Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

oh I don't disagree that they were first elected because they were saying all the right things that the people wanted to hear....however what I'm getting at is that the real nitty gritty, the mass murders....didn't start until AFTER their successful campaign to brainwash the citizenry into either surrendering their weapons or using them in service to whatever their version of the "greater good" was by joining whatever Gestapo-like police force they had

You are missing what tood is saying, they were not "voted into power" they led civilian insurrections -because- the populous was armed.

Secondly, despite what you believe, Stalin, Mao et al did not "disarm the citizenry" (hell, Mao's china was dirt poor and most people could not afford housing or food, let alone a gun, and Stalin did not care if you had a firearm) because it would have been a waste of time. Why bother to send in troops at all when you can blast the living hell out of dissidents with tanks, mortars and bombs if they dare oppose you?
If you armed every single protester in Tiananmen square with guns, the historical result would not change, dead protesters run over with tanks, with no lost tanks.
Tyrants don't fear an armed citizenry, forget this stupid notion, they fear loosing power and the largest power they have to fear is loosing the military.
You and annoyed's attempts to hand-wave this away with "oh the predator can't find me and I got me a shotgun" and "Oh, we will hack them" is beyond stupidity, it's the false bravado of ignorance.
The predators don't bother finding -you-, the military says "there is an insurrection in Buffalo NY" and they turn the COUNTY to rubble in a matter of minutes and leave it there as a reminder of the price of insurrection.
THAT'S how tyrants win, overwhelming force and guess what?
Your military is the most overwhelming force on the planet, and you really think you are gonna hack it or shoot it up with any weapon you can lay your hands on?
ROFLMFAO!!!!

any dictator worth his salt knows that you don't start right away with the heavy-handed authoritarianism.....you introduce it slowly but surely and make the people think that you're a benevolent soul, right up until the point they get executed as "politically inconvenient"

History would argue with you, repeatedly.

like cooking a frog, you don't just toss the frog into water that's already boiling as the frog would just jump right back out but if you put the frog in water on the stove that's room temperature and turn up the heat slowly the frog will happily wallow in the slowly heating water until it's too late for it and it no longer has the strength to escape the now boiling water because it's already more than half-cooked

How are you enjoying your spa BTW?

[Gatefan1976]

Another thing to consider is that US has had private gun ownership for a very long time, but the mass killings are a recent phenomenon. Maybe the cause has more to do with other changes in our society over the past several decades. Such as the gibberish the education system is peddling, the lack of values being taught, the lack of discipline applied to youngsters when they misbehave, the "anything goes" mentality we teach. Hell, a parent can't even spank the little hellion for fear that they will be brought up on abuse charges when the little snotnose goes running to the teacher or someone else.

Or perhaps you have just been taught to be more afraid, and weapons technology is far more advanced?

[Annoyed]

Or perhaps you have just been taught to be more afraid, and weapons technology is far more advanced?

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not the tools, it's the people? Any tool can be misused. I've already pointed out that it would be just as if not more effective to kill people with homemade bombs.

A bomb is a very simple thing. A flammable substance placed into a vessel which attempts to contain it. Heat causes expansion, that cannot be stopped, so the container experiences catastrophic failure, resulting in a bomb. How many different materials could you use to create such a device? It ain't exactly rocket science. I won't give details, but many common household substances are sufficiently combustible, perhaps with another common household product to serve as an oxidizer. You going to ban or regulate any substance which can be used for these purposes? Good luck.

It's not the tool, it's the people that misuse the tools which are the problem. Take one tool away, and the person who wants to kill will simply use another tool.

[aretood2]

oh I don't disagree that they were first elected because they were saying all the right things that the people wanted to hear....however what I'm getting at is that the real nitty gritty, the mass murders....didn't start until AFTER their successful campaign to brainwash the citizenry into either surrendering their weapons or using them in service to whatever their version of the "greater good" was by joining whatever Gestapo-like police force they had

any dictator worth his salt knows that you don't start right away with the heavy-handed authoritarianism.....you introduce it slowly but surely and make the people think that you're a benevolent soul, right up until the point they get executed as "politically inconvenient"

like cooking a frog, you don't just toss the frog into water that's already boiling as the frog would just jump right back out but if you put the frog in water on the stove that's room temperature and turn up the heat slowly the frog will happily wallow in the slowly heating water until it's too late for it and it no longer has the strength to escape the now boiling water because it's already more than half-cooked

You appear to have missed my point. But historically, no. Fascist nations did not disarm their citizens in that fashion at all. What the Nazis did was take steps to restrict gun ownership for "undesirables" such as Jews. The Aryan German did not need to worry about the fuhrer coming for his guns. And even if Jews were well armed house by house up into the moment of mass deportations,
there was little that they could do to prevent the genocide. Just remember, Allied troops had the pleasure of seeing anti-tank rockets just bouncing of German armor and all the guns Londoners had did nothing to prevent the London Blitz (unless you are suggesting that citizens also have AA guns at home?).

