Venezuela bans private gun ownership

[hack89]

Source: BBC

Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition.

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.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18288430

---

Because we know that the police have our best interest at heart and are the only group that can be trusted to use guns responsibly.

[slackmaster]

1. I'm sure the criminals in Caracas will be eager to turn in their weapons in honor of Dear Leader

[may3rd]

61. mexican chainsaws would be the alternative

[NeedleCast]

2. Some people will celebrate the removal of their freedom

[slackmaster]

3. They'll be here any second to tell us we need to educate ourselves about Venezuela

[BlueIris]

4. Sanity. nt

[hack89]

7. Yes - because violent criminals always obey gun control laws

and law abiding citizens have no need to protect themselves.

[Lasher]

5. Private security companies can have guns.

You know, people like the fine folks from the Pinkertons and the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency.

[-..__...]

6. Are Chavez's Brown Shirts going to go door to door...

for failure to comply?

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.

A dying dictators last wish... "ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians".

[harmonicon]

16. Is that you, Glenn Beck?

You may not know this, but simply because you disagree with a politician or government doesn't mean that comparing them to the Third Reich makes any sense. Unless everything I know about history is wrong, I'm quite sure that hard-line socialism is quite antithetical to German National Socialism.

[Lasher]

21. But it makes perfect sense to call someone Glenn Beck because you disagree with them.

[harmonicon]

26. No, it's Glenn Beck who I first heard use that argument without getting called on it.

He constantly spewed off about how Obama's plans were like National Socialism, despite the lack of any evidence - even of the most simple variety.

Such arguments should be completely laughable, but now that some have passed - and I guess some are trying to pass them even on DU - it becomes more troubling than laughable.

[appal_jack]

36. Review your history

Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Review your history, harmonicon.

Hitler & Stalin were quite chummy, initially.

And, by the way, both of them opposed private firearms ownership: in Hitler's case basically for anyone who might oppose him, and in Stalin's case basically for any individual citizen.

And furthermore, Stalinist left-totalitarianism and Nazi right-totalitarianism were about equally nightmarish for those shipped off to camps & gulags that each regime employed.

Me, I'll stick with the good ol' Jeffersonian/Tom Paine/Eleanor Roosevelt/Howard Dean American continuum of thought that has proven time & again that private firearms ownership is perfectly compatible with, and possibly essential for, true freedom.

-app

[tabasco]

49. Link to Hitler and Stalin opposing private gun ownership?

Thanks.

[appal_jack]

58. lots of nutter sites, which I won't link to, but Wikipedia too

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#History

Gun control opponents often cite the example of the Nazi regime, claiming that once the Nazis had taken and consolidated their power, they proceeded to implement gun control laws to disarm the population and wipe out the opposition, and the genocide of disarmed Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" followed.[9][10][12] Historians have pointed out that the preceding democratic Weimar Republic already had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalised by the Nazis when they came to power. According to the Weimar Republic 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were “only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and—in the case of a firearms carry permit—only if a demonstration of need is set forth.” The Nazis replaced this law with the Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, which was very similar in structure and wording, but relaxed gun control requirements for the general population. This relaxation included the exemption from regulation of all weapons and ammunition except handguns, the extension of the range of persons exempt from the permit requirement, and the lowering of the age for acquisition of firearms from 20 to 18. It did, however, prohibit manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.[13] Shortly thereafter, in the additional Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.[12][13]

Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929, and the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime.[14]

Emphases mine. Yes, the Nazis allowed their loyal supporters to retain firearms, but that is a restrictive form of 'shall-issue,' and not anything resembling freedom. Remember that already by 1938, many gays, communists, Jews, and other opponents of Nazism were already being harassed or imprisoned. If you were allowed to own a gun by then, you were unquestionably a Nazi supporter, "Good" Germans' later denials notwithstanding.


And (on-edit):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Guns

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

Adolf Hitler, dinner talk (April 1942), in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, pp. 425-426.

-app

[tabasco]

65. Interesting.

The Germans stripped Jews of ALL RIGHTS but relaxed gun laws for the general population.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. That last quote is in reference to the people of the eastern nations that germany conquered on the w

ay to Russia. (And parts of russia)

It is not a reference to german citizens.

