Breaking: shots fired at Virginia-based Apple Store

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 123
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BeefYakasoba View Post


    Whether one exercises their rights to the fullest or not, we all have to stand together to make sure that the rights of all remain intact.



    Freedom is not "I'll do whatever I damn well please" which is the criminal interpretation and the reason we have laws and regulations to start with. Freedom from being the victim of illegal activity is a complicated system to regulate, but some regulation is required in dangerous situations like firearms.



    The whole part about the right to bear arms was to keep the government honest in that a revolution would be possible if necessary. Today, there is just no way private citizens are going to overthrow the US government by force. Just look at Waco if you want to know how it ends when you call the government's bluff.



    As a gun collector/enthusiast I have no problems with a little regulation. I know this is a thread about armed robbery and I got off on a tangent about irresponsible gun ownership. Sure when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, but senseless homicides of passion or accidental shootings are preventable. Let the police handle the criminal element.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 122 of 123
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Freedom is not "I'll do whatever I damn well please" which is the criminal interpretation and the reason we have laws and regulations to start with. Freedom from being the victim of illegal activity is a complicated system to regulate, but some regulation is required in dangerous situations like firearms.



    The whole part about the right to bear arms was to keep the government honest in that a revolution would be possible if necessary. Today, there is just no way private citizens are going to overthrow the US government by force. Just look at Waco if you want to know how it ends when you call the government's bluff.



    You are correct in the criminal interpretation. Which, as I and others keep saying, a new gun control law won't do a damn thing to change that.



    Let me be clear in this, however. Firearms are not dangerous. It's the occasional idiot that handles one that makes it dangerous. Butcher knives are dangerous too. Should those be regulated out of existence as well, since the occasional kid (or adult) chops off their finger, or criminal uses it to slash someones throat?



    I'm not completely against some regulation being in place. However, at the same time, it absolutely must be understood that any regulation won't stop criminals who bypass it. Again, see my last post about Illinois and Chicago, as well as the UK. Criminals abound, while honest, hard working people get the short end of the stick.



    Also, you say freedom from being the victim of illegal activity is complicated to regulate? I beg to differ, and politely point out the number of states which specifically allow for concealed (and/or open) carry.



    As an American, you absolutely have the right to defend yourself from "illegal" activity. When it comes to the Second Amendment, one part is usually grossly overlooked. That being, "being necessary to the security of a free State".



    That does not say anything about "only" to keep the government honest, while that certainly is one possibility. It also means, as has been upheld by numerous court rulings across this land, that personal safety and security is also a right and guaranteed as it contributes to a free State.



    If a criminal comes into your home and points his (unregistered, illegally possessed) gun at you and your spouse, with the intent to rape your spouse (maybe even you), and then kill you, what are you going to do? Law enforcement is minutes away, and by then it will be over. Your life is in danger, as is your spouse's life, and your kids' lives if you have them. Do you bend over and take it, or do you stand up for yourself by defending yourself against the threat with an equal level of force?



    It's your God given right, backed up by the Constitution, to ensure your security, and the security of your family. It's a shame so many people fail to live up to their responsibility to themselves, as well as their family, of keeping them secure. It's not the governments job to keep you and your family safe. It's your own personal responsibility.



    Heaven forbid it happens to anyone, but that's not the reality of the world we live in. Again, heaven forbid it ever happens, but if it's me or the bad guy who survives, there will be one less bad guy in the world.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Today, there is just no way private citizens are going to overthrow the US government by force. Just look at Waco if you want to know how it ends when you call the government's bluff.



    That is quite a poor example of a resistance. If you want a good example, look no further than the Revolutionary War. Did you know that a mere 3% made that happen?



    While I would not disagree that, due to gun control and regulation, it would be a battle unmatched in firepower. However, don't think that it could never happen. You just never know, and guerrilla warfare is difficult to defend/attack.



    However, what one fails to realize or take into consideration is how many members of the military would actually fight that fight against such militia. If it were truly a revolution against tyranny, I believe you would be surprised at the lack of support from the troops. They have taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic." Not support and defend the government, but the Constitution. If it honestly came down to a government so corrupt with tyranny abound, they would then become a domestic enemy to the Constitution.



    (Note: I'm not militia, nor am I advocating a coup against the Government. It's simply a discussion of topic, not support for overthrowing the Government.)





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    As a gun collector/enthusiast I have no problems with a little regulation. I know this is a thread about armed robbery and I got off on a tangent about irresponsible gun ownership. Sure when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, but senseless homicides of passion or accidental shootings are preventable. Let the police handle the criminal element.



