In preparation of a complete collapse, Venezuela banned civilian ownership of firearms.

Venezuela bans private gun ownership.

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company. Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

The ban is the latest attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime ahead of elections in October Venezuela saw more than 18,000 murders last year and the capital, Caracas, is thought to be one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America.

'Must do more'

The government has been running a gun amnesty in the run-up to the introduction of the new law to try to encourage people to give up their illegal arms without fear of consequences.

One member of the public in Caracas told the BBC: "They're killing people every day. This law is important but they need to do more, they're not doing enough now."

Hugo Chavez's government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians, but his opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.

Venezuela is collapsing and the military just got involved.

Troops have been deployed around Venezuela’s capital of Caracas and in ‘every strategic region’ this weekend during the country’s largest ever military exercise.

The government claims the exercises are in response to the threat of invasion from the United States, but the real reason for the government’s state of emergency declaration is likely much closer to home.

For over a year now, Venezuelans have been suffering under an ever deepening economic and political crisis.

Bare supermarket shelves are common.

Vital medicines are in short supply.

Crime is rising.

Blackouts occur daily. To save electricity, the government asked public sector workers to only show up on Mondays and Tuesdays - and this could soon extend to private companies as well.

The statement came after the United States – somewhat provocatively – declared Venezuela a national security threat and sanctioned officials they claimed were responsible for corruption and human rights abuses. US Prosecutors have also charged a number of former officials with trafficking coc aine.

President Maduro claims this is evidence of an attempted coup, citing the threat of a US attack when he declared a state of emergency. National security provisions now allow the government to impose tougher security measures, take control of basic goods and services, and distribute and sell food.

Problem.

Reaction.

Solution.

Sounds a lot like the rhetoric we are hearing right here at home, "must do more".

Did TPTB know that the nation was headed for a complete collapse? Its hard to say but not out of the realm of possibilities.

Some say that the United States is also on the verge of an economic collapse.

But this idea that disarming law abiding citizens will somehow help combat crime is an obvious excuse because everyone knows that doesnt work.

And now that the nation has collapsed, crime is skyrocketing and the people are defenseless.

And right on cue comes the declaration of martial law under the guise of an attack.

Its always during "war time" when our rights are most vulnerable.

By the way, we've been under a "state of war" since September 11, 2001.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
By the way, we've been under a "state of war" since September 11, 2001.

Tell that to Chicago, Oakland and Phoenix in the heat of summer. They have a different timeline they'd like to share with you.

What's black and white and red all over? Any given ghetto in a major metro area.

Take the guns and more people will live. Don't take the guns and more people will die. It really is that simple. Put all the political rhetoric in it that you want. If you do, you tolerate the killings of innocents.

Who cares if it smacks of communism, socialism or any other ism? You really think the populace has any chance of defending itself against a tyrannical government and the military it has behind them? That's not the argument and you know it. Do you know what will happen if the guns go away? The murder rate will drop drastically. Tell me it won't. It won't disappear, you still have stiletto's, baseball bats and the anger needed to make them effective, but at least the killings will become fewer in number and more personalized. The'll actually have meaning.

Go ahead, take the guns. Every single one. Bring in NATO to help if you need to. Gun owners will cry in their coffee, law enforcement will feel naked and the victims, their families and anyone else who cares about human life will breathe a sigh of relief.

It doesn't matter though because all sides will live to tell the tale.

a reply to: gladtobehere

It does sound a little drastic... but the US has been in there before to stir the pot to create economic and political unrest. They survived that.

The question to me is. What if it does work? What if the guns taken away does lower crime and makes life a little easier for the people.
It sounds like the government just wants to take control to fix these issues.

Yeah they banned selling guns to private citizens but never went out and took guns. Venezuela being one of the heaviest armed places on Earth 1 gun for every 2 people, which of course lead to one of the worst crime rates in the world, meant that nobody just gave them up voluntarily like they were asked to. So now it is 5 years later and their are just as many guns. And why would you give them up? 98% of arrests do not lead to a conviction because you can bride your way out of any crime. And then they started giving out guns to people in the governing party. So now they have more guns than ever and no food. That place is going to explode.

originally posted by: DeepImpactXTake the guns and more people will live. Don't take the guns and more people will die. It really is that simple. Put all the political rhetoric in it that you want. If you do, you tolerate the killings of innocents.