Another thing to consider is that US has had private gun ownership for a very long time, but the mass killings are a recent phenomenon. Maybe the cause has more to do with other changes in our society over the past several decades. Such as the gibberish the education system is peddling, the lack of values being taught, the lack of discipline applied to youngsters when they misbehave, the "anything goes" mentality we teach. Hell, a parent can't even spank the little hellion for fear that they will be brought up on abuse charges when the little snotnose goes running to the teacher or someone else.

Spanking is legal in PA. And while I personally have nothing against the practice, spanking isn't the only viable and effective method of discipline. But I don't believe in reliance on spanking. While my parents were willing to spank, they rarely did it and not for a lack of misbehavior on my part. Beyond that, snot nosed modern day kids can't be blamed for the Las Vegas shooter and other similar shooters from the previous decade who were kids in the 80's at the latest.

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not the tools, it's the people? Any tool can be misused. I've already pointed out that it would be just as if not more effective to kill people with homemade bombs.

A bomb is a very simple thing. A flammable substance placed into a vessel which attempts to contain it. Heat causes expansion, that cannot be stopped, so the container experiences catastrophic failure, resulting in a bomb. How many different materials could you use to create such a device? It ain't exactly rocket science. I won't give details, but many common household substances are sufficiently combustible, perhaps with another common household product to serve as an oxidizer. You going to ban or regulate any substance which can be used for these purposes? Good luck.

It's not the tool, it's the people that misuse the tools which are the problem. Take one tool away, and the person who wants to kill will simply use another tool.

I think he means, for example, there were no mass shootings in 1718 because by the time you reload your musket, you would either be A: Overrun by the angry would-be-victims or B: The would-be-victims would have been long gone. Today, one rifle can mow down a group of people, and reloading is relatively quick. And you have a side arm or two that needs not much time to grab after you exhaust your rifle's ammo.

[Gatefan1976]

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not the tools, it's the people? Any tool can be misused. I've already pointed out that it would be just as if not more effective to kill people with homemade bombs.

Ok, I'll accept that for a moment.
It's not the gun it's the people.
Americans are the most ****ed up people on the planet
Nowhere else do people kill their own, or jail their own, like in America, and as I cannot point to the ease of guns, and as you ignore the difficulty of creating bombs, the only conclusion is, it is the people that are the problem.
Right?
I mean, you admit as much, so I must be right.

A bomb is a very simple thing. A flammable substance placed into a vessel which attempts to contain it. Heat causes expansion, that cannot be stopped, so the container experiences catastrophic failure, resulting in a bomb. How many different materials could you use to create such a device? It ain't exactly rocket science. I won't give details, but many common household substances are sufficiently combustible, perhaps with another common household product to serve as an oxidizer. You going to ban or regulate any substance which can be used for these purposes? Good luck.

Given your background, I would suggest chlorine with brake fluid, both fairly common and it has a highly agitated response.
Of course, it's not enough on personal levels to make an effective bomb.
Buying it on levels high enough to make a bomb however, while perhaps not regulated, certainly is -tracked-, and if you don't think it is, you are just plain ignorant.

It's not the tool, it's the people that misuse the tools which are the problem. Take one tool away, and the person who wants to kill will simply use another tool.

Yes they will, but once more you ignore the ease of one over another.
If it were pissing down rain, and I offered you a house, or a tent you needed to set up, which one would you use?
If you say "tent, because I like the challenge", you are just a liar.

[Annoyed]

Ok, I'll accept that for a moment.
It's not the gun it's the people.
Americans are the most ****ed up people on the planet
Nowhere else do people kill their own, or jail their own, like in America, and as I cannot point to the ease of guns, and as you ignore the difficulty of creating bombs, the only conclusion is, it is the people that are the problem.
Right?
I mean, you admit as much, so I must be right.

Given your background, I would suggest xxxxxxx with xxxxxxx, both fairly common and it has a highly agitated response.
Of course, it's not enough on personal levels to make an effective bomb.
Buying it on levels high enough to make a bomb however, while perhaps not regulated, certainly is -tracked-, and if you don't think it is, you are just plain ignorant.

Yes they will, but once more you ignore the ease of one over another.
If it were pissing down rain, and I offered you a house, or a tent you needed to set up, which one would you use?
If you say "tent, because I like the challenge", you are just a liar.

I'm not going to post a recipe for making a bomb, (and I wish you wouldn't post details either, I'm asking as a favor for you to edit your post) but suffice to say that there are plenty of substances that could be used to make a bomb that would normally be purchased in sufficient quantity as to be untrackable. Who is to say whether someone purchasing X quantity of substance A and substance B is doing household tasks or planning to blow up a school? We don't have the resources to track every purchase because they are too common.

As far as the house/tent question, I would obviously take the house. But if all that is offered is the tent, I can put a tent up pretty damned quick. I used to go camping 6+ times a summer back in the 80's and 90's.