[LanternWaste]

52. I believe you're somewhat incorrect about Germany...

I believe you're somewhat incorrect about Germany...

The 1938 Weapons Acts did indeed contain more restrictions than current American laws, but if one illustrate both citizenship and that they were not a danger to the state, the permit would be issued. This is covered in Shirer's work, Rise of Fall of the Third Reich.

[appal_jack]

59. See link immediately above.

You are technically correct about the wording of the 1938 Weapons Acts. But if the state first evaluates you to make sure that your interests and opinions in no way differ from the party line, then the notion of 'private' firearms ownership is rather hollow, to say the least.

-app

[AtheistCrusader]

81. It still represented a relaxation of the firearms laws from the Weimar Republic.

A signficant relaxation.

[appal_jack]

98. True enough

The Weimar Republic had more than its share of problems and shortcomings, and I would posit that a lack of freedom on the firearms front was among them.

-app

[Major Nikon]

75. Hitler also implemented a 40 hour work week, paid vacations, and social security

Should we do away with those things too?

Sorry, but at the very best this is nothing more than Godwin bullshit. It does zip to further substantive debate on gun control and only serves to create emotion-based guilt by association nonsense. It's no better than those who demonize veganism by claiming Hitler was a vegetarian or those who claim atheism is evil because Stalin was an atheist.

[Scootaloo]

79. I hate to break it to you, but, uh...

Stalin was a Fascist. There is no such thing as "Left-totalitarianism" outside the efforts of Fascist apologists to push the "both sides do it!" meme. You will not find any actual leftist agenda under the Soviet Regime.

While you're sticking with Jefferson and Paine, do remember that when they were writing, there was a parity of arms on the battlefield; the weapons owned by the common militia were on par with the weaponry that would be brought to bear against them by any opposing force. You are not living in Thomas Paine's time. Nor, despite the frequent fantasies of your sort, are you living in the times of William Wallace, nor on the set of Red Dawn. If the EBIL GUBBMINT wants to step on your neck, they will fucking do it and will do so with massively superior firepower.

If you want to sit around fingering your triggers and sniffing cordite, that's your business, and frankly, it doesn't bother me one bit. But get off your fucking pedestal, you are not the cornerstone of liberty. You're just some dude who owns the Rube Goldberg version of a hammer.

[harmonicon]

86. That was beautiful, man. (nt)

[Flatulo]

89. Only lunatics and some Teabaggers believe that they could somehow oppose the federal

government with their puny peashooters.

However, I believe (without bothering to find a citation) that the most recent SCOTUS ruling on firearm ownership spoke to the RKBA in terms of personal protection, not defending freedom.

Your post was great, however. A little condescending, but very well-crafted.

[appal_jack]

100. Straw men & lies...

Look, Scootaloo, you're the only one bringing up "Red Dawn" & the "EBIL GUBBMINT." All I said was:

Me, I'll stick with the good ol' Jeffersonian/Tom Paine/Eleanor Roosevelt/Howard Dean American continuum of thought that has proven time & again that private firearms ownership is perfectly compatible with, and possibly essential for, true freedom.

(I corrected the grammar, which I can't do to the original post from this i-pad.)

Are you denying that America's ideal of personal freedom has included the right to keep & bear arms since its inception? If not, what's your point?

As for your notion that any totalitarian dictator is, by definition, right-wing & fascist? That is simply laughable. Stalin grew out of the Bolshevik revolution. I maintain that any revolutionary agenda, leftist or rightist, that does not embrace a core concept of rights and freedoms at its inception risks a veer toward totalitarianism. Communism's embrace of a 'dictatorship of the Proletariat' exemplifies this flaw. America's Founding Fathers, for all their shortcomings, got this point right in our revolution. Lenin got it wrong, which led to Stalin. The Khmer Rouge got it wrong, and that led to Pol Pot. Your willful denial of reality reeks of political correctness. I prefer my progressive values to be rooted in reality, thank you.

