Jump to content

PremiumAcc

Members
  • Content Count

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PremiumAcc

  1. Congratulations to all the winners and I wish every one a safe and wonderful holiday. See you all in 2013.
  2. Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Gun control really isn't about keeping people safe. Gun control is about taking the guns away so that the people can't protect themselves from the government and hold the government accountable. Penn & Teller explain gun control. Warning, NSFW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs Oh... Are you ever so mistaken. Suppose the government became an oppressive one, how many people would take up arms and fight the government in this day in age? Most people are apathetic and will not do anything. So that point about protecting ourselves from the big bad government is moot. Furthermore, even if many of us chose to rebel against the government, would we win against the US military? I think not. Successful rebellions require capture of key structures, key political figures, communication, the assistance of the military, and a few other factors (this was discussed in one of university courses, but I forget all the factors that influenced the outcome). Might I add that we live in a day where we do not need firearms to protect ourselves from the big bad government, take a lesson from the Egyptians in their recent uprising in the Middle East (that is one of many cases in the recent past of civil disobedience). It is fine that people love guns, but don't make up these false excuses that it is to protect ourselves when most of the time a criminal will have you by surprise and if he has a firearm you will never be able to use it as he will shoot at you before you even get to pull it out, and if the assailant does not have a firearm then would you need a firearm to protect yourself when you could easily flee or fight back via other means? Also, just because the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment guarantees the right to firearms for the people does not necessarily mean that it is the correct ruling or was the intent of the founding fathers. Remember, our Supreme Court system once ruled that segregation was legal as long as it was equal. *cough* And please do not forget that the justices can and are influenced by others (not so much as other government officials because once they are appointed they are there for life and could vote based on their conscience). Moreover, if you examine the words and context of the second amendment you will realize that when it addresses who should have the right to bear arms, it states that "a well regulated militia" meaning that these average working men (equating to modern day reserves) who are trained should bear arms. Also, when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment they wrote it with the vision that we would not have a standing army, and now that the militia is pretty much obsolete, what justifies people to have the right to bear arms when it is not for protection? You are correct, many people wouldn't stand up to the government, they wouldn't have the guns to be able to. But I also think you're mistaken if you think the entire military would turn on the people. If it was bad enough that the people rose up in mass, then at least part of the military would join in. I'm going to guess that you didn't watch the video. It's not always possible to flee, and I'm sorry if someone comes at me with a knife, I'd rather have a gun than "fight back via other means". I'm not good at hand to hand combat. I wouldn't want someone with a knife or a bat or other blunt instrument meant to bludgeon me getting close enough to actually hit me. Tazers? they have to be close enough for me to touch them which me they can touch (stab) me. Mace? If they're determined enough they'll fight through the pain. Even if we aren't talking about the government being oppresive. If someone breaks in to my house with the intent to harm my family or I and I call the police, how long will it take them to get here? 10 seconds? Yeah right. More like 10 minutes. By the time the police arrive the only thing for them to do will be to investigate and write up a report. They can't be everywhere all the time, nor would I want them to be everywhere all the time. I'm not going to rely on the police for the protection of my family. You are terribly mistaken yet again, as it has been demonstrated time and again that the military is not necessarily on the side of the people. Take a look at communist-China, North Korea, Iraq, the Soviet Union and many other countries, the military acted on the will of the governments. And Milgram's experiment can be applied in this discussion since people respond well to authority figures and will follow orders despite believing full well that they are causing bodily harm or even killing their fellow man. Furthermore, if the oppressive had any slight sense of intelligence it would ensure that it had absolute control of the military and any individual who expresses or shows the slightest dissidence will be executed. However, with your statement of "if it was bad enough," it is vague enough that you could argue that none of those cases are considered bad enough. The only case that I see a firearm being reasonable at the moment would be if an assailant broke into your home with a firearm and you cannot flee. However, these cases are far and few. The problem is not fear, rather innate savageism of humans and a firearm emboldens people to act on those impulses. As demonstrated by a poster of this thread (and indirectly by a few others), many people would elect to use extremely lethal tools even in situations where one could flee or disable the assailant with less lethal means.
  3. Thank you Dave and the OCC gang for the giveaway. Good luck to all and merry Christmas.
