It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You say Socialism isn't the problem; corruption is. I say, when in the history of the world has there been any society which was even close to total socialism that did not also become corrupt? I know of none. Socialism by it's very nature makes people completely subservient to a controlling government, and all governments are corrupt in direct proportion to how subservient their people are. The more socialism, the more corruption.


That's the problem. They'll claim "it wasn't real socialism". There's no such thing as real socialism in the most technical sense. There's always going to be some administrative body to implement the will of the people. We call that government. That means there are some people, belonging to that administrative body, that will have more power than the rest of the population. As we all know, power inevitably corrupts. They think it'll work if we just "get the right people" in power. It's completely antithetical to human nature. It's antithetical to reality. Socialism could only work in some future utopia where man has grown past his selfish, savage tendencies and is totally altruistic and only concerned about helping his fellow man. Until then, it simply can't work. It's not a realistic form of government given the nature of humanity in this day and age. It's minimal centuries away from being possible.




posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785


From your lips (finger tips) to God's ears! But the USA is not Venezuela.

Aren't the local police attacking Venezuelan citizens right now? Isn't the Venezuelan military attacking its own citizen's, right now? Aren't they preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the population right now?



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785


From your lips (finger tips) to God's ears! But the USA is not Venezuela.

Aren't the local police attacking Venezuelan citizens right now? Isn't the Venezuelan military attacking its own citizen's, right now? Aren't they preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the population right now?


Isn't that even more evidence that that entire system of government is awful and ours is better?
edit on 17 12 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785


It's evidence of a corrupt system that fears its citizens and seeks to terrorize them into submission, in my opinion. I don't think the USA is too far from resorting to such tactics, if people take to the streets and start exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to overthrow the government.

I would hope that the military and the police would not attack its citizens, but history proves otherwise.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785


It's evidence of a corrupt system that fears its citizens and seeks to terrorize them into submission, in my opinion. I don't think the USA is too far from resorting to such tactics, if people take to the streets and start exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to overthrow the government.

I would hope that the military and the police would not attack its citizens, but history proves otherwise.


History actually doesn't prove otherwise. Sure, there are isolated cases of the military attacking the citizenry, ie. Kent State. There was Waco and things like that. There are corrupt police. But wholesale, not so much. During the Civil War, many high-ranking military officers went to serve for the South, Lee included.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785



During the Civil War, many high-ranking military officers went to serve for the South, Lee included.


But the war did happen, and the US Government did attack its own citizens. The next "Civil War" likely won't have geographical boundaries.



edit on 17-12-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I disagree. Little in humanity has changed in 100 years... only technology has increased, and with every increase in technology, there is a corresponding increase in technological weaknesses.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785



During the Civil War, many high-ranking military officers went to serve for the South, Lee included.


But the war did happen, and the US Government did attack its own citizens. The next "Civil War" likely won't have geographical boundaries.




That actually proves my point. There would be no war if the entire military just went along with it, there would just be a national massacre. I simply said many in the military won't willingly go along with a tyrannical government. The result of that would be a civil war, as the Founders rightfully intended. The gun control propaganda that the 2nd Amendment is useless because the military would overpower the citizenry is false. Part of the military would side with the citizenry, probably more than you think.
edit on 17 12 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


Can you show an example of a time when the US Military, and/or police, did side with people against government orders, and refuse to attack citizens?



edit on 17-12-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
They think it'll work if we just "get the right people" in power. It's completely antithetical to human nature. It's antithetical to reality. Socialism could only work in some future utopia where man has grown past his selfish, savage tendencies and is totally altruistic and only concerned about helping his fellow man. Until then, it simply can't work. It's not a realistic form of government given the nature of humanity in this day and age. It's minimal centuries away from being possible.


That's exactly right IMO. Socialism and Communism are great on paper and the concepts are actually noble concepts, but sadly we are human beings.


To believe that it can work now is a fantasy, a fantasy all to often used by less than honorable people to trap people into believing it can work. History says otherwise and history is the best barometer of what will happen.

It generally seems to start the same. A hero of the people like Chavez luring the mice into the trap like the Pied Piper. It always collapses into chaos and ends up in the people suffering. The former Soviet Union went through the same as it bankrupted itself due to it's leaders desire to control the world.

People ignore history at their own peril. There is a reason the radical Left wishes to rewrite history to hide it. It runs completely contrary to their claims of a socialist utopia which will never happen in our present reality.

Young idealistic people are easy targets for the lie. They have no concept of the level of government control and corruption socialism and Marxism breeds and requires.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785


Can you show an example of a time when the US Military, and/or police, did side with people against government orders, and refuse to attack citizens?




I already provided one, the Civil War. Surely you've heard of it?



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


If that's your example, then it proves my point. Even 150 years ago, the 2nd Amendment didn't work to protect citizens' rights to bare arms and protest/fight against the American Government's will. The American government did attack its own citizens and defeated the confederate rebels.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785


If that's your example, then it proves my point. Even 150 years ago, the 2nd Amendment didn't work to protect citizens' rights to bare arms and protest/fight against the American Government's will. The American government did attack its own citizens and defeated the confederate rebels.




Because you're changing the argument. The argument so often cited by gun control advocates is that the 2nd Amendment is useless because the government controls more advanced weaponry through the military and would be able to defeat an armed populace no problem. My argument was that that's not true, because some, if not most, of the military would side with the citizenry. That's exactly what happened. As a result, the war drug out for over 4 years. The government ultimately prevailed, in that case, but not because the government had the citizens outclassed. The government's forces split, which I predict would happen in the future if another similar crisis happened.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



The government ultimately prevailed, in that case, but not because the government had the citizens outclassed.


The insurrection of The Confederacy was defeated by the Federal Government. Out classed, out spent, out numbered, out lasted, whatever you want to call it.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785



The government ultimately prevailed, in that case, but not because the government had the citizens outclassed.


The insurrection of The Confederacy was defeated by the Federal Government. Out classed, out spent, out numbered, out lasted, whatever you want to call it.





And still demonstrating the importance of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks for playing.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


I think, rather, it demonstrates the futility of it.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785


I think, rather, it demonstrates the futility of it.



Sounds like you don't understand what it's for then.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enforce the 1st, when the government violates it, and others.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The insurrectionists won the Revolutionary War.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The Civil War wasn’t about individual rights. It was about State’s Rights. Once those were defeated, then the Federal government started the take over of individual rights. Which they won as well without a war. A recent example is Obamacare, which states we don’t care what you want to do with your money. You must buy this product with all these options that you will probably never use like drug rehab or prenatal care for single men. But I can give deeper examples that completely shredded Constitutuionally protected rights.




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join