Ashley Madison

Mass Shooting in Vegas

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0
How does that nut in North Korea keep his people in check so successfully using the military?
It’s not as simple as that.

The military, and the general DPRK population live in total fear of (mainly) US aggression. The Kim dynasty relies on keeping their population paralyzed by this fear, and under the impression that it is only through personal sacrifice to the state that their survival will continue.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,235
6,944
113
NOPE,... never posted any of that.

But since you brought this up,... I'm guessing you are going to tell us all now what you think,... aren't you basketcase..
The answers are obvious and they undermine the "need" for the second amendment.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
How does that nut in North Korea keep his people in check so successfully using the military?
He doesn't. It's primarily secret police operations and not the military. Gun rights are no defence against your own neighbor turning you in to the secret police.

You are imagining sides with the military coming over a hill to attack the people and finding a civilian militia standing in their way. In an oppressed country there are no such clear sides.

That's not how tyranny works. It's the subversion of basic social institutions, turning the people against one another, etc., and it's enforced by your local police, school board, home owners association, etc, not the military.

You neighbor turns you in so as to get their own kid out of trouble, or to receive an extra ration of food, or just because they were brainwashed.
 

TeeJay

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
8,052
731
113
west gta
As of June 2017

Toronto has had 19 homicides — 15 of this year’s murders have been committed with a gun.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/01/toronto-on-pace-for-fewer-murders-in-2017

I wonder what could have saved these 15 lives killed by gun in Toronto?!
OMG lol
I missed most of your ranting since it was pointless but this one is just priceless

You do realize up in Canada most people who get shot are holding a weapon? (nearly 90% of them)
If 2 people confront each other (or 1 jumps the other) and both are holding what exactly do you think could have "saved their lives" (hint: NO GUNS)

In the USA it is different as you seem to enjoy wackos with automatic weapons trying to set the high score in body count but that is pretty rare up here
Then again we do not have crazy groups like the NRA telling us we need anti-tank weapons to defend our homes from scary black teens
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,272
23,721
113
OMG lol
I missed most of your ranting since it was pointless but this one is just priceless

You do realize up in Canada most people who get shot are holding a weapon? (nearly 90% of them)
If 2 people confront each other (or 1 jumps the other) and both are holding what exactly do you think could have "saved their lives" (hint: NO GUNS)

In the USA it is different as you seem to enjoy wackos with automatic weapons trying to set the high score in body count but that is pretty rare up here
Then again we do not have crazy groups like the NRA telling us we need anti-tank weapons to defend our homes from scary black teens
Not to mention that Toronto is rated as the 4th safest city in the world.
http://www.blogto.com/city/2017/10/toronto-ranked-4th-safest-city-world/
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,696
21
38
He doesn't. It's primarily secret police operations and not the military. Gun rights are no defence against your own neighbor turning you in to the secret police.

You are imagining sides with the military coming over a hill to attack the people and finding a civilian militia standing in their way. In an oppressed country there are no such clear sides.

That's not how tyranny works. It's the subversion of basic social institutions, turning the people against one another, etc., and it's enforced by your local police, school board, home owners association, etc, not the military.

You neighbor turns you in so as to get their own kid out of trouble, or to receive an extra ration of food, or just because they were brainwashed.
Do they or do they not have gun rights in NK?
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0

black booty lover

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2007
9,795
1,739
113
What do you guys think they'll do with the room fuckface rented when he did all this? My guess is they'll probably take the door out and dry wall over so nobody can ever get that room again. I can't imagine they'll let that room be available ever again.
I was really curious about this but nobody else seemed to care as I got no responses....lol. Looks like they're finally starting to talk about it.


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/worl...hen-paddocks-room-again/ar-AAtMk3F?li=AAggFp5
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
78,415
96,448
113
How does that nut in North Korea keep his people in check so successfully using the military?
History lesson. Most Communist regimes came into power in largely agrarian societies with large class, power and wealth divisions between the peasants and the landowner class. The Communist movement was based among the peasants and was enthusiastically embraced and wildly popular. All those countries had pre communist regimes which freely used violence and military power against the peasants to enforce and perpetuate these disparities. The Communists armed and trained the peasants to violently overthrow the armed forces of the landowners to gain a more broadly-based Communist regime.

