "War is grim and people die unnecessarilly", (not very catchy, i know) maybe it would have been seen as ANTI war and not glorifying in it. As the video suggests, the developers aren't dumb, they chose the title for a reason. Maybe that reason was to promote it and they, once creating the controversy, caved in to the zealots..shame..Thank goodness there are Authors Publishers/distributors etc who have more back bone, and assume people have the intelligence to form their own opinions. Can you imagine Chritopher hitchins taking his best seller ("God is not Great". with the sub-title "How religion Poisons Everything".) to the publisher and them saying to Him; "Really good book Chris but the title is a tad controversial. Would it be ok if we changed the title to er, say," God is a nice man, but maybe a human concept". with a sub-title; "please dont get offended". I'm sure Hitchins would have gone ballistic and sought another publisher. Anyway, i'm pretty damn sure that any kid playing "Six days in Fallujah", wouldn't give a jot about it's historical significance, as all they want is entertainment. But hey, let's protect them from anything their young impressionable minds don't understand. We could start by banning any books relating to the slavery,torture,genecide,mutilation and subjucation of another race. Hmm. Any ideas on where we could begin?

The blocks of material some people might not recognize is ballistic gel (used a lot on Mythbusters because it simulates flesh). 4:55-6:18 (are those the shots you were referring to MilkmanDan?)

I think the ball striking the shot mid-flight was from a shotgun, they probably had to do hundreds or thousands of shots to get those few where there was an impact.

The main thing I was thinking, especially towards the end with all the rifle shots hitting steel where the bullet core completely disintegrates was, "I really hope they wore respirators." That amount of lead in the air cannot be good for you.

http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2007/07/01/werners-videos-reveal-ballistic-mysteries/

^ The Milkor MGL is the very essence of ballistic love. If you blow up the right shit, it PROVES your love of the world...

I dig the misty picture of that French highway bridge. Beautiful structure.

The public option itself won't receive direct taxpayer funding.

So then why does every proposed bill in congress to date require 700+ billion in additional taxes? I hate arguments that ignore basic, fundamental logic and common sense and try to hide behind weasel-speak and (Wilson!) lies. "Public option won't receive direct taxpayer funding." Yeah - right. There may not be a pile of money labeled "Direct Taxpayer Funding For Public Health Insurance" but you and I both know quite well that the public funding of insurance is going to be subsidized by taxes.

This is why Wilson called Obama a liar. Obama also hides truth behind weasel-speak, mumbo-jumbo, and flat out BS.

CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF OBAMA LIES.

Today Obama CUT missle defense in Europe, essentially turning his back on Poland & the Czechs. Now - I don't have a problem with less money going to government. But how did Obama describe his CUTS in defense?

To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.

In a word... BULL! He CUT the program, and his speech is all weasel-speak puffery about how it's stronger, bigger, and protects all our allies. How is it more comprehensive? What proven technology is it using? How does it stop long range missiles? HOW will it ensure protection for Poland & the Czechs? And neolibs everywhere are nodding their heads thinking this guy is intelligent, when all he's doing is slinging complete BS and hoping everyone is too stupid or bored to bother with such things as 'details', 'proof', and 'logic'.

That's why Wilson is right to call him a liar. And that's why it is completely true to say that Obama & neolibs are lying when they say that public health care 'option' won't use taxes. I mean - just how stupid does a person have to be to BELIEVE that load of hotspur?

Nykwil nailed it in his comment. When I think of how a lot of my friend's wives would have reacted... they would have probably gone ballistic in the other emotional direction. I thought it was amazingly cute that he cracks her up like that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ballistic, equine, pegasus, rally racer' to 'ballistic, equine, pegasus, rally racer, deathhorse' - edited by calvados

Alright, this is my last post here, because I don't really want to spend another ten minutes arguing hypothetical situations with you. Neither of us is wrong, and neither of is are changing our minds about the issue.