-app

[Scootaloo]

101. Yes, I am the one bringing that up

Because it's a constant in Gungeon "thinking." Guns are essential for freedom? Okay, freedom from what? Invariably it's either TEH EBIL GUBBMINT, or, sometimes, TEH EBIL GUBBMINT WHAT COME HERE. Or are you just throwing "freedom!" and "liberty!" around like the old Adam West batman threw around "kapow!" and "doing!", just meaningless punctuation words?

I'm denying that owning a thing is "essential for" true freedom. I'm denying that you and your collection of weaponry, aid my liberty in any tangible way. I am denying you the smug, self-congratulatory bullshit that gun fondlers constantly roll themselves in about how they are the "vanguard" of freedom. does the American ideal of freedom included the right to own a weapon? Sure, but when you present it as the absolute, the be-all-end-all, the essential freedom, all it does is tell me your opinion - and your education - aren't worth a sack of dead cats

And yes, I am saying that by definition a totalitarian regime is fascist and right-wing. Stalin and Mao could call themselves "communist" all they want, but all that does is remind me that North Korea calls itself a "Democracy" and that Glen Beck calls himself a "patriot." The proof isn't in the words they use, but in the shit they do. And the shit they did does not actually mesh with anything held by the left. That bullshit is brought to you by the same people who call Allende a murderous tyrant and praise Pinochet as a hero of the people.

[thegoogolplex123]

118. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Well, your own post does little to show that your opinion - and education - aren't worth jack shit.

"Guns are essential for freedom? Okay, freedom from what? Invariably it's either TEH EBIL GUBBMINT, or, sometimes, TEH EBIL GUBBMINT WHAT COME HERE."

Funny how the OP never said that, they merely said that citizens should be able to protect themselves against criminals (if that includes government criminals, sure, but he never specified that). Perhaps its time you took some courses on reading comprehension? Or is your own twisted perception of reality so contrived as to render you effectively blind to what other people are actually saying?

"Or are you just throwing "freedom!" and "liberty!" around like the old Adam West batman threw around "kapow!" and "doing!", just meaningless punctuation words?"

The OP only said the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' in their post three and zero times, respectively. You said these words eight times in your post. Classic example of pot calling the kettle black, eh?

You claim that these ideas 'don't mesh with anything held by the left.' Aside from the question of who you are to determine 'what ideas mesh with the left' (seeing from your attitude of denial you seem to portray), the evidence shows that 'the ideas of the left' have frequently, especially over the last century, produced the worth genocides and destruction seen by humankind, rivaling that of World War II itself. The policies and ideology of left-dictators like Mao in China, which lied firmly within the orthodoxy of Communism and Marxism-Leninism, led to the deaths of, by low estimates, approximately 73,237,000 people. The casualties of World War II lie around 60 million. A similar situation created by the Bolshevik revolution led to 58,627,000 deaths and 3,284,000 not including civil war, massive famine and starvation, and dictatorial oppression in one of the worst examples history has to show of totalitarianism.

Chinese economic reforms, which began more than three decades ago, have opened the Chinese economy and lifted millions out of poverty – in a country that was once starving under a failing command economy led by Communist rule.

For several decades, China had followed the Soviet Union down a robustly totalitarian path with well-known catastrophic results. The massive famine caused by one of the greatest disasters in world history, the Great Leap Forward engineered by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party from 1958 to 1961, killed somewhere between 40 and 50 million people. To put things in perspective, the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million. The Great Leap Forward disrupted a largely stagnated economy and was followed only by the oppressive purges of the Cultural Revolution. Nearly two decades later, economic reforms started by Deng Xiaoping began introducing the principles of market capitalism into the Chinese economy. This process involved the decollectivization of agriculture, the opening up of foreign investment, and starting of businesses by entrepreneurs. Further reforms in the late 1980s privatized and contracted out much of the state industry, lifting up price controls, regulations, and protectionist policies.