  4. Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Gun control really isn't about keeping people safe. Gun control is about taking the guns away so that the people can't protect themselves from the government and hold the government accountable. Penn & Teller explain gun control. Warning, NSFW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs Oh... Are you ever so mistaken. Suppose the government became an oppressive one, how many people would take up arms and fight the government in this day in age? Most people are apathetic and will not do anything. So that point about protecting ourselves from the big bad government is moot. Furthermore, even if many of us chose to rebel against the government, would we win against the US military? I think not. Successful rebellions require capture of key structures, key political figures, communication, the assistance of the military, and a few other factors (this was discussed in one of university courses, but I forget all the factors that influenced the outcome). Might I add that we live in a day where we do not need firearms to protect ourselves from the big bad government, take a lesson from the Egyptians in their recent uprising in the Middle East (that is one of many cases in the recent past of civil disobedience). It is fine that people love guns, but don't make up these false excuses that it is to protect ourselves when most of the time a criminal will have you by surprise and if he has a firearm you will never be able to use it as he will shoot at you before you even get to pull it out, and if the assailant does not have a firearm then would you need a firearm to protect yourself when you could easily flee or fight back via other means? Also, just because the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment guarantees the right to firearms for the people does not necessarily mean that it is the correct ruling or was the intent of the founding fathers. Remember, our Supreme Court system once ruled that segregation was legal as long as it was equal. *cough* And please do not forget that the justices can and are influenced by others (not so much as other government officials because once they are appointed they are there for life and could vote based on their conscience). Moreover, if you examine the words and context of the second amendment you will realize that when it addresses who should have the right to bear arms, it states that "a well regulated militia" meaning that these average working men (equating to modern day reserves) who are trained should bear arms. Also, when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment they wrote it with the vision that we would not have a standing army, and now that the militia is pretty much obsolete, what justifies people to have the right to bear arms when it is not for protection?
  5. I don't believe in removing guns ...not only that but I think they are too prelevant to remove now. Though I do think we need to make it a priviledge. People are too stupid to deserve this right. Going to shooting range and seeing how many people have no fricken clue how to handle a gun is frightning. Then realizing there is only a small bit of plastic between you and them is beyond scary! Many people who own guns have no respect for them. And saying it is a "right" gives these people no reason to respect them. I think people need to earn the right to bear arms but I also think people are too stupid for many of the rights/luxuries we are able to take advantage of. Speaking of driving. Everytime I get on the road there are people I would never give a license to. I think they need to be more strict on driving tests as well because I wouldn't trust many of the drivers I see with my hot wheels. Very true, it would be next to impossible to remove all guns from people at this day in age. Even if there was a law passed banning ownership of firearms, people will not give up their guns and hide it. People do not take the blame away the responsible party, but rather voicing the fact that the tool that enabled those individuals to commit these massacres were firearms. People are not blaming guns, but rather, the policies allowing guns to be so prevalent. I could not have agreed more. Gun advocates always tout the argument that it is for self-defense and that only the bad people (AKA criminals) will have guns. Let us break down and examine these arguments. Before, we proceed let us note that regardless of whether you are a gun advocate or an anti-gun advocate, that criminals will always have the means to obtain firearms if they choose so. If that is the case then whether we [law abiding citizens] own firearms will not affect whether or not criminals can be in possession of guns. Let us examine the first argument, that firearms are used for self-defense. First and foremost let us examine the wording of the argument, "firearms are used for self-defense." There have been many individuals who have argued that firearms were created with the intent to kill--whether it'd be killing animals or even humans--or rather and it's sole purpose is such. That statement is true to an extent, however, you must analyze the wording of the argument. What do people mean when they utter the word self-defense? At this point you may think it is a silly question, but does self-defense include eliminating any threats posed by a hostile being? If so then by no means are the gun advocates' argument invalid. If not, then at what point is it no longer self defense? Would it be at the point when the gun owner murders the criminal? Now that we have addressed the wording of the argument, let us move on by reflecting on the real world. Take a moment and ask yourself this, "how often will you [generality] have your gun on you?" Let us suppose that you will always have--something is not too likely to be true for many people--the firearm on you, but how often is it uninhibited allowing you for a quick draw? Chances of that is not very likely. However, let us further suppose that you always have it uninhibited allowing for easy access. Now that we have supposed a scenario in which you will always have a firearm on you uninhibited, will you be able to respond in time if a criminal attacks or threatens you with a firearm in a public area? The chances of an individual being able to respond after being surprised by an assailant with a firearm is slim to none, as the assailant had the element of surprise and will be ready to pull the trigger at any moment, whereas the average person will not be in the proper state of mind to devise a plan of attack and will be at a slight disadvantage because of the extra action(s) that must be performed to shoot the assailant. What if the weapon was knife? If the assailant was carrying a knife as a weapon and it is reasonable to believe that one would be able to react in time to draw the gun before being immobilized, then would such a lethal weapon be necessary to disable the assailant, wouldn't other mechanisms such as bear mace be just as effective? What if this situation were to take place within one's home? If the assailant has the element of surprise on his side then the chances of a victim being able to use his firearm will be slim to none, as the assailant had the element of surprise and will be ready to pull