Loading...
Title : THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY? ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE?
link : THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY? ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE?
THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY? ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE?
The Washington Free Beacon reported this yesterday:Socialist Venezuelan Leader Steps Up Arming of Supporters After Outlawing, Confiscating Civilian GunsBreitbart adds:
The socialist leader of Venezuela announced in a speech to regime loyalists his plan to arm hundreds of thousands of supporters after a years-long campaign to confiscate civilian-owned guns.
"A gun for every militiaman!" Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro said to uniformed militia members outside the presidential palace, Fox News reported on Tuesday. The Bolivarian militias, created by Maduro's predecessor Hugo Chavez, already number in the hundreds of thousands and are being used to supplement the regime's armed forces. Maduro is boosting the number of armed supporters in hopes of keeping control over the country from what he labels "imperialist aggression."
The arming of Maduro's supporters comes five years after Venezuela's socialist regime outlawed the commercial sale and civilian ownership of firearms. Only the military, police, and groups like security companies can buy guns and only directly from one state-run arms company under the law passed in 2012, according to the BBC. The country recently doubled down on its gun ban through a combination of gun buybacks and confiscations in the summer of 2016.
The law has prevented most civilians from keeping firearms, though they are readily available on the black market....Wait -- I'm confused. Venezuelan citizens had guns, but the arming of these citizens was curtailed by new laws, buybacks, and now confiscations? Isn't that the exact opposite of what's supposed to happen when citizens own guns?
I thought the point of private gun ownership was that when the government tried to take the guns, citizens would automatically rise up against jackbooted tyranny. You mean that doesn't inevitably happen? You mean gun ownership doesn't inevitably protect citizens' freedom? Are you saying that, in the real world -- as opposed to gun owners' fantasy world -- a government confronted with an armed population can simply disarm that population, using a combination of persuasion and state power?
American gun advocates have been lying to us all this time. Who'd have thought?
The Washington Free Beacon reported this yesterday:
Socialist Venezuelan Leader Steps Up Arming of Supporters After Outlawing, Confiscating Civilian Guns
The socialist leader of Venezuela announced in a speech to regime loyalists his plan to arm hundreds of thousands of supporters after a years-long campaign to confiscate civilian-owned guns.
"A gun for every militiaman!" Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro said to uniformed militia members outside the presidential palace, Fox News reported on Tuesday. The Bolivarian militias, created by Maduro's predecessor Hugo Chavez, already number in the hundreds of thousands and are being used to supplement the regime's armed forces. Maduro is boosting the number of armed supporters in hopes of keeping control over the country from what he labels "imperialist aggression."
The arming of Maduro's supporters comes five years after Venezuela's socialist regime outlawed the commercial sale and civilian ownership of firearms. Only the military, police, and groups like security companies can buy guns and only directly from one state-run arms company under the law passed in
Loading...
2012, according to the BBC. The country recently doubled down on its gun ban through a combination of gun buybacks and confiscations in the summer of 2016.
Breitbart adds:
I thought the point of private gun ownership was that when the government tried to take the guns, citizens would automatically rise up against jackbooted tyranny. You mean that doesn't inevitably happen? You mean gun ownership doesn't inevitably protect citizens' freedom? Are you saying that, in the real world -- as opposed to gun owners' fantasy world -- a government confronted with an armed population can simply disarm that population, using a combination of persuasion and state power?
American gun advocates have been lying to us all this time. Who'd have thought?
The law has prevented most civilians from keeping firearms, though they are readily available on the black market....Wait -- I'm confused. Venezuelan citizens had guns, but the arming of these citizens was curtailed by new laws, buybacks, and now confiscations? Isn't that the exact opposite of what's supposed to happen when citizens own guns?
I thought the point of private gun ownership was that when the government tried to take the guns, citizens would automatically rise up against jackbooted tyranny. You mean that doesn't inevitably happen? You mean gun ownership doesn't inevitably protect citizens' freedom? Are you saying that, in the real world -- as opposed to gun owners' fantasy world -- a government confronted with an armed population can simply disarm that population, using a combination of persuasion and state power?
American gun advocates have been lying to us all this time. Who'd have thought?
Thus articles THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY? ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE?
that is all articles THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY? ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY? ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/04/they-took-guns-away-isnt-that-supposed.html
0 Response to "THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY? ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE?"
Post a Comment