The technological progress and economic growth caused by these reforms – something I personally witnessed during my journey – has been very rapid, making China the second largest economy after the United States. Since the beginning of these reforms, the Chinese economy has increased at an astonishing rate of 9.5% per year, per capita incomes have grown at 6.6% annually, average wages have risen sixfold, and absolute poverty has declined from 41% to 5% of the population.

Wherever communism and left-ideology has set foot upon has brought little but destruction. Cambodia? 2,627,000 Korea? 3,163,000. DMR of Afghanistan? 1,750,000. Ethiopia? 1,343,610. Vietnam? 1,670,000. Yugoslavia? 1,072,000. Shows a trend, don't you think?

Since lieutenant colonel Hugo Chávez Frías rose to the presidency in 1999, seven years after his attempted military coup d’état against Carlos Andrés Pérez, he has promised to deliver Venezuela from poverty. At present, however, the climate of Venezuela is one dominated by poverty, rampant corruption among political institutions, lack of media freedom, water and food shortages, deteriorating public infrastructure, electrical shortages, high inflation, price controls and, perhaps most prominently, unparalleled levels of crime and violence. Leaving the Maiquetía International Airport, one is greeted by the sight of millions of ‘ranchos,’ poorly built living spaces found in impoverished areas, covering the mountains surrounding the valley of the nation’s capital, Caracas. Armed street gangs, drug trafficking, gunfights, and homicide are common features of daily life in Caracas. Approximately two homicides occur per hour on average, amounting to over 335 homicides every week. ’Kidnapping express’ often occurs throughout the city and even travelling from the airport to the city. Going out at night is strongly not recommended.

Revolution, economic nationalism, hatred of the United States, faith in the government as an agent of social justice, and a passion for the figure of ‘el caudillo’ over the rule of law and public institutions, are among the hallmark features of Chávez’s self-proclaimed and self-styled ‘Bolivarian’ revolution (Bolívar would be certainly rolling in his grave). His presidency is characterized somewhat nebulously by a mix of left-wing populism, economic nationalism, Marxism-Leninism, revolutionary socialism, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, left-authoritarianism and, most notoriously, shameless anti-Americanism.

I'm from Venezuela and I know and have experienced first hand every day just how much damage left-ideology brings. Perhaps it's time you took those ideological blinders from your mind and opened it up to the harsh truths of reality.

[Scootaloo]

119. Welcome to DU

Thank you for finding a fix month-old post of mine to spit up at. I feel honored.

Look forward to watching you join in some other, current discussions.

[Kingofalldems]

8. It would be nice if Ted Nugent had his weapons confiscated

[onehandle]

9. And the gungeoneers come out of their hidy hole.

That being said, Chavez is, as always, a thug.

[hack89]

11. So you don't view this as a news worthy story? nt

[appal_jack]

44. With the gun-grabbers flailing incoherently behind them, apparently.

Note to any potential alerters / jury: if "gungeoneers" & "hidy hole" are ok by DU standards, then so are "gun-grabbers" & "flailing incoherently."

-app

[Harmony Blue]

10. I am very glad to see the people of

Venezuela are moving forward with the rest of the civilizations of the world. Too bad the U.S. is lagging behind once again.

Living in the state of Florida where guns are pretty much out of control I would welcome this ban with open arms.

[hack89]

12. I don't share your faith in police

one thing that history has told us is that the police are the greatest threat to our civil liberties. Racial profiling, physical abuse, illegal wire tapping, illegal surveillance ... the list is seemingly endless. And the answer is to give them even more power over us?

As an aside - you do realize that violent criminals don't obey gun control laws. That is what criminals do.

And you are also aware that gun violence is at a 50 year low in America with a 50% decrease in murders and manslaughter since 1992? You have never been safer.

[boppers]

72. Provided that "getting killed by somebody with a gun" isn't a crime, sure.

"stand your ground" states see dramatic drops in murders, and huge increases in "self defense" killings.

[hack89]

93. Define "huge"

put a number out there. Don't be shy.

[boppers]

105. 300% increase in Florida.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v51S_story.html

[hack89]

106. To the massive number of 36

Not quite blood running in the streets, don't you think?

[boppers]

107. How many of your family would you consider significant?

You know, how many could be killed before you thought it mattered to you, personally?