What's that...an appeal to emotion? An oft-used logical fallacy, but let's disregard that.

The reality is that only the law-abiding people will give up guns--the criminals, like they already do, will retain them. So, you will never get rid of all of the guns, and if you only remove them from those keeping them for, say, self-defense or target practice or competition shooting, you leave the deadly weapons solely in the hands of "the bad guys."

I'm failing to see your logic trump the reality of the situation.

Who cares if it smacks of communism, socialism or any other ism? You really think the populace has any chance of defending itself against a tyrannical government and the military it has behind them? That's not the argument and you know it.

That's only "not the argument" if you are willing to forget history. Actually, that goes for anyone who claims that forced disarming of all citizens is a good idea--the only ones who do that are corrupt governments who have not exactly had the best tract record on their treatment of the disarmed citizenry.


Now, there is approximately 0.4% of the US population in the active military right now. Yes, there is currently the selective service, which could bring in more people, and maybe a similar number of people in the reserves, so let's be generous and say that MAYBE 3% of the US population would be called up to defend against an uprising by US citizens. That leaves a LOT more people--many of whom are vets and police who would not fight to quell an uprising--to fight against that force. So, yes, it would absolutely be possible to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government if needed. And being former military, I'd be one of those up front leading the charge, if it were necessary to take back our country.

You mention NATO forces, as well? It'd be bloody, but the American opposition could win. I don't think that you understand the resolve that some people have for freedoms guaranteed within our constitution.

Go ahead, take the guns. Every single one. Bring in NATO to help if you need to. Gun owners will cry in their coffee, law enforcement will feel naked and the victims, their families and anyone else who cares about human life will breathe a sigh of relief.

It doesn't matter though because all sides will live to tell the tale.

Could you be a little more naïve? Seriously, I don't think that you've really put much thought into what a country ends up being when only the government has the guns.

originally posted by: MrSpad
So now they have more guns than ever and no food. That place is going to explode.

So, soon they will have enough food for all.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you read that post thoroughly. NO ONE gets to keep guns. Civilians, law enforcement, military within the borders.........NO ONE.

So the bad guys won't give up their guns? Take them. By force and and don't be nice about it. Bubba says no way? Give him a 24 pack to shut him up. Get gun sniffing dogs form around the world in on the action. You know how the Air Force does carpet bombing? Do the same on the ground. From one coast to another and border to border, sweep the # out of all of it with those boots on the ground the war pigs like to brag about. Will there riots and civil unrest? You betcha. Will the billionaires and other well off types be compliant? Who cares. Take 'em all out. Will it take a few years? Of course. Rome wasn't built in a day Susie, and people died in the construction. Will it be bloody as f#? Oh yeah. Rivers running red baby. But the end result will be sweet.....you gotta admit.

Will it happen? probably not. People like pointless murder that breeds more over murder for a reason and a positive end result. The latter is just barbaric. But at least I laid out the blueprint. My job here is done......going to get the check with my Glock. Talk to you later.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you read that post thoroughly. NO ONE gets to keep guns. Civilians, law enforcement, military within the borders.........NO ONE.

So the bad guys won't give up their guns? Take them. By force and and don't be nice about it. Bubba says no way? Give him a 24 pack to shut him up. Get gun sniffing dogs form around the world in on the action. You know how the Air Force does carpet bombing? Do the same on the ground. From one coast to another and border to border, sweep the # out of all of it with those boots on the ground the war pigs like to brag about. Will there riots and civil unrest? You betcha. Will the billionaires and other well off types be compliant? Who cares. Take 'em all out. Will it take a few years? Of course. Rome wasn't built in a day Susie, and people died in the construction. Will it be bloody as f#? Oh yeah. Rivers running red baby. But the end result will be sweet.....you gotta admit.

Will it happen? probably not. People like pointless murder that breeds more over murder for a reason and a positive end result. The latter is just barbaric. But at least I laid out the blueprint. My job here is done......going to get the check with my Glock. Talk to you later.

You have GOT to be kidding.

You just said that NO ONE will have guns, yet you want to take the criminals guns away by force? With what, a pointy stick? Oh no, you want the police and the army to give up their guns only once they have disarmed the rest of us, i suppose.