I never said guns are illegal in Canada, but only roughly 26% own guns. When push comes to shove, America still has more gun related deaths then Canada. It could be due to the fact that 71% of Canadian gun owners only have rifles for hunting, and only 12% have handguns, mind you.

Now, try this out. Go to bed, set your alarm for 3 hours, and then wake up. If there's someone at the end of a dark hallway, odds are your vision is going to be blurred and you won't be able to make out any features other then potentially hair length.

As for a thrust having better range then a bat? Bullshit. If you've taken a stance, if they lunge at you, and you swing, I personally have about 5-6 feet worth of extension with a bat, and if you make contact with the center of mass, not only will you knock them if nothing else OVER, but you'll potentially crack a rib or break an arm. A 10 year old little league player can swing a 20 oz bat 60 mph., Strength is NOT an issue.

Also, I'd like to point out that baseball bats don't always need to be swung two handed. If you're able to weild it one handed, you've got an even GREATER reach then any knife, and can move just as easily, historically, clubs are better weapons.

In the show "Deadliest Warrior"
Every time there was a knife vs other weapon, The other weapon won all but once. And that's because the spetsnaz ballistic knife can shoot. The "Club" weapons however, almost always beat whatever it was up against.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

I don't get it..this is your defence? my situation of "If they get the jump on you, a concealed weapon does you no good" is wrong, so..you post a situation of the perpetrator getting the jump on you, and the concealed weapon doing you no good, as they get your money and run away, rarely being shot. Perhaps you stated that wrong.

I'd also like to add, that unless you've been hardcore trained to be able to find, draw, and shoot your weapon in a situation like that, you've got one HELL of a chance of fumbling around, and not even shooting it

Since you're so curious, Schmawy, it's called "free plate tuning", and it was developed by the recently departed Carleen Hutchins...

Carleen Maley Hutchins (May 24, 1911 – August 7, 2009) was an American former high school science teacher, violinmaker and researcher, best-known for her creation, in the 1950s/60s, of a family of eight proportionally-sized violins now known as the violin octet (e.g., the vertical viola) and for a considerable body of research into the acoustics of violins. She was born in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Hutchins’s greatest innovation, still used by many violinmakers, was a technique known as free-plate tuning. When not attached to a violin, the top and back are called free plates. Her technique gives makers a precise way to refine these plates before a violin is assembled.

From 2002 to 2003, Hutchins’s octet was the subject of an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Titled “The New Violin Family: Augmenting the String Section.” Hutchins was the founder of the New Violin Family Association[1], creator-in-chief of the Violin Octet, author of more than 100 technical publications, editor of two volumes of collected papers in violin acoustics, four grants from the Martha Baird Rockefeller Fund for Music, recipient of two Guggenheim Fellowships, an Honorary Fellowship from the Acoustical Society of America, and four honorary doctorates. In 1963, Hutchins co-founded the Catgut Acoustical Society, which develops scientific insights into the construction of new and conventional instruments of the violin family.

The Hutchins Consort, named after Hutchins, is a California ensemble featuring all eight instruments.[2]

In 1974, Hutchins and Daniel W. Haines, using materials supplied by the Hercules Materials Company, Inc. (Allegheny Ballistics Laboratory) of Cumberland, Maryland, developed a graphite-epoxy composite top that was determined to be a successful alternative to the traditional use of spruce for the violin belly.[3]

>> ^quantumushroom:
These liberal media elites really do live in a bubble. It's simply not possible for them to believe that anyone thinks differently than they do, to the point they believe "the enemy" must all be paid shills. Were there 10,000 peaceful protesters, the libmedia would seek out the one 'everything = hitler' nut. That same nut can be found at every large political rally on all sides.
Nothing new for biased libmedia. Notice how the people favoring more gun control are always "concerned citizens" while the pro-Second Amemdment folks are "the gun lobby"?
If you think Obamarx Medical Tyranny is going to stop at whatever the hell this new abortion of a bill contains, I'm here to remind you it's just a stepping stone to the taxocrats' real goal of socialized medicine.
If you're a "concerned citizen" for socialized medicine, you'll supposedly get everything you want, except high-quality care and the means to pay for it. If you define success by efficiency and effectiveness, government has a rather crappy track record on just about everything.