[hack89]

108. Is zero deaths your standard?

for everything? A society with no accidents, no tragedies, no victims?

[boppers]

110. No people who died "because they needed to be killed" is my goal.

I am totally fine with "stand your ground" being used with tasers, by mental health professionals.

[hack89]

111. SYG is not a free ticket to kill

if the police, the prosecutor, the jury disagree then you will go to jail. It just means that now the state has the burden of proof to show a crime was committed. It is not some magic incantation that makes one invulnerable to prosecution.

[boppers]

112. People who carry guns usually already know how to look like cowardly victims.

That's kind of the problem.

[hack89]

113. If that is the best you have

then it is clear why gun control is a dead issue in America.

[boppers]

115. Indeed.

It's also clear why we have reached a stasis point with some places deciding on "may issue", others going with "shall issue".

[hack89]

116. "May issue" is going away

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 12:40 PM - Edit history (1)

unless you really think that local limits on Constitutional rights will continue to.stand.

[Scootaloo]

85. That's right, never been safer...

Without any significant rise or fall in gun control legislation in the last 15 years. Unless, I suppose you hold that our crime rate is tied to whether firearms are allowed in national parks... Actually the trend makes me think that the frequent claim that "GUN CONTROL CAUSES CRIME!" is just as false as its opposite, and that crime rate just isn't tied to pro- or anti-gun legislation.

Now, as to your aside. Tell me, where do these violent criminals come from? And for that matter, what is the source of their guns? Surely neither are the result of spontaneous generation. So of course these violent criminals had to start somewhere as non-violent non-criminals, and those guns they use most likely originated in the hands of "law abiding citizens." Either law-abiding gun owners have a strange tendency to go rogue, or they have an equally strange tendency to having their weapons misplaced / stolen...

[hack89]

94. 150,000,000 gun owners. 8700 murders. Do the math and tell me about that "tendency".

think about how few guns are actually needed to commit all the violent crime in America and tell me how you will eliminate enough guns to have a significant impact. For that matter, tell me how organized crime will not be able to fulfill that demand.

The problem is criminals. Focus justice system like a laser on violent criminals and lock them up for a long time. Legalize drugs to remover the reason for gangs. Fund mental health.

[Scootaloo]

102. You're underlining my base point.

8,700 murders, in a nation of 311,591,917? And that murder rate is on a constant downward slide? And yet, whenever the pack of flippered and bug-eyed mutants flops their way out of the gungeon, I constantly hear the sermonizing about how they - all of them are at terrible, increasing risk of being attacked, invaded, assaulted. Why, contrary to the numbers you are falling back on, the Gungeon and its posters would have us believe that America is in the grips of a murderous crime wave, and everyone, everyone should be armed and afraid. There's apparently a plague of "thugs" rampaging across the nation, making it look like Pre-Bart Rock Ridge. Have you ever seen such cruelty?

As for my second point, it seems you are going to persist in believing that "criminals" spring from thin air with dastardly sneers and ugly tattoos already in place. So... enjoy yourself with htat, I guess. Hope you don't mind that it makes me think substantially less of you.

[hack89]

104. You really haven't being paying attention, have you?

we argue that because more guns have not resulted in more deaths, the fact that we own guns is not a threat to public safety. It the the gun grabbers who think that there is an epidemic of gun violence that requires more gun control.

So what are you arguing? That because more guns are not a threat to society, they are not needed, so they needed more stringent control? Not the greatest logic there.

We know exactly where most criminals come from - the demographics of crime is very well understood. So why concentrate gun laws on groups we know are not contributing to violent crime?

[Flatulo]

46. The difference is that the European states who've severely

restricted gun ownership do not have a 'personality cult' leadership who has assembled a private army of brown shirts.

And I'm just going to go ahead and vomit in advance of the legions of Chavistas who will leap in here to tell me he was democratically elected.

[cali]

76. I would not welcome this ban with open arms and I live in VT

which has laxer gun laws than FL- and a low level of gun related crime.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. Prepping for what's coming when St Hugo dies

Will make assorted coups a lot easier to pull off.