And yes, we are a pretty frakked up country right now.

[aretood2]

I'm not going to post a recipe for making a bomb, (and I wish you wouldn't post details either, I'm asking as a favor for you to edit your post) but suffice to say that there are plenty of substances that could be used to make a bomb that would normally be purchased in sufficient quantity as to be untrackable. Who is to say whether someone purchasing X quantity of substance A and substance B is doing household tasks or planning to blow up a school? We don't have the resources to track every purchase because they are too common.

As far as the house/tent question, I would obviously take the house. But if all that is offered is the tent, I can put a tent up pretty damned quick. I used to go camping 6+ times a summer back in the 80's and 90's.

And yes, we are a pretty frakked up country right now.

The question is why? Values? Canadians aren't that much different yet they don't have proportionally the same rate of shootings. Race? Canada is whiter but the shootings here in the US are proportional to race (with white shooters being the bloodlier and more notorious than non-white). Gun Laws? Well, that actually falls into the liberal argument's favor. Lack of God in school? Europe is way worse in that regard, but way lower in gun violence. So, why?

[Annoyed]

Ok, this is an opinion piece I ran across today. It raises an interesting question. I hadn't thought of this before, and I'm not really sure where I stand on it yet.

If investigators can legally lie to a suspect, to trick him into a confession, for example, why is it a crime for suspects to lie to investigators?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...n-t-be-a-crime

[thekillman]

If investigators can legally lie to a suspect, to trick him into a confession, for example, why is it a crime for suspects to lie to investigators?

Because it would make it really hard to investigate someone if you were legally obliged to tell the truth on everything. It would be easy for the investigated to get the gist of what the investigator knows, and adjust his story accordingly.

I get what the article is aiming at, and it's a fair criticism.

[aretood2]

On the flip side, a suspect innocent of any wrongdoing can be lead to believe that they will be wrongly convicted because of fake evidence/witnesses and then make a plea deal to a lesser charge. Why risk losing in court and get a much heavier sentence than just taking the loss for a lighter sentence?

[Gatefan1976]

I'm not going to post a recipe for making a bomb, (and I wish you wouldn't post details either, I'm asking as a favor for you to edit your post)

Are you asking me to censor myself?
What happened to "let the audience decide"?

but suffice to say that there are plenty of substances that could be used to make a bomb that would normally be purchased in sufficient quantity as to be untrackable. Who is to say whether someone purchasing X quantity of substance A and substance B is doing household tasks or planning to blow up a school? We don't have the resources to track every purchase because they are too common.

Yes, you can track every purchase, easily. What you can't do as law enforcement is -act- on every purchase.
You need to explore motive, which is where ads like this come into play:

As far as the house/tent question, I would obviously take the house. But if all that is offered is the tent, I can put a tent up pretty damned quick. I used to go camping 6+ times a summer back in the 80's and 90's.

You are wilfully ignoring the point of the question, but to play along, not everyone goes camping, nor can set up at bomb, err, tent.
Anyone can use a gun, err, live in a house.

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, this is an opinion piece I ran across today. It raises an interesting question. I hadn't thought of this before, and I'm not really sure where I stand on it yet.

If investigators can legally lie to a suspect, to trick him into a confession, for example, why is it a crime for suspects to lie to investigators?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...n-t-be-a-crime

Because it would make it really hard to investigate someone if you were legally obliged to tell the truth on everything. It would be easy for the investigated to get the gist of what the investigator knows, and adjust his story accordingly.

I get what the article is aiming at, and it's a fair criticism.

On the flip side, a suspect innocent of any wrongdoing can be lead to believe that they will be wrongly convicted because of fake evidence/witnesses and then make a plea deal to a lesser charge. Why risk losing in court and get a much heavier sentence than just taking the loss for a lighter sentence?

[SoulReaver]

If investigators can legally lie to a suspect, to trick him into a confession, for example, why is it a crime for suspects to lie to investigators?

ask the neocons

why is lying to the investigators only a problem now when the elites are doing it?

[Annoyed]

ask the neocons

why is lying to the investigators only a problem now when the elites are doing it?

It's not only a problem now. I've noticed this technique used in police procedurals such as Law & Order; the detectives lie to the suspect, convincing him that they have incontrovertible proof to trick him into confessing. I hadn't thought about it till I read that piece, but if the suspect has to be honest, shouldn't the cops?

[aretood2]

It's not only a problem now. I've noticed this technique used in police procedurals such as Law & Order; the detectives lie to the suspect, convincing him that they have incontrovertible proof to trick him into confessing. I hadn't thought about it till I read that piece, but if the suspect has to be honest, shouldn't the cops?

I also see the value as a technique to get someone to flip. But the points the article made about privacy or divulging legal secrets that can back and bite you in the rear end...I do think there's a balance between the two that we currently don't have and ought to have.