In many of these countries, European or American colonialism was also present and was also ruthlessly enforced with military violence on a mass scale.

Communism was fanatically and enthusiastically supported by a broad base of the population when it seized and maintained power. The landowners were usually killed - often very publicly and horrifically. The colonial power was driven out. This often occurred after long, bloody and violent war.

Communism has a set ideology which presumes that treacherous, anti Communist agents will attempt to subvert the Communist regime and convert it back into a landowner dominated society. The only way to stop this is to kill or imprison every such attempt ruthlessly. The regimes in question are already well used to regime driven internal violence and repressions as both sides have normatively used it.

The peasants usually benefit - at least initially - from communist regime change and feel they have a stake in the regime surviving. This perception in continually reinforced by state control of the media and propaganda - again, a normal part of communist regimes.

And certain parts of society - i.e. the apparatchiki, the party cadre, the army officers and the secret police - have a deep stake in the survival of the communist state. They benefit in terms of status, wealth and power from the communist regime. And they will likely be killed if the regime falls and is replaced by democracy.

So you get a compliant and repressed population which believes that state violence is a legitimate tool of government. And a ruthless and violent state elite. Hence N. Korea. Or Russia. Or any other classic communist state.

Now, tell me if ANY of the above elements exist in the current USA????
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,429
19
38
Haven't read every post in this thread so apologies if somebody has made the same points.

Re: Gun Control in the U.S. For all those who say is will "never happen", look again. It's already happened (eg: why do you suppose the market for bump stocks existed? It's because fully automatic weapons are regulated (legal Federally (under certain conditions which I will not get into) but restricted at the State level in many States). There are many other examples of control - eg: How many States allow open carry? So the question is not whether Gun Control will ever exist - it's whether the existing Gun Controls can be strengthened or additional controls added. But the reality is: Gun Control in the U.S. already exists. Side note: I am a gun owner and have always worked for American companies so have a lot of U.S. colleagues who are close friends. I have an ex-colleague who was a gun fanatic (and skilled home gunsmith). He and I went to a few gun shows together and they were a little scary. NOT because of the weaponry available - but by how a many of the shoppers mis-handled weapons. Many have no clue how to safely handle a weapon, yet they could walk out with a gun. So one of the obvious ways to strengthen gun control would be to require a license, safety education and even background checks before being allowed to legally purchase a weapon - and close loopholes like gunshows (which are not really private sales) or even ban private sales (so if you want to sell a weapon, you have to go through a third party like a gun dealer).

Anyway - Gun Control is so closely related to partisan politics and the entire political system is screwed up for at least a generation. That's why a clown like Trump got elected. Things are so polarized that it's got to a point where political affiliation has become equal or even more important as an identifier than culture or race. So if eg: a Democrat were to assume office and try to implement stricter gun control at the Federal level, it would get ugly. So things will get worse before they get better and mass shootings in the U.S. will unfortunately remain a regular occurrence.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,696
21
38
History lesson. Most Communist regimes came into power in largely agrarian societies with large class, power and wealth divisions between the peasants and the landowner class. The Communist movement was based among the peasants and was enthusiastically embraced and wildly popular. All those countries had pre communist regimes which freely used violence and military power against the peasants to enforce and perpetuate these disparities. The Communists armed and trained the peasants to violently overthrow the armed forces of the landowners to gain a more broadly-based Communist regime.

In many of these countries, European or American colonialism was also present and was also ruthlessly enforced with military violence on a mass scale.

Communism was fanatically and enthusiastically supported by a broad base of the population when it seized and maintained power. The landowners were usually killed - often very publicly and horrifically. The colonial power was driven out. This often occurred after long, bloody and violent war.

Communism has a set ideology which presumes that treacherous, anti Communist agents will attempt to subvert the Communist regime and convert it back into a landowner dominated society. The only way to stop this is to kill or imprison every such attempt ruthlessly. The regimes in question are already well used to regime driven internal violence and repressions as both sides have normatively used it.

The peasants usually benefit - at least initially - from communist regime change and feel they have a stake in the regime surviving. This perception in continually reinforced by state control of the media and propaganda - again, a normal part of communist regimes.