the trigger at any moment, whereas the average person will not be in the proper state of mind to devise a plan of attack and will be at a slight disadvantage because of the extra action(s) that must be performed to shoot the assailant. However, there are many times where the assailant may alert the victim as the assailant is unfamiliar with the territory and may accidentally cause a noise alerting the victim that an unwanted presence is in the vicinity. At that moment, the possible victim could avoid harm by fleeing or using other means to disable the intruder. If however, the individual cannot flee then it is only in this type of situation would it even be reasonable to believe that the individual will be able to use the firearm to "protect" himself. And mind you these situations or circumstances do not occur too often either. Let us suppose that you [law abiding citizens] were not allowed to own guns, would any of the outcomes in the above situations drastically change? Would you not be able to defend yourself if you were mugged or held at gun point by surprise? And would you not be able to protect yourself if a situation occurred within your household by other means if you were alerted? Furthermore, it is ludicrous to believe that only the criminals will have firearms, considering the police and other government officials such as the FBI and CIA all have firearms. If the argument that "only bad people (AKA criminals) will have firearms" meant that law abiding citizens will have no means of protecting themselves, then it is even more absurd because as illustrated above, most of the time you will either not be able to use the firearm to defend yourself or you could defend yourself through other means. And regardless of whether a law abiding citizen own guns or not, he will not be safe considering criminals will not cease to obtain firearms whether the general populace owns guns or not, and most situations that can be argued for the use of guns will not allow for the use of it because of the circumstances. In my opinion the main concern here that most people have and what differentiates guns from other weapons is the amount of damage that could be done in a short period of time. If firearms were not able to inflict so much damage in such a short span of time and so easy to use, then I would like to believe that there wouldn't be so much objection to firearms. And for those that claim that it is a second amendment right, I would advise you to read the Bill of Rights again, as it states "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." In the second amendment it addresses the right of the of the people who are part of the militia, and the founding fathers did not foresee and advised against having a standing army which is why they placed the second amendment, allowing citizens who were part of the militia to own guns, in order to protect the state. (In a bit of a rush towards the end, and I did not have as much time as I wanted to elaborate. I hope most will understand the gist of it.)
  6. I'd love to try Spec Ops: The Line.
  7. CPU: i5 2500K Motherboard: Asus P8Z68-V RAM: G. Skill Sniper 2 x 4GB low profile (1.25v) GPU: MSI Radeon HD 6950 R6950 Twin Frozr III 1G/OC Storage: Plextor 128GB M3 Chassis: Cooler Master Storm Trooper Cooling: Noctua NH-D14 PSU: Seasonic X750 Display: 22" Hannspree Audio: Onboard Keyboard: Lite-On SK-1688U Mouse: Logitech G9x Country: USA Thanks for the contest Dave.
  8. If any OCC member who does not get a key from this giveaway, he/she may contact me for a key as I have a key that I won't be using.
  9. Wow! This seems like it will be a really fun game.
  10. I have some extra Guild Wars 2 beta keys. If anyone is still looking for one feel free to PM me.
  11. Count me in. And I'll see if I can get something to donate towards this contest.
  12. Thanks for the contest, Stonerboy. I will cherish this memory as this is the first time that I have won at a contest/giveaway. And congratulations to the other winners.
  13. Great contest Stonerboy. Tochlight II My favorite FPS is Counter Strike. There will never be another FPS that can replace Counter Strike for me. The reason why Counter Strike is my all time favorite FPS game is because it is a very competitive game with a high skill ceiling. Not only do you have to master the weapons, you must also master strategies and the concept of teamwork. And if you are bored of the regular counter strike, there are many different game modes for you to play such as gun game, deathmatch, mini games, surfing, jailbreak, zombie escape, zombie survival, and WCS.
  14. I would beg to differ; there should be no noticeable change in your performance as a boot drive, as a friend of mine has it enabled on his SSD for testing purposes a while back and he has not reported of any slowdowns in performance. However, (depending on the applications you use) you may or may not experience increased wait times for programs to launch. Despite our disagreement of NTFS compression effects on SSD performance, I do agree with Waco that having the compression enabled will "eat up a TON of write cycles," which in turn will reduce your SSD's endurance. Edit: Hornybluecow, that is quite a big hit you took. My friend had a Samsung 830 and he only suffered a minor decrease in sequential write speeds.
  15. Congrats to you and your daughter. On a side note, you look like the type of father who would interview his daughter's boyfriend while holding a shotgun. lol.
  16. Depending on your hardware, NTFS compression could negatively impact performance. However, if you have at least a dual core processor, you should not notice the additional load as a result of having compression enabled. Furthermore, with NTFS compression enabled you will be able to free up much needed space--if you have a small SSD--on your SSD. Thus, you could consider enabling NTFS compression. But, you should take note that the amount of space free up on your SSD depends on the type of data you are compressing. Also, you should be aware that with NTFS compression enabled you will be consuming more a SSD's write cycles, which could have negative effects on the SSD's life span. Defrag should never be performed on an SSD as it will reduce the SSD's life span without giving you any real benefit. Disk cleanup is safe to use and should be used as it is a good means of invoking TRIM. TRIM does not delete files, it merely sends a message to the SSD, informing the drive that the blocks that were once used by those files are now available for the SSD to use in garbage collection.
  17. PremiumAcc