And since the criminals do not register or purchase their guns through legal means, how do you know that they have them to take them away in the first place? Are you suggesting a gestato style home invasion of every former or suspected felon?

Quite a naive post.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you read that post thoroughly. NO ONE gets to keep guns. Civilians, law enforcement, military within the borders.........NO ONE.

And you didn't read mine: "I'm failing to see your logic trump the reality of the situation."

That isn't a realistic goal, ESPECIALLY in a massive country that is landlocked on two sides by countries that have guns.

So the bad guys won't give up their guns? Take them. By force and and don't be nice about it. Bubba says no way? Give him a 24 pack to shut him up. Get gun sniffing dogs form around the world in on the action. You know how the Air Force does carpet bombing? Do the same on the ground. From one coast to another and border to border, sweep the # out of all of it with those boots on the ground the war pigs like to brag about. Will there riots and civil unrest? You betcha. Will the billionaires and other well off types be compliant? Who cares. Take 'em all out. Will it take a few years? Of course. Rome wasn't built in a day Susie, and people died in the construction. Will it be bloody as f#? Oh yeah. Rivers running red baby. But the end result will be sweet.....you gotta admit.

Will it happen? probably not. People like pointless murder that breeds more over murder for a reason and a positive end result. The latter is just barbaric. But at least I laid out the blueprint. My job here is done......going to get the check with my Glock. Talk to you later.

You sound insane. I'm not sure, now, if you are being genuine or facetious. I sure as hell hope it's the latter of the two, because if not, you sound like a murderous zealot.

Invade who??

Yeah top of the list for invasions, right after we get around to Cuba and North Korea.

Strawman enemy to control their masses.

a reply to: gladtobehere

By the way, we've been under a "state of war" since September 11, 2001.

Great thread,

Of course the PTB have known that Venezuela was heading for collapse, any nation dependant on 1 or 2 commodities for export is at the whims of international markets and manipulation by the likes of JP Morgans/Soros.

Your nation has been under a "state of war" since the Kennedy assassination and even perhaps earlier. The USA invades countries out of self interest not for some made up bull"hit like "freedom"

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you read that post thoroughly. NO ONE gets to keep guns. Civilians, law enforcement, military within the borders.........NO ONE.

So the bad guys won't give up their guns? Take them. By force and and don't be nice about it. Bubba says no way? Give him a 24 pack to shut him up. Get gun sniffing dogs form around the world in on the action. You know how the Air Force does carpet bombing? Do the same on the ground. From one coast to another and border to border, sweep the # out of all of it with those boots on the ground the war pigs like to brag about. Will there riots and civil unrest? You betcha. Will the billionaires and other well off types be compliant? Who cares. Take 'em all out. Will it take a few years? Of course. Rome wasn't built in a day Susie, and people died in the construction. Will it be bloody as f#? Oh yeah. Rivers running red baby. But the end result will be sweet.....you gotta admit.

Will it happen? probably not. People like pointless murder that breeds more over murder for a reason and a positive end result. The latter is just barbaric. But at least I laid out the blueprint. My job here is done......going to get the check with my Glock. Talk to you later.

You have GOT to be kidding.

You just said that NO ONE will have guns, yet you want to take the criminals guns away by force? With what, a pointy stick? Oh no, you want the police and the army to give up their guns only once they have disarmed the rest of us, i suppose.

And since the criminals do not register or purchase their guns through legal means, how do you know that they have them to take them away in the first place? Are you suggesting a gestato style home invasion of every former or suspected felon?

Quite a naive post.

Modern tech. and trained dogs will weed 'em all out. And you missed the part of a neutral force coming into the U.S. doing the job at the behest of executive order. Don't worry, politics has nothing to do with it when money talks louder anyway. You don't think there are hundreds of thousands of well trained people all over the world willing to do this for a hefty payday? Don't be naive.

And no, not a gestapo type home invasion of every felon........a gestapo type home invasion of every house, trailer and cave in America.

Again, it probably would never happen anyway, but since my check was short I had to add more to the convo.

Besides which, you may not agree with what I'm posting, but you have to admit.........have you ever heard of such radical ideas before? Doubtful. People are too busy regurgitating political speak. This site is for entertainment purposes only. Were you entertained?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You sound insane. I'm not sure, now, if you are being genuine or facetious. I sure as hell hope it's the latter of the two, because if not, you sound like a murderous zealot.

