Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is possible, certainly, but the military is under the jurisdiction of the government. Really, Bubba Joe and his AR-15 isn't going to be able to take on the government unless the military is on his side anyway, and in that case his gun is going to be irrelevant. It would literally be "yeah, you and what army?"
Oh just stop with the "Bubba Joe" nonsense. You come across as arrogant and condescending. Yet you probably can't figure out why so many people are so vehemently against you? Why there's such division in this country? Just take a look in the mirror and you'll find the reason.
What makes you so sure that the military would be on your side anyway? Especially since so many on your side have such contempt for the military?
OK, I see how you distort information. It says "Once latin america's richest" That could have been 100 years ago, who knows, because there is no other reference to what they're talking about. But saying this was the most prosperous nation in South America in 1998 is a LIE, not a fact.(emphasis added)
No, no, no. Here is what I posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
...until Chavez took power in 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America. It was only with Chavez's policies of 'democratic socialism' that things started to go downhill, and it happened quite quickly. By 2012 the Venezuelan diaspora was well under way, with millions fleeing the nation due to intolerable living conditions.
These are simply factual statements. The rest is the product of your fevered imagination. Do not SHOVE WORDS INTO THE MOUTH OF ANOTHER POSTER. That's either stupid, or dishonest. In this case, I'd have to flip a coin.
You even put quotation marks around YOUR (not my) statement(see bolded). Do you understand what quotation marks mean? It means you are repeating verbatim someone's words. Get yourself a 6th grade English grammar book, and look up the use of quotation marks.
I gave an overview of latinamerica[sic] because it is clear you are very misinformed.
The government of Venezuela control[sic] the biggest industry: oil. And there are many private companies, also many have had to close due to the crisis. In Scandinavia countries and Canada, the government control[sic] a big chunk of the economy.
The Danish government have pretty big industries which include: railways, media, energy, entertaining, post, etc.
No, you posted a bunch of babblings in an effort to attribute to me something I didn't say. Very dishonest, or very stupid. Venezuela under Chavez had gradually started to socialize the economy; Chavez was a persuaded socialist--he said so frequently himself.
The oil industry had already been socialized. Chavez socialized most of food production (including state-run grocery stores) and was gradually moving to other parts of the economy. He was in power only 15 years.
Canada and the Scandinavian nations are NOT socialist. I refer you back to the words of the Danish PM that I posted previously. They are social democracies, not socialist. Go to an online dictionary and look up the difference.
If the military was ordered to take your guns under martial law, they would take your guns and that would be the end of it. If you didn't give them up willingly, they'd probably use some minor force. If you didn't give them up at that point, it would be major force. Going up against the largest and most powerful military in the world with your guns would not work out in your favor.
What....
Since most military are also gun owners, wouldn't fire upon Americans much the less turn their own firearms in, how would that work.
If anything they'd mostly awol and take their service weapons with them first chance.
Venezuela always had massive corruption, but until Chavez took power in 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America. It was only with Chavez's policies of 'democratic socialism' that things started to go downhill, and it happened quite quickly. By 2012 the Venezuelan diaspora was well under way, with millions fleeing the nation due to intolerable living conditions.
It wasn't corruption that did in Venezuela; it was Hugo Chavez's policies.
I'm as anti-gun as they come, but it is a historical fact that every socialist regime through history, from the USSR to China to Cuba to Venezuela has prioritized the elimination of guns from private hands. Why would they all do that if having guns wouldn't make any difference?
''One man with a gun can control 100 without one.'' Vladimir Lenin
Did you read the part that there were eight gun stores in all of Venezuela? It was probably only wealthy or rural rancher types who were able to have guns, and they probably had lists of who had them. This is not the case at all in the United States....
This is in fact exactly right. One of Chavez's pet projects was "La Lista," a massive database on the Venezuelan people. At one point he claimed to have scuttled the project, but in fact it went on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tascón_List
These are simply factual statements. The rest is the product of your fevered imagination. Do not SHOVE WORDS INTO THE MOUTH OF ANOTHER POSTER. That's either stupid, or dishonest. In this case, I'd have to flip a coin.
You even put quotation marks around YOUR (not my) statement(see bolded). Do you understand what quotation marks mean? It means you are repeating verbatim someone's words. Get yourself a 6th grade English grammar book, and look up the use of quotation marks.
No, you posted a bunch of babblings in an effort to attribute to me something I didn't say. Very dishonest, or very stupid. Venezuela under Chavez had gradually started to socialize the economy; Chavez was a persuaded socialist--he said so frequently himself.
The oil industry had already been socialized. Chavez socialized most of food production (including state-run grocery stores) and was gradually moving to other parts of the economy. He was in power only 15 years.
Canada and the Scandinavian nations are NOT socialist. I refer you back to the words of the Danish PM that I posted previously. They are social democracies, not socialist. Go to an online dictionary and look up the difference.
It is you who needs to keep up with the discussion, the quote is from the link you provided. Did you just read the title?
Oil made Venezuela rich in the 20th century, but that wealth did not reach everyone.
Now, you go from those facts, to this lie made up by you:
It remains a fact that Venezuela was South America's most prosperous nation prior to 1998, when Chavez first was elected.
The latter doesn't follow from the former, if you can't see this your reading ability is seriously lacking.
The "babblings" I wrote before was not intended to attribute anything to you, it was meant to give a bigger picture of socialism in Latin America [here the word socialism is not what you mean by it]. I should have known you wouldn't be able to understand, you can't even understand the article in your own link.
Oil made Venezuela rich in the 20th century, but that wealth did not reach everyone.
Now, you go from those facts, to this lie made up by you:
It remains a fact that Venezuela was South America's most prosperous nation prior to 1998, when Chavez first was elected.
The latter doesn't follow from the former, if you can't see this your reading ability is seriously lacking.
The "babblings" I wrote before was not intended to attribute anything to you, it was meant to give a bigger picture of socialism in Latin America [here the word socialism is not what you mean by it]. I should have known you wouldn't be able to understand, you can't even understand the article in your own link.
One more time, here is what I posted: "until Chavez took power in 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America." And that is reflected in the title of the link I posted that Venezuela was the 'richest economy in South America.' NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT VENZUELA WAS A PERFECT PARADISE. Show me the quote where I said that. Once again, shoving words into another poster's mouth is poor form, and dishonest. Again, you even put quotation marks around something that I never said.
You are right about one thing though. I do not understand parts of your discussion. For example:
Quote:
[here the word socialism is not what you mean by it].
One more time, here is what I posted: "until Chavez took power in 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America." And that is reflected in the title of the link I posted that Venezuela was the 'richest economy in South America.' NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT VENZUELA WAS A PERFECT PARADISE. Show me the quote where I said that. Once again, shoving words into another poster's mouth is poor form, and dishonest. Again, you even put quotation marks around something that I never said.
You are right about one thing though. I do not understand parts of your discussion. For example:
What does this even mean?
I am not shoving any words into your mouth [I already said the quote was from one of your links and that was what I was responding to] and I have not said anything about 'a perfect paradise'. Quit making things up. I am focusing on what you keep repeating "until Chavez took power in 1998, it was the most prosperous nation in South America." That is far from the truth, the title of that article does not support or even go into any detail whatsoever about that.
You insist on the 'most prosperous nation', but that is based on a GDP number, not the real lives of millions of people in Venezuela.
Venezuela has always relied on oil revenues. It has always been the source of wealth for a very small part of the population. The rest has always been poor; poverty reached its peak in the mid 90's. As a result Chavez came to power. His policies reduced poverty drastically during his rule, but created more serious problems for the overall economy. People started to leave the country and money flew out even faster, then sanctions and finally hyper inflation is what has completely collapsed the economy.
Calling Venezuela Socialist is not accurate at all. Here is a comment from somebody in youtube:
Hugo Chavez was no revolutionary socialist, he was a petite-bourgeois army officer.
Venezuela doesn't fit in the classical USSR form of socialism or any modern form, it is just a corrupt regime with socialist rhetoric supported by a good chunk of the population.
Their money holds no value, it's absolutely worthless. So worthless that they toss it onto the road like garbage. That's what socialism gets you, even when you think "this time it will be different", because it won't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