    Mass Effect 3

    Shhh... Keep that on the down low.
  18. PremiumAcc

    Mass Effect 3

    BTW, BP I would like to thank you for your recent news article about the ME3 marketing campaign.
  19. There is a good deal right now for a 64GB Crucial M4 SSD. Both Amazon and Newegg are selling it for $79.99 and it comes out to $1.25/GB. When I saw the price on the Crucial, I remembered you asking for suggestions on a 60GB SSD. Amazon Newegg
  20. Simply no. It isn't physically removed, it is merely disabled, which you can do with the 2500k when you run a discrete GPU. At the current price point, you are overpaying if you buy the 2550k over the 2500k. Like I have said before, if the price for the 2550k drops ~$20+ below that of the 2500k, then it would be a great deal since most owners are using discrete GPUs. That is why people wanted a chip similar to that of the 2550k, because they don't need the IGP since they are using discrete GPUs and didn't want to pay for a feature that they won't be using. Instead, Intel releases said chip but charged more for disabling said feature.
  21. Your advice is good, because he will be able to hunt for better prices while he waits for the new tech in the meantime. If he wanted to get the exact opposite of what you are getting then he should have went with Virgo instead of IB. And what is a Z78 mobo? Do you mean Z77 or Z68? PS: IB has been delayed once again.
  22. Yes, I purchased the same kit because it was $35 with a free microSD card & adapter at the time.
  23. Short answer: No. Those statements are unfounded. It is merely rumor and speculation. Refer to this thread for past comments regarding the 2550k: Link The general consensus within the enthusiast communities is that you are paying more for less with the 2550k.
  24. It looks like the ad bots are working hard today, I've seen 3 spam posts in the past hour.
×
×
  • Create New...