Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'

[Tigerace117]

I am pretty sure that you meant 4 decades not 40 right? Perhaps if the Afghans had half the heart that Americans have it would have been a much, much shorter war? I dont know, that does not convince me that that Afghans are better than Americans.

At any rate this is not a pissing contest with Afghans. I think that you are grossly under evaluating American spirit and patriotism.

Yes, it was a minor typo, as I stated above.

Considering that the usual example for claiming a revolution against a "tyrannical" government could be kept afloat is invoking Afghanistan, pointing out the vast differences is rather important.

Afghans have kept fighting well beyond the point Americans would have gotten bored, or sick of war, or disinterested, or just declared victory and gone home. Like I said before, guerilla warfare is all about how who can endure the most suffering. There is no evidence Americans have the spine for any such thing.

And you are blithely handwaving away the realities of the situation to cling to a myth.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Yes, it was a minor typo, as I stated above.

Considering that the usual example for claiming a revolution against a "tyrannical" government could be kept afloat is invoking Afghanistan, pointing out the vast differences is rather important.

Afghans have kept fighting well beyond the point Americans would have gotten bored, or sick of war, or disinterested, or just declared victory and gone home. Like I said before, guerilla warfare is all about how who can endure the most suffering. There is no evidence Americans have the spine for any such thing.

And you are blithely handwaving away the realities of the situation to cling to a myth.

Well that is a stupid post. You act as if fighting a war against a "tyrannical" government equates the news cycle or some **** like that. The Afghans most likely find their balls because of all the death and lack of liberties and important things like that. The bored American that you perceive would no longer exist in that situation. Look Afghans are humans and they have acted just like humans, and there is no logical reason that we would not act like humans as well.

The problem here is obviously your hate of America plain and simple. Thats the only message that comes through for your argument.

 

[Xelor]

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

The "real" opposition isn't whatever guns and bullets the citizenry might wield, but rather the citizenry's sentiment and determination not to be both disaffected and ruled. After all, once a government kills off its citizenry, who is there to govern, who is there from whom to collect taxes; who is there to produce and sell the goods and services that provide the nation's GDP? There is also the matter that even if the citizenry held arms, those arms would be of no use against modern armed governmental forces. This isn't the Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance, Middle Ages or Ancient Era wherein no material difference existed in the nature of arms governments and citizenries could field. The small arms citizens today can afford, maintain and wield simply don't hold a candle to those a military can bring to bear.

Given the "Catch 22" of sorts described above -- gov't must, when extant is sufficient civil discontent, accede to the preponderance of the polity's wishes for armed or not armed, the gov't cannot disabuse itself of the malcontents -- gov'ts, their heads and lieutenants, when faced with mass fundamental objection to their ways, have no choice but to find an amicable/diplomatic solution to whatever riles their citizens. People will put up with quite a bit, but at some point, they don't and won't.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I am pretty sure that you meant 4 decades not 40 right? Perhaps if the Afghans had half the heart that Americans have it would have been a much, much shorter war? I dont know, that does not convince me that that Afghans are better than Americans.

At any rate this is not a pissing contest with Afghans. I think that you are grossly under evaluating American spirit and patriotism.

I would love to see how much heart the Americans would display if their families were targeted for murder just because they are part of the country's army or police force.

Afghan cops and soldiers face this every day.

 

[Arby]

The "real" opposition isn't whatever guns and bullets the citizenry might wield, but rather the citizenry's sentiment and determination not to be both disaffected and ruled. After all, once a government kills off its citizenry, who is there to govern, who is there from whom to collect taxes; who is there to produce and sell the goods and services that provide the nation's GDP? There is also the matter that even if the citizenry held arms, those arms would be of no use against modern armed governmental forces. This isn't the Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance, Middle Ages or Ancient Era wherein no material difference existed in the nature of arms governments and citizenries could field. The small arms citizens today can afford, maintain and wield simply don't hold a candle to those a military can bring to bear.

Given the "Catch 22" of sorts described above -- gov't must, when extant is sufficient civil discontent, accede to the preponderance of the polity's wishes for armed or not armed, the gov't cannot disabuse itself of the malcontents -- gov'ts, their heads and lieutenants, when faced with mass fundamental objection to their ways, have no choice but to find an amicable/diplomatic solution to whatever riles their citizens. People will put up with quite a bit, but at some point, they don't and won't.

What makes you think our military would fire on their own friends and families? I frequent military forums, many say they would fire on superiors who would give an order to fire on American citizens if those orders would defy the constitution (primarily speaking of the 2nd. Amendment).

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I would love to see how much heart the Americans would display if their families were targeted for murder just because they are part of the country's army or police force.

Afghan cops and soldiers face this every day.

You would love it? FFS ...

 

[Xelor]

The "real" opposition isn't whatever guns and bullets the citizenry might wield, but rather the citizenry's sentiment and determination not to be both disaffected and ruled. After all, once a government kills off its citizenry, who is there to govern, who is there from whom to collect taxes; who is there to produce and sell the goods and services that provide the nation's GDP? There is also the matter that even if the citizenry held arms, those arms would be of no use against modern armed governmental forces. This isn't the Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance, Middle Ages or Ancient Era wherein no material difference existed in the nature of arms governments and citizenries could field. The small arms citizens today can afford, maintain and wield simply don't hold a candle to those a military can bring to bear.

Given the "Catch 22" of sorts described above -- gov't must, when extant is sufficient civil discontent, accede to the preponderance of the polity's wishes for armed or not armed, the gov't cannot disabuse itself of the malcontents -- gov'ts, their heads and lieutenants, when faced with mass fundamental objection to their ways, have no choice but to find an amicable/diplomatic solution to whatever riles their citizens. People will put up with quite a bit, but at some point, they don't and won't.

What makes you think our military would fire on their own friends and families? I frequent military forums, many say they would fire on superiors who would give an order to fire on American citizens if those orders would defy the constitution (primarily speaking of the 2nd. Amendment).

Red:
What that I wrote compelled you to suspect I may think that it would?

 

[Arby]

Red:
What that I wrote compelled you to suspect I may think that it would?

This.

There is also the matter that even if the citizenry held arms, those arms would be of no use against modern armed governmental forces. This isn't the Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance, Middle Ages or Ancient Era wherein no material difference existed in the nature of arms governments and citizenries could field. The small arms citizens today can afford, maintain and wield simply don't hold a candle to those a military can bring to bear

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The "real" opposition isn't whatever guns and bullets the citizenry might wield, but rather the citizenry's sentiment and determination not to be both disaffected and ruled. After all, once a government kills off its citizenry, who is there to govern, who is there from whom to collect taxes; who is there to produce and sell the goods and services that provide the nation's GDP? There is also the matter that even if the citizenry held arms, those arms would be of no use against modern armed governmental forces. This isn't the Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance, Middle Ages or Ancient Era wherein no material difference existed in the nature of arms governments and citizenries could field. The small arms citizens today can afford, maintain and wield simply don't hold a candle to those a military can bring to bear.

Given the "Catch 22" of sorts described above -- gov't must, when extant is sufficient civil discontent, accede to the preponderance of the polity's wishes for armed or not armed, the gov't cannot disabuse itself of the malcontents -- gov'ts, their heads and lieutenants, when faced with mass fundamental objection to their ways, have no choice but to find an amicable/diplomatic solution to whatever riles their citizens. People will put up with quite a bit, but at some point, they don't and won't.

You are over simplifying this a bit too much. While it is true that small arms are not the same as the tools of war, but you are assuming that the government would be the only ones with tanks and what not. I do not know what magical world that you live in, but the reality is that the military would be the governments biggest enemy. Military personal have families, and live here. They would not follow a government that was telling them to kill their family and friends.