And certain parts of society - i.e. the apparatchiki, the party cadre, the army officers and the secret police - have a deep stake in the survival of the communist state. They benefit in terms of status, wealth and power from the communist regime. And they will likely be killed if the regime falls and is replaced by democracy.

So you get a compliant and repressed population which believes that state violence is a legitimate tool of government. And a ruthless and violent state elite. Hence N. Korea. Or Russia. Or any other classic communist state.

Now, tell me if ANY of the above elements exist in the current USA????
Was Germany a communist state when Hitler took over?

You provide a great history lesson and fortunately few direct parallels exist in the West. We know at minimum to avoid communism. But don't let that give you the false impression that nations can't arrive at similarly horrific circumstances through different means. It's the very arrogance you display that could march us down that ugly path. At no time in history has there ever been a nation like the USA so everything that is done there is precedent setting. It works very well as it is and the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,235
6,944
113
Was Germany a communist state when Hitler took over?...
Do you really think a second amendment would have stopped Hitler's rise? I'd suggest you take some time and read up on the what happened between his being a minor political figure and having direct control over the country and military.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
23,570
2,067
113
You really believe this shit? You really think the Air Force would be told what they are bombing? After the US Civil war, Waco, Kent State, etc etc you really think US military and police would hesitate to kill Americans? That is pretty funny. The Russians have slaughtered their own people, time and time again, and civil wars tend to be the most vicious. The govt will call them traitors, terrorists etc and KABOOM they will all be slaughtered like dogs.



In fact citizens of every country can defeat the armed forces of their own country without arms. The armed forces are drawn from the population and will only act against the people to the extent that the armed forces are convinced of the justness of the action.

As they say, the army and the people are one.

The soviet people did not have any gun rights and yet when the army there was ordered to fire on the people protesting in Red Square the military was defeated and the government fell.

How? Because the young Russians ordered to shoot the old women who looked very much like their own grandmothers couldn't do it, said "fuck that order", and joined the protesters.

In fact had the protesters been armed it would have likely been easier for the army to crush the revolt.

When the government orders soldiers to go kill their own people, it's not uncommon for the soldiers to revolt against the government.

I have a hard time believing the US Air Force would EVER obey an order to bomb American cities. Instead it would turn on the government that gave the order.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,875
8,655
113
Room 112
Since 1990 the number of homicides in the United States has fallen by about 25-30%. Rapes are down 7-10%. Robberies are down a whopping 48-50%. The ranges are because in 2015 and 2016 there were mini spikes in violent crime across the board.

During that time period the number of privately owned guns has doubled. The number of right to carry states has gone from 10 to 42.

I realize that there are other factors that have contributed to the reduction in crime but it seems that there is an inverse relationship between levels of gun ownership and violent crime.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,429
19
38
Since 1990 the number of homicides in the United States has fallen by about 25-30%. Rapes are down 7-10%. Robberies are down a whopping 48-50%. The ranges are because in 2015 and 2016 there were mini spikes in violent crime across the board.

During that time period the number of privately owned guns has doubled. The number of right to carry states has gone from 10 to 42.

I realize that there are other factors that have contributed to the reduction in crime but it seems that there is an inverse relationship between levels of gun ownership and violent crime.
You'd have to do a lot of work to prove that relationship. Stephen Levitt proposed that the drop in crime was a result of legalized abortion. So lots of different arguments.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
242
63
Since 1990 the number of homicides in the United States has fallen by about 25-30%. Rapes are down 7-10%. Robberies are down a whopping 48-50%. The ranges are because in 2015 and 2016 there were mini spikes in violent crime across the board.

During that time period the number of privately owned guns has doubled. The number of right to carry states has gone from 10 to 42.

I realize that there are other factors that have contributed to the reduction in crime but it seems that there is an inverse relationship between levels of gun ownership and violent crime.
You'd have to do a lot more to prove those two things are related.

Otherwise we could say things like the number of reality shows has also increased in that same time period therefore reality shows prevents crime.

I think people need to stop trying to justify owning guns. I'm fine with people owning guns. I'm not fine with people making up reasons to own guns.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts