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.
You should research more into this before spreading misinformation. In latinamerica, poverty skyrocketed in the 70's when globalization took off, all these countries were de-industrialized and privatization, deregulation were encouraged. In the case of Venezuela poverty peaked in mid 90's. During Hugo Chavez poverty drastically decreased with the exception of a couple of year when there was a coup and heavy destabilization tactics against Chavez. Then, it started to rise fast when Maduro took office.
Venezuela is a extremely corrupt regime with socialistic features. I have talked to people from Venezuela and the level of corruption is beyond most people imagination. That doesn't mean 'democratic socialism' is what caused Venezuela to fail. If you search on google socialist countries, the result is Scandinavian countries, Canada and other developed countries.
Another thing to notice is that not only the corrupt leaders are responsible of what is happening in Venezuela. People in the opposition are equally responsible for the economic destruction of the country. They have the stupid idea that damaging the economy will cause the leaders to give up. The same thing is happening now in Nicaragua, they just got sanction and the economy is in free fall. Instead of trying to get the military on their side to restore law and order, they continue to destroy the economy.
In the case of Chile and Uruguay, which lean left and have 'democratic socialism', they got off the de-regulation rip-off earlier and are the most democratic countries in South America with stable economies.
You also should limit your commentary of what I posted to what I posted, not whatever thoughts are emanating from your brain.
Canada and the Scandinavian countries are not socialist (gov't ownership of the means of production). These are social democracies. I would put more stock in what the Danish PM said about this than what might come up from a google search. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Danish PM was growing tired of a US candidate who often referred to Denmark as an example of successful socialism. The PM said, during a talk at Harvard Univ:
Quote:
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
For some reason there is a segment of the American population that believes their hand gun and semi assault play toy is a match against drones, air strikes, tanks, remote missiles, ect. The United states military can wipe out half of the US population remotely without a single soldier using his real automatic assault rifle.
Think
War and battles are ultimately won on the ground.
A platoon or company of government soldiers rolls into cookie cutter neighborhood any town USA and is faced with incoming fire and sniper fire , it is not long before several are down. So they call in a airstrike or arty obliterating a entire neighborhood innocent woman and children too. That draws international attention and UN condemnation and now the said government is on the hot seat for possible international intervention.
However disarm the peasants, especially if they are in denial of what is happening as what happened in Venezuela, and arm your loyalists and chances are the terror you put upon the people will go less noticed. At the very least you won't have to explain to the international community why you blew up a entire neighborhood or more routing out rebels.
For some reason there is a segment of the American population that believes their hand gun and semi assault play toy is a match against drones, air strikes, tanks, remote missiles, ect. The United states military can wipe out half of the US population remotely without a single soldier using his real automatic assault rifle.
That is one of the most ridiculous statements that is used ad nauseam by those who wish to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Let me put it to you this way. It's highly unlikely that the Pentagon's arsenal would be used against American civilians. If so the military would be destroying their own friends, family and neighborhoods. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to. Not only that but if the civilian population were destroyed who'd supply the military with supplies? There'd be nobody left to work the factories and farm the fields. All commerce would come to a grinding halt. My guess is that they would disobey orders, and in all probability would use those weapons against those that ordered them to do so.
About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. As the armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces. The United States with it's superior military force couldn't beat back the North Vietnamese, short of using nuclear weapons. In which case there would have been a third world war and the end of all life as we know it.
You seem to forget that a large percent of active duty and retired military and law enforcement personal are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law. It wouldn't surprise me if they joined forces with the civilian population that takes up arms in the fight against a tyrannical form of government.
I don't think that you've thought this out very well?
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.
Something to think about:
Quote:
The debate over gun control can be summed up thusly: Those of us who don't like guns in the hands of our non-costumed brethren, will vote to ensure men with guns, under the guise of the "law," will come and take the property that is rightfully yours, killing you should you resist our will sufficiently.
This is what we call "violence by-proxy" and makes the voter for violence no less culpable in the extortion and death that will ensue.
As Stefan Molyneux correctly observed; if a person claims they are non-violent and are for “gun control†they are not truly anti-gun nor are they non-violent people - because the reality is that guns and violence will be needed to disarm innocent law abiding people.
This is because those people who claim they are anti-gun and anti-violence, who claim to support “gun control,†will need the credible threat of police violence and the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns should they resist the attempt to further centralize their monopoly on violence.
So those who claim to be anti-gun and anti-violence are really very pro-gun and very pro-violence. They ultimately believe that only government officials (which are of course portrayed as reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. This obviously flies in the face of reality as the 20th century has proven once and for all.
It’s important to note that those who advocate this type of centralized monopoly of violence do so as cowards, because it’s not their lives on the line, rather they advocate others using violence on their behalf in order to force their misguided views on innocent people who wish to do nothing other than protect themselves and other innocents.
There is no such thing as "gun control," there is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political class and the forces they control which, as recent history has proven is a murderous nightmare for the peace loving, disenfranchised, and disarmed citizenry.--Ron Danielowski
quote: "Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,†with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.â€
quote:"Chavez initially ran a months-long amnesty program encouraging Venezuelans to trade their arms for electrical goods. That year, there were only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders, while the majority of seizures - more than 12,500 – were by force
quote:"Prior to the 2012 reform, there were only around eight gun stores in the entire country. And the process of obtaining a legal permit to own and carry was plagued by long wait lines, high costs and bribery “to make the process swifter†at the one department allowed to issue licenses, which operated under the umbrella of the Ministry of Defense.
quote:"“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government,†Vanegas explained. “Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.â€
I don't think our liberals and Venezuela's liberals are any different....they will take everything from you if you don't stop them.
Killing may go on for decades, but at least when thugs or government thugs are the ones terrorizing people if people can fight back they can exact change.
No one is to blame?, need I even go on about that? What?
Honest government? So how do you get rid of a dishonest government when the government is the only one with guns, only supplies loyalists with guns and ignores or corrupts elections? Well I guess we could call on Trump to invade Venezuela and liberate them?
Yeah, that's why more Americans are killing other Americans than Venezuelans are dying at the hands of either their government or the cartels......being armed makes all the difference.
When your government decides you're in the way, your guns won't mean bupkus. Those demonstrations by the un-armed in the U.S. have forced more governmental change than anything before or since.
I did not "paint" anything. I just stated the fact that, prior to 1998, Venezuela was the most prosperous nation in South America. That is a fact. The rest of your commentary is your "painting" not mine.
Nowhere did I state that things were perfect. There was great income inequality, which indeed was why Chavez won election. He faced quite a few elections from 1998 until his death in 2013 from cancer. He won nearly all of them, often by landslide margins. It remains a fact that Venezuela was South America's most prosperous nation prior to 1998, when Chavez first was elected.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
You also should limit your commentary of what I posted to what I posted, not whatever thoughts are emanating from your brain.
Canada and the Scandinavian countries are not socialist (gov't ownership of the means of production). These are social democracies. I would put more stock in what the Danish PM said about this than what might come up from a google search. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Danish PM was growing tired of a US candidate who often referred to Denmark as an example of successful socialism. The PM said, during a talk at Harvard Univ:
I gave an overview of latinamerica because it is clear you are very misinformed.
The government of Venezuela control 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 a big chunk of the economy.
The Danish government have pretty big industries which include: railways, media, energy, entertaining, post, etc.
Makes me glad that I was born in the United States of America, with the 2nd Amendment already in place.
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.