    You have, maybe without knowing it, some good points here.



    a) "Irresponsible gun ownership"

    Bingo. Keyword: irresponsible.

    You can't legislate irresponsibility out of existence. It's just not possible.



    At the root of this issue is bad parenting. Kids are curious by nature, and they're certainly going to be curious about guns. Teaching kids early on about guns, taking them out to safely shoot them, and getting involved with them works. Teaching them to not touch a gun without supervision, and if they want to touch one to come get you.



    When you stop what you're doing and take the time to show them the gun they are curious about, while supervising their safe handling of the gun, takes the mystery out of it. Eventually it becomes as common place to them as the knives in the drawer or block on the counter. Of course firearms should also be stored in an appropriate manner for ones situation.



    Also, when taking your kid out to shoot, take some fruit or milk jugs with water with you. Show them what happens to a cantaloupe when it's hit by a bullet. You'd be surprised how quickly kids learn sometimes. I am every day. The NRA also has an excellent kids program called Eddie Eagle. It's a good start for kids, but needs to be backed up by solid parenting.



    Of course we realize there are parents out there who are irresponsible. Again, we can't legislate irresponsibility out of existence. Well, we could, but nobody would want to live in such a place.





    b) "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    Exactly. You're 100% correct. However, it's now "when", it's "if", and it's "criminals", not "outlaws". This isn't the wild west here, with outlaw vigilantes running around with 6-shooters.



    Honest, law abiding citizens are standing up and accepting the responsibility for their personal safety, and that of their family. Being denied that right, while criminals break the law, would be a detriment to this country. One which citizens would not stand for.



    c) "I have no problems with a little regulation"

    (Italic added for emphasis)

    I am not completely against a little regulation either. Key phrase here, "a little". The question then becomes where is that line? What defines "a little"? Is it simply registering that you're the purchaser of the firearm? Is it passing a NICS background check when purchasing? Is it only being allowed access to certain types of firearms? Is it being denied the possession of a handgun? A rifle? A shotgun? Where does it end?



    The best example of "a little" is the UK. It was "a little" here, and "a little" there. Guess what? It added up, and they are now denied the right completely. Yet it has absolutely failed (miserably, at that) to curb criminals with guns. Did you know that the "Bobby's" didn't carry firearms? They didn't, until recently. Why? The criminals are better armed than ever before, because of "a little" regulation.



    -----



    I'm coming off pretty strong on this. While I am absolutely firm on standing up for my rights, I'm not some raving lunatic, hording thousands of firearms and more ammo than you can shake a stick at. I'm simply one of the majority of responsible, law abiding citizens in this great nation. I enjoy firearms, and I enjoy shooting. I also like to hunt and fish, too.



    However, I have no problem "coming off strong" when it's defending ones rights. Rights which, if one fails to exercise or care about, can quietly slip away.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 123 of 123
    quillzquillz Posts: 209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Really?



    Look what Apple has rolled out since 2001. Then look at what's come out of Redmond since 2001. Where's all that MS R&D money going??



    Only themselves to blame for rolling out uninspiring, mediocre products year after year. A corporate/enterprise software vendor masquerading as a home/consumer vendor. And people are steadily waking up to this reality.



    Here's a brief list of some of the things Microsoft has done since 2001...



    Windows XP

    Windows XP SP1

    Windows XP SP2

    Windows XP SP3

    Windows XP Tablet PC Edition

    Windows XP Media Center Edition

    Windows XP 64-bit Edition

    Windows Vista

    Windows Vista SP1

    Windows 7

    Microsoft Surface

    Zune

    Microsoft Sync

    IE6

    IE7

    IE8



    A brief list. I know you will (obviously) find a way to discredit every point, but the simple fact is that both Microsoft and Apple have been busy.



    As for where their R&D money has been going, it's gone into projects like Microsoft Surface, exploring new types of interfaces, such as touch. You know, the same thing that everyone gives Apple universal praise for. Some of their R&D went into Longhorn, which demonstrated concepts like Instant Search back in 2002, which somehow wound up as a "breakthrough" feature in Tiger called Spotlight.



    Like I said, I know you will discredit everything I just posted, but the fact is Microsoft never gets credit for the things they do. They do a lot of research and development, but a lot of it goes into the enterprise markets, so it's not nearly as visible or as pretty as Apple's research and development, often targeted at consumers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.