Now this is slightly off topic, but what I don't get is, you are free to buy most guns, but the government has access to tanks, ships, aircraft and navy seals. Even if they did go bad, they have so much more firepower than all the rednecks. They are also better trained, so how would you guys have a chance against them?
Going back 200 years, the government was basically equal technology wise with the general population, it was just guns and horses, so it made sense the people could rise up, but now the government would just carpet bomb the rust belt and bingo, problem solved. If chaos would ensue, then yeah, it would be better to have guns to protect yourself from other people with guns and weapons, but if you were trying to take down the government it would be far harder and possibly impossible.
Anyway, I think that even if socialism doesn't work, capitalism isn't doing that great either. It's better than most alternatives, but it still has major problems. Just something to consider
The problem is, we don't have true Capitalism in America. Government intervention is not Captialism...it's corporatism.
I think if the Venezuela citizens hadn't had their guns taken from them we may have had an opportunity to find out what would have happened. I do agree with you, though. The people don't really have a chance against their governments, but it seems like most people in Venezeula, who aren't out in the streets, are too busy being locked up in their homes because of the roving criminality happening on a day to day basis. People can't defend themselves from the gangs and looters.
What do you mean by government intervention? What restrictions do they have in place?
Also just a note, I think that if the government takes all guns away, you basically have to trust they will be good in the long run. In australia, not many people have guns, and while this has reduced massacres, we would be screwed if they turned on us. I guess I'll back peddle from my last comment. if more people owned guns, it would slightly help prevent the government from dictatoring. The government would still have the upperhand, but it wouldn't be a cakewalk.
My point is, complete gun bans would give the government more potential control over their citizens, but it isn't good to have very loose restrictions either. There needs to be balance, because there is a massacre in the US every other month and a bit more gun control could help prevent some of them.
I know my points stray slightly from what you were saying, but I felt I should say this. I also hope you understand what I mean, because when I proof-read my comment, it's a bit of a mess.
It never is....
Yeah I was just kidding.
Now this is slightly off topic, but what I don't get is, you are free to buy most guns, but the government has access to tanks, ships, aircraft and navy seals. Even if they did go bad, they have so much more firepower than all the rednecks. They are also better trained, so how would you guys have a chance against them?
Going back 200 years, the government was basically equal technology wise with the general population, it was just guns and horses, so it made sense the people could rise up, but now the government would just carpet bomb the rust belt and bingo, problem solved. If chaos would ensue, then yeah, it would be better to have guns to protect yourself from other people with guns and weapons, but if you were trying to take down the government it would be far harder and possibly impossible.
Anyway, I think that even if socialism doesn't work, capitalism isn't doing that great either. It's better than most alternatives, but it still has major problems. Just something to consider
The problem is, we don't have true Capitalism in America. Government intervention is not Captialism...it's corporatism.
I think if the Venezuela citizens hadn't had their guns taken from them we may have had an opportunity to find out what would have happened. I do agree with you, though. The people don't really have a chance against their governments, but it seems like most people in Venezeula, who aren't out in the streets, are too busy being locked up in their homes because of the roving criminality happening on a day to day basis. People can't defend themselves from the gangs and looters.
What do you mean by government intervention? What restrictions do they have in place?
Also just a note, I think that if the government takes all guns away, you basically have to trust they will be good in the long run. In australia, not many people have guns, and while this has reduced massacres, we would be screwed if they turned on us. I guess I'll back peddle from my last comment. if more people owned guns, it would slightly help prevent the government from dictatoring. The government would still have the upperhand, but it wouldn't be a cakewalk.
My point is, complete gun bans would give the government more potential control over their citizens, but it isn't good to have very loose restrictions either. There needs to be balance, because there is a massacre in the US every other month and a bit more gun control could help prevent some of them.
I know my points stray slightly from what you were saying, but I felt I should say this. I also hope you understand what I mean, because when I proof-read my comment, it's a bit of a mess.
What intervention? Really?
Yeah sorry I'm not knowledgeable on that. I should research it myself, but I'm only half interested in that topic.