If you don't know if I'm being serious or not then I did my job. What goes on the internet stays on the internet. These posts are being copied and pasted as we speak. Don't think they're not. They can be used for whatever purpose people want. The idea is out there now and it isn't going away.

My posts are meant to serve as an alternative to all of the pointless, spineless drivel that you see here and elsewhere. Drivel that will be repeated almost verbatim when the next mass shooting arrives. And it will arrive because all of your opinions, thoughts and theories on the subject mean nothing. They never have and they never will.

a reply to: DeepImpactX

Incoherent ramblings is 'your job?'

I mean, don't get me wrong, I get as frustrated at the futility of debating topics over and over again, but to purposefully throw a business of flies (yes, that's the proper term for a cluster of flies) into the buttermilk is such a waste of everyone's time that it hardly seems like a 'job' worth doing.

a reply to: DeepImpactX

So you want unarmed people to come and disarm America, with gun sniffing dogs???
Common sense is not your strong suite.
There would be only one outcome, and it would not be in favor of your liberal ramblings.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX

originally posted by: gladtobehere
You really think the populace has any chance of defending itself against a tyrannical government and the military it has behind them?

Remember UK in 1940 when the United States had to send thousands of firearms (voluntarily collected from our citizens) because they had no guns with which to defend themselves. The way I see it, taking away guns from citizens will only result in a small decrease in homicide and thus, is not worth giving up the right. There is a cost to freedom. We've just grown complacent and lazy and forgotten.

This thread is one of the most mental things i've ever read.

User "DeepimpactX" appears to be completely out of touch with reality. Not sure what country the user is from, but they don't seem to have any kind of understanding or knowledge of the topic they're speaking on.

ANYONE who's reasonably well-versed in history can tell you that dictators love to ban the ownership of arms by the citizenry... It's an especially popular move for banana republics, and countries that are on their way to becoming a failed state.

originally posted by: Daedalus
This thread is one of the most mental things i've ever read.

I'll take that as a compliment. I was expecting more push-back, but oh well.

www.fbi.gov... _victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

According to the trend set in that table, the numbers will have probably gone down a bit. Math time. You basically have a 1 in 30,000 chance of being killed by a firearm in the U.S.

By comparison: en.wikipedia.org...
You have a 1 in 15,000 chance, roughly, of being killed in a motor vehicle accident. I'm in the wrong line of work.

The point of this compared to those incoherent ramblings of a madman is this: The screnerio I set forth above will never happen because the numbers dictate that it isn't a necessity. The one's who think it is need to take a pill. Another mass shooting? Get used to it. It's part of the fabric of America at this point. Feelings of anger, hopelessness, drug induced psychosis, a lack of education and easy access to firearms will do this. The scenario, no one argued by the way, also happens to be the ONLY way every single gun in America would disappear. For better or worse. Can you think of another for the sake of a hypothetical conversation centered around peace? Think about that for a second. That's how far we've come. The only realistic option left to drastically reduce gun deaths is looked upon as borderline insane. What does that make America in terms of their love affair with guns? The rest of the world just doesn't get it. They don't understand the perpetual hard-on for firearms. But the people with ideologies foreign to those of the average American who wish to do us harm? They love it. It opens more doors for them so they probably contribute heavily to the NRA.




I hope I didn't upset anyone too much with my fiction, I was just trying to make a point.

a reply to: DeepImpactX

Let me help you with some numbers:

There are enough privately owned firearms in the US for every man, woman, child and 3 second old infant to have one in their hands.

If 10% of the US population decides to fight such a confiscation, that would be over 32 million armed people. That is more than every active duty military of every country on Earth combined.

Only way you have a chance is nuclear genocide. And you still are not going to get all the guns. It would be easier to depopulate the planet. Sadly there are those so hell bent that they would vote for that. I am sure you are not one of them.

a reply to: strongfp

The criminals never give up their weapons, get real people.. all this ever does is cause a power shift and confusion, during which the new criminal enterprise comes to power. Give regular citizens the unabashed right to protect themselves and feed themselves, and the b.s. ends in 5 years.