[hack89]

14. Certainly his private militia will still be armed. nt

[harmonicon]

15. He has a private militia now? Fascinating. That's a news story I'd like to see a link to. (nt)

[hack89]

17. Not familiar with the Bolivarian militia?

Under the new law, the Bolivarian militia will now have its own officers and will be commanded directly by the president. That is something the army previously resisted.

Mr Chávez’s own statements suggest otherwise. The president has always said that his leftist “revolution” is “peaceful, but armed”, and that violence would ensue if it were to be thwarted. In December 2012 he faces a presidential election which opinion polls suggest he might lose. But both he and his top general, Henry Rangel Silva, have said that the armed forces would resist the orders of a post-Chávez government. According to General Rangel, the high command is “wedded to the political project” of Mr Chávez.

Like Colonel Qaddafi, Mr Chávez also has foreign fighters he may be able to count on in a fix. Venezuela has an unknown number of Cuban military advisers. Some sources say the Cubans give orders and (with Russians) run the intelligence service. But tens of thousands of Cubans, all with military training, have been deployed across the country as medical staff, sports instructors and the like.

http://www.economist.com/node/18529829

[harmonicon]

24. That's not the same thing. (nt)

[hack89]

28. An armed militia answerable only to the President?

care to name any other democracy with that particular feature?

[harmonicon]

29. Perhaps you've heard of the Secret Service or the CIA. (nt)

[hack89]

30. And perhaps you have heard of Congressional oversight and budget powers?

There is no military organization in America that answers solely to the President. Not one.

[harmonicon]

32. In a way you could say that they all are, as the US president is the commander...

of all US armed forces. It's a system that other countries don't have. Venezuela has a different system than us, and I don't really care. What I do care about are free and fair elections, which Venezuela does have. Chavez has been fairly elected multiple times. I understand that some people don't like his policies and personality, but that's anyone's choice. I may not like how Angela Merkel governs and may think that her policies are disastrous for Germans, Europeans, and the entire world, but she was fairly elected.

I don't care that people disagree with Chavez, but when they make up lies to smear him, it's an insult to democracy and those who participate in such open democracies.

[hack89]

35. It will all be moot in a couple of months.

so no big deal I suppose.

[frylock]

51. chavez polling at 45% to capriles 31%..

sooooo no soup.

[hack89]

54. He will be dead. nt

[bitchkitty]

70. Vulture much? n/t

[hack89]

95. Just pointing out the likely truth. nt

[Flatulo]

47. Isnt the Secret Service under the Treasury? nt

[harmonicon]

87. Oh, possibly in theory - I'd forgotten about that.

It's not as if there's someone in the treasury responsible for giving them orders though. We have a very strong executive which can basically do anything it wants when it comes to armed forces.

[hack89]

39. No. Part of the Department of Homeland Security

and subject to Congressional oversight.

No directly under the control of the White House.

[hack89]

43. Why can't it be part of the governement chain of command

with legislative and judicial oversight?

Are you truly advocating private armies for elected officials?

[hack89]

53. Because the article specifically states it was taken out of the military chain of command? nt

[freshwest]

57. Answering out of courtesy, deleting the rest. I don't do Gungeon threads.

[hack89]

62. So Venezula and Chavez are not news worthy? Ok. nt

[Judi Lynn]

18. It's a twofer!Room for gun wavers to all focus on the Venezuelan President who might grab their guns

if he could only come down their chimneys, like a gun-grabbing Santa, and leave them gun-less, like the honest ones among us who aren't hoping to get the violent jump on our fellow men by arming ourselves.

Hugo Chavez-gibbering is the perfect cover for racists, as well as fascists, since everyone knows he has an African grandparent, and indigenous ancestry, as well. A lot of racist hatred can be off-loaded while pretending there's actually a valid point which can be landed over the clear presidential choice of the great majority of Venezuelan people.

Even fully armed people have to sleep sometimes! Unless you can get someone to stay awake for you while you sleep, it's so possible Democrats, and democratic socialists can sneak up on you while you're resting, lost in your dreams of an all conservative, armed-to-the-teeth world.

