Civil War In Venezuela?

Thank you - TR/TM/SC - the term is "pejorative".

Topic is civil war in the Venezuelan Worker's Paradise under the DPST hero Maduro!

Chuckle ! Originally Posted by oeb11

you sure do make a lot of claims that you cant seem to back up. you assign labels to people that you don't know anything about. you demonstrate a very low level of consciousness. are you and Moscow Ellen the same person?

Thank you - YR/TM/SC.

Would you please contribute something cogent and constructive about the Maduro controlled military violence against unarmed citizens in Venezuela.

Thank you - TR/TM/SC - the term is "pejorative".

Topic is civil war in the Venezuelan Worker's Paradise under the DPST hero Maduro!

Chuckle ! Originally Posted by oeb11

Actually the topic is gun control.

I'm not for it but to say if the opposition had guns things would be different is idiotic.

What ever party has both the military and police on their side....wins. Period.

We have guns in this country yet both parties have taken away our individual freedoms by fear tactics.

Actually the topic is gun control.



What ever party has both the military and police on their side....wins. Period.
. Originally Posted by WTF

In the United States, I’m not so sure the Military and Police would go to war against it’s citizens.

Although historically, this has not been the case in other Countries.

But then, there has never been a Country to compare with the United States.

Chavez and Maduro played the dictator game quite well. They knew they had to disarm the citizenry before their Socialist “Thugocracy” could take full control.

Of course, the Polititians on both side of the isle say that it can never happen here. We are a Government of the People, for the People, and by the People.

So is, or was, Venezuela. Untill this happened.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

We are pretty close to this.

Keep in mind, all of the powers that Hugo Chavez garnered were given to him by the voters. Madura is living off of that same business plan. Originally Posted by Jackie S

This is the most relevant quote from Jackie's link,

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship....

And this is exactly what has played out in Venezuela.

Will this happen in the USA? It could. We've already got loose fiscal policy, with federal debt that's risen from $5.7 trillion at the time George W. Bush became president to $21.5 trillion now. Millennials support socialism over capitalism. They believe in largess for the majority and restricting individual rights. The policies of their spokesperson, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, would take the process further, to the point where the country would be bankrupt and government would control much of the means of production. Government would confiscate their capital before entrepreneurs like Sam Walton, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos would be allowed to build companies like Walmart, Microsoft and Amazon. And the very successful entrepreneurs that created companies like these would have their ownership whittled down, 3% every year.

At this point the country would be ripe for some kind of socialist dictatorship. Unlike Venezuela, we do have stronger rule of law and a Constitution that strongly protects individual rights. But who knows, so did Zimbabwe.

So what do you think about just confiscating handguns? That would solve a good part of the public health problem associated with firearms, as most murders and suicides are committed with pistols. I don't see how handguns are necessary for a well regulated militia (2nd amendment). Also a shotgun or a semi-automatic rifle is much more effective for self defense than a handgun.

So what do you think about just confiscating handguns? That would solve a good part of the public health problem associated with firearms, as most murders and suicides are committed with pistols. I don't see how handguns are necessary for a well regulated militia (2nd amendment). Also a shotgun or a semi-automatic weapon is much more effective for self defense than a handgun. Originally Posted by Tiny

there is a movement to set up a voluntary do not buy gun list for those who may have mental health issues.

So what do you think about just confiscating handguns? That would solve a good part of the public health problem associated with firearms, as most murders and suicides are committed with pistols. I don't see how handguns are necessary for a well regulated militia (2nd amendment). Originally Posted by Tiny

"A well regulated militia" was never a precondition for the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right of "individuals" as U.S. citizens. The Bill of Rights deals with the rights of citizens as individuals, except for the 10th Amendment which explicitly deals with the prerogatives of the state governments.

In the United States, I’m not so sure the Military and Police would go to war against it’s citizens.

Although historically, this has not been the case in other Countries.

But then, there has never been a Country to compare with the United States.

Chavez and Maduro played the dictator game quite well. They knew they had to disarm the citizenry before their Socialist “Thugocracy” could take full control. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Didn't go well for the WWI Vets who marched on the Capital if my history lesson memory serves me.

Didn't go well for the WWI Vets who marched on the Capital if my history lesson memory serves me. Originally Posted by WTF

Nor the kids at Kent State.

But not every citizen carried a video recorder in the form of a cell phone back then.