I am not saying that the end result that you are talking about isnt possible but we would have to get there first. And I do not see that being an easy job for any government. Right away there would be a civil war consisting of a small army of military loyal to the corrupt government and the much larger military that defected and welcomed into their ranks, patriotic Americans. Most likely long before a coup could happen Americans would already form into an army to defeat those trying to take over America.

 

[code1211]

Truth. What's it been about 500 or so?

LOL!

I don't know.

We're living in a different world today than we were in 1787. The evaporation of moral restraints on miscreants is a real problem.

If nothing is really "wrong", then walking into a school and killing everyone in sight is not really wrong, either. A shared understanding of right and wrong seems to help maintain order in a culture.

If there are no limits on behavior, no limits will be observed.

Anyway, lacking this shared understanding that will reign in the actions of the perverse, our society's current approach is to allow the perverse actors to act but limit the tools used to perform the violence they perpetrate.

This is an interesting departure from sanity that we as a society seem to embrace.

 

[beerftw]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves


If ever there was a news article, that totally vindicates our founding fathers, and places the brightest spotlight squarely on the Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists and communists in the United States, it's this one. This is what they want for the citizens of the United States. This is precisely the tyrannical regime they want for us, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. They would love ALL weapons to be confiscated, and protesters (read that conservatives) against their tyrannical regime would be shot like dogs in the streets. Read the article, it's frightening! They never go for our guns outright in one swoop, they start incrementally and they institute hate for American history in the schools to teach our children to hate/fear guns. Then when those generations come of age, they willing give up their guns without firing a shot for the good of all. Then the draconian communism begins in earnest. Pelosi, Feinstein and the like are working on it as we speak. The idiot citizens in Venezuela got their guns taken quickly because they've always had ****ty govts. But in the US is won't go that way in beginning, it'll start slow and ramp up.

That is pretty terrible, even the soviet union under stalin never went that far, as they could by firearms albiet with very heavy restrictions and limited to rural people, but an outright ban? If your gun control laws are more strict than stalin, your country has issues.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

so tell me-if someone wants to ban "assault weapons" to save lives even though such weapons are used in less than 3% of all murders-is it sensible to believe they don't also want to ban the firearms used in most murders?

Folks wanting a ban on “assault weapons” isn’t sensible as a measure to prevent killings in the first place, as you have correctly pointed out, so sensibility can’t be relied on as a logical predictor of future legislative goals. The uneducated simply don’t view handguns with the same irrational fear and polls bear that out.

A safety belt is reasonable,never needed an air bag(but that's me). But if they make it commonsense to the point of being mandatory you have an auto pilot (that would piss off my wife since she would loose her job) operated by radar or flir or some such, I quit.

Common sense to me is if you know someone who you believe is mentally unstable and voicing irrational and potentially dangerous ideas of taking violent actions against others, and owns or has access to firearms, you do what needs to be done to prevent injury/death to the individual and others.
I totally get why many disagree with red flag laws, but from my perspective they are a legitimate alternate to doing nothing at all.

 

[Rich2018]

An armed people are a people that can defend their own freedom and liberty. An unarmed people are subjects, not citizens.

An armed people is one that can commit thousands of murders per year...hundreds of mass shootings...

An unarmed people is one that can live in relative peace and safety.

 

[Lursa]

Where’d I say anything about “10 is just fine”? I didn’t say any number. Hell, I don’t a problem with any magazine capacity and have said so, twice. I only opined on potential gun laws that I believe would not negatively impact me. Just my opinion, which I was very clear about also.

I’m glad that you came out of your garage confrontation without injury. In a situation like that, if the bad guys already have guns drawn you’re already at a huge disadvantage and magazine capacity is far from your greatest concern. I carry all the time, everywhere that law allows, but if someone or more than one comes at me with guns drawn, I’m handing over my wallet and keys. Recognizing possibilities and probabilities will take over any Rambo inclinations.