[hack89]

19. "Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, ...."

been watching too much Blazing Saddles?

Do you agree with the law? Do you think all those violent criminals will obey it?

[dipsydoodle]

20. That brings Venezuela closer into line with the UK for example

So I agree with the change in law.

[hack89]

22. England does not have a universal gun ban

they have strict licensing.

So explain to me how this law will take guns away from violent criminals.

[onehandle]

23. All guns start out legal. Which is why England got it right.

Chavez only knows how to be a little thug.

[Flatulo]

25. Criminals don't care about gun laws.

This link shows gun crime in the UK is up 89% since 1999.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

[dipsydoodle]

27. and ?

Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.

'We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz1wZ5wiInU

[hack89]

31. So the Brits need to focus on criminals and not guns. nt

[Flatulo]

50. No doubt they'll ban guns again, since it apparently didn't take the first time. nt

[dipsydoodle]

55. I'm suitably astounded with your deficit in comprehension / lack of knowledge of the UK

Some penalties here :

Possession of firearm with intent to endanger life Firearms Act 1968 s.16 Life
Possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence Firearms Act 1968 s.16A 10 years
Use of firearm to resist arrest Firearms Act 1968 s.17(1) Life
Possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for offence specified in schedule 1 to that Act Firearms Act 1968 s.17(2) Life
Possession of firearm with criminal intent Firearms Act 1968 s.18 Life
Possession or acquisition of certain prohibited weapons etc. Firearms Act 1968 s.5
Possessing or distributing prohibited weapon or ammunition (5 year minimum sentence) Firearms Act 1968 10 years
Trespassing with firearm or imitation firearm in a building Firearms Act 1968 7 years
Carrying firearm or imitation firearm in public place Firearms Act 1968 7 years

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Note the simple the use of the word "possession" in most cases as opposed to "use" .

Having only been strengthened since 1968 do you think they'd be relaxed in be future.

[Flatulo]

77. And I'm likewise astounded by your inability to recognize irony. nt

[onehandle]

33. Still a tiny fraction per 100k people compared to here in gun madness central.

All guns start out legal.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. That's not true.

Many guns are illegally imported, and more are illegally manufactured here in the US, so no, not all guns 'start out legal'.

If you make an auto-sear for a pre-1986 AR-15 that has M-16 components (legal at the time), before you have even installed it in the otherwise legal semi-auto rifle, you are already guilty of manufacturing a fully-automatic weapon.

In fact, you don't even have to possess the rifle, just making the auto-sear is enough to win you 10 to 20 for manufacturing an illegal machine gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Dunno. I'm pretty pro-gun, pro-RKBA but

I've seen enough FUD about Chavez the Ebil Dictator(TM) turn out to be nonsense, that I take pretty much everything about him with a grain of salt now.

[crayfish]

34. I guess they think it will be different from Jamaica.

Idiots.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

38. I don't neccessarily agree with a total ban.

But nothing less than a full psychiatric evaluation should be needed to buy one.

[hack89]

40. By government supplied doctor's of course

because we know that governments would never abuse such power.

[boppers]

73. It would help filter out the paranoid.

[hack89]

90. And the political opposition or those with the wrong colored skin.

of course, nothing like that has ever happened before, has it? Not even in America.

[FrodosPet]

60. What about psychiatric exams to vote?

What else can we restrict to the power of the all-wise and knowing psychiatrists and other learned elite?

[boppers]

74. Flying a plane, driving a bus, handling fireworks, selling alcohol...

All of these require more expert testing than firearms purchasing.

[Ter]

41. Dictatorships always do

I'm surprised they waited this long.

[killbotfactory]

71. Funny, I thought easy access to firearms was supposed to prevent government tyranny like this... nt

[harun]

45. Vive Chavez!!!!

[Nolimit]

56. I don't know what good this would do.

If the sale of guns was already limited, I'm sure there aren't many privately owned guns. More like than not, the bad guys could easily get guns from corrupt police or military men. Maybe they should see what caused the rise in murders and deal with that rather than putting a band-aid on the problem.