The point is that what these people are protesting IS NOT EVEN REAL. You see, if if liberals had come out en-masse in 2003 to protest Bush's "plan to bomb and invade Florida", and actively disrupting any actual debate on the topic of war, you might have had something comparable to the current situation.

The current pack of protesters have gotten all the facts lies that causes their anger from Glenn Beck, Palin, O'Reilly and Limbaugh. People that simply cant be trusted because they LIE ALL THE TIME. They quote actual bills out of context, they flat out invent "facts" about it, and they compact it into ridiculous little slogans like "death panel" to tick of people who they know will never bother to read the whole thing. Then they incite people to go ballistic over these "issues", that arent really issues at all because THEY ARE NOT BASED ON ANYTHING REAL, just on lies.

It's not about people not having the right to protest, of course they do, its about lying to people so that they'll protest things that don't exist, thereby suppressing the ACTUAL debate, the ACTUAL issues, and the ACTUAL bills. You see, I think most liberals would love to hear what other people think about these issues, I think they'd love to work with people to improve upon it, to make it the best possible reform for everyone, or even to have others explain why there shouldn't be a reform at all. But instead the tactic seems to be to deafen and dumb down the debate as much as humanly possible, and that really just is political bullying, not debate or free speech.

That took a lot of ballistics.

Wikipedia:

1983 incident

Stanislav Petrov, an Air Defence lieutenant colonel, was the officer on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow on September 26, 1983.[4] Petrov's responsibilities included observing the satellite early warning network and notifying his superiors of any impending nuclear missile attack against the Soviet Union. If notification was received from the early-warning systems that inbound missiles had been detected, the Soviet Union's strategy was an immediate nuclear counter-attack against the United States (launch on warning), specified in the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.[1]

Shortly after midnight, the bunker's computers reported that an intercontinental ballistic missile was heading toward the Soviet Union from the US.[5] Petrov considered the detection a computer error, since a United States first-strike nuclear attack would be likely to involve hundreds of simultaneous missile launches, in order to disable any Soviet means for a counterattack. Furthermore, the satellite system's reliability had been questioned in the past.[6] Petrov dismissed the warning as a false alarm, though accounts of the event differ as to whether he notified his superiors[7] or not[5] after he concluded that the computer detections were false and that no missile had been launched. Later, the computers identified four additional missiles in the air, all directed towards the Soviet Union. Petrov again suspected that the computer system was malfunctioning, despite having no other source of information to confirm his suspicions. The Soviet Union's land radar was incapable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, and waiting for it to positively identify the threat would limit the Soviet Union's response time to minutes.
Had Petrov reported incoming American missiles, his superiors might have launched an assault against the United States, precipitating a corresponding nuclear response from the United States. Petrov declared the system's indications a false alarm. Later, it was apparent that he was right: no missiles were approaching and the computer detection system was malfunctioning. It was subsequently determined that the false alarms had been created by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds and the satellites' Molniya orbits, an error later corrected with cross-reference to a geostationary satellite.[8]

Petrov later indicated the influences in this decision included: that he had been told a US strike would be all-out, so that five missiles seemed an illogical start;[1] that the launch detection system was new and, in his view, not yet wholly trustworthy;[citation needed] and that ground radars were still failing to pick up any corroborative evidence, even after minutes of delay.[citation needed]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nuclear, weapons, missile, ballistic, icbm, russia, usa, cold war' to 'nuclear, weapons, missile, ballistic, icbm, russia, usa, false alarm' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nuclear, weapons, missile, ballistic, icbm, russia, usa' to 'nuclear, weapons, missile, ballistic, icbm, russia, usa, cold war' - edited by calvados

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by kulpims.