That's BS, your answer was all about, "well I dont need more than 10" and then on and on about 'if people trained enough, they wouldnt need more either.'

And there were no guns in evidence in that parking garage situtions and I dont really need the obvious pointed out.

 

[Lursa]

An armed people is one that can commit thousands of murders per year...hundreds of mass shootings...

An unarmed people is one that can live in relative peace and safety.

An unarmed people are victims of anyone stronger or with illegal firearms.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That's BS, your answer was all about, "well I dont need more than 10" and then on and on about 'if people trained enough, they wouldnt need more either.'

And there were no guns in evidence in that parking garage situtions and I dont really need the obvious pointed out.

What’s BS is your twisting and (deliberately?) distorting my words and my intended meaning. I never said anything about 10 rounds of ammunition (a number you’ve now cited twice. A fixation of yours?) or any other specified number, or suggested/said/implied that having (insert your own number here) and training would suffice for anyone. I spoke for myself and was clear about that.

I’m glad there were no guns involved in the garage incident you described. My hypothetical assessment wasn’t meant, in any way, to be received as patronizing.

 

[zsu2357]

=Rich2018;1069420796]An armed people is one that can commit thousands of murders per year...hundreds of mass shootings...

Me or anyone I know have done this.

An unarmed people is one that can live in relative peace and safety.

And hope that an armed person/s doesn't want what they have. Makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about being unarmed.

 

[zsu2357]

Me or anyone I know have done this.

And hope that an armed person/s doesn't want what they have. Makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about being unarmed.

That really ,really should say HAVEN'T!

 

[American]

you're ignorant of incrementalism?

No, he doesn't want to admit it.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Huge difference between gun control and gun ban/confiscation. And what makes you think Pelosi’s plan would become law?

And you trust your government?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And you trust your government?

On some things, yes, and on other things, no.

 

[Lursa]

What’s BS is your twisting and (deliberately?) distorting my words and my intended meaning. I never said anything about 10 rounds of ammunition (a number you’ve now cited twice. A fixation of yours?) or any other specified number, or suggested/said/implied that having (insert your own number here) and training would suffice for anyone. I spoke for myself and was clear about that.

I’m glad there were no guns involved in the garage incident you described. My hypothetical assessment wasn’t meant, in any way, to be received as patronizing.

Dont spread more of it around. You made your little speech about how many rounds are 'good for you' and 'hey, just get more training,' as if that's all it would take to overcome the harm those limits could make. And did not address my very specific reasons why it did. When I showed the holes in your response, you got mad and accusatory, instead of discussing.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Dont spread more of it around. You made your little speech about how many rounds are 'good for you' and 'hey, just get more training,' as if that's all it would take to overcome the harm those limits could make. And did not address my very specific reasons why it did. When I showed the holes in your response, you got mad and accusatory, instead of discussing.

I’m not angry now and I wasn’t angry earlier. You, on the other hand, were definitely angry. I don’t care for liars, but all anyone has to do is read my posts and they’ll see that I was consistent and truthful. Too bad you can’t honestly claim the same. :cheers:

 

[Lursa]

I’m not angry now and I wasn’t angry earlier. You, on the other hand, were definitely angry. I don’t care for liars, but all anyone has to do is read my posts and they’ll that I was consistent and truthful. Too bad you can’t honestly claim the same. :cheers:

No, you spread BS and tried to condescend to minimize my very deliberate and specific example of magazine limits. ANd then got mad when I didnt accept that answer and instead listed (non-personal, factual) reasons why it was a bad idea IMO.

ANd I havent posted a single dishonest thing. I called you out.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I havent posted a single dishonest thing.

"well I dont need more than 10" and then on and on about 'if people trained enough, they wouldnt need more either.'

I'm calling total BS on your '10 is just fine' on mag limits.

You’re right, you didn’t post a single dishonest thing. You posted more than a single dishonest thing. You repeatedly, and falsely, said that I had posted statements that I never did. That is being dishonest.