[may3rd]

63. Venezuela Launches Official Production of Third-Generation Kalashnikov Rifles ( 2010 article )

Venezuela Launches Official Production of Third-Generation Kalashnikov Rifles

Venezuela has become the first nation in the world to make the iconic Kalashnikov third generation assault rifle on Russia's official license. The first batch of the legendary small arms that conquered the whole world has already been assembled at a Venezuelan enterprise, RIA Novosti reports with reference to Rosoboronexport official Alexander Yemelyanov.

Russian specialists simultaneously participate in the construction of a new factory in Venezuela, which would be built solely for the production of Kalashnikov rifles.

"The construction works are being conducted according to the schedule. We will also build another plant here which would produce ammo for Kalashnikovs," the official spokesman for Russia's defense export enterprise said.

.....
Prime minister Vladimir Putin evaluated the cost of the agreement at $5 billion in April 2010. In addition to plants and production licenses, the contract stipulates a $2.2 billion loan, which Russia provided to Venezuela for the purchase of arms, including 92 T-72 tanks. Thirteen Russian enterprises are executing the Venezuelan orders.
The Kalashnikov rifle is the most widely spread assault rifle in the world today. If all the rifles that have ever been produced still existed, it would be possible to arm all armies in the world with them. There is hardly a person in the world who does not know what a Kalashnikov rifle is. Kalashnikovs were used in all local wars during the second half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century.


http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/14-07-2010/114222-kalashnikov-0/




Russia this year will produce Kalashnikov rifles in Venezuela (2011 article)



http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/19543

Chinese military source




14.07.2010

[geek tragedy]

64. Guaranteed flame war combining Hugo and guns

[hack89]

66. I tried to find an Olive Garden angle but couldn't. nt

[Baclava]

68. NJ Olive Gardens are obviously mafiaosa fronts

The Venezuelans probably got theirs from Tuscany, big difference

[slackmaster]

67. Kid, the next time I say something like "Let's go someplace like Venezuela,

...Let's GO someplace like Bolivia."

[greiner3]

69. NRA members;

Remember, meeting next Tuesday. Bring your weapon of choice.

[unkachuck]

78. Hugo is right on the money....

....it makes perfectly good sense to me....why arm the right-wing fascists and gangs for civil war after the election if they don't win?

....I assume private ownership and sales are still legal....

[hack89]

91. "Hugo Chavez's government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians" nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

84. Venezuela has historically high murder rates, gun violence: Chavez gets blamed and attacked for it

Chavez government makes moves in the direction to do something about it: Chavez gets blamed and attacked for it

Ummm..... moral of this story: some people have an agenda and just like to complain about anything.

[Prometheus Bound]

88. Yes.

Just add a phrase


...just like to complain about anything the Chavez government does.

[hack89]

92. It getting worse under Chavez

Venezuela is a society that is falling apart - skyrocketing crime, food shortages and high inflation.

He has had plenty of time to make things better - he has failed.

[Flatulo]

96. Chavez has been using the wealth of that nation to buy the votes of the poor

by fixing their teeth and giving them better coffee breaks.

Once that wealth has been thoroughly looted, he'll rely on his citizen's militia to 'protect the revolution' from any who oppose him.

[bitchkitty]

109. I'm sure all those poor, toothless, exploited

workers thank you for your passion for free-dumb. The government shouldn't pay for people's teeth. It's not like they NEED teeth, right?

I mean, imagine! Promising them freedom and equality in exchange for their votes. Freaking toothless peasants, taking our guns - they're everywhere!

[Flatulo]

114. LOL

[Prometheus Bound]

117. I don't get it. How does free dentistry and longer coffee breaks for the poor become 'looting'.

Or was there an implied sarcasm tag there?

[treestar]

97. "Venezuela" what does that mean?

An elected legislature? A decree of Hugo? Was it by procedure allowed under the Venezuelan Constitution?

[hack89]

99. I have no doubt it was completely legal

I just think it won't work - criminals don't obey laws.

[w4rma]

103. Completely dumb. (nt)