We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace.
Nicolas Maduro
September 23, 2014
Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.
I can’t imagine people who failed to disarm two years ago are going to voluntarily show up at a “disarmament center” to “surrender their weapons”. The government is going to “build peace” by sending armed men out to round up those people who registered their guns.
Marxism never ends up in a peaceful utopia. But it is one of the most certain paths to a police state and massive human suffering.—Joe]
Pingback: Sharp as a Marble - Want to see the end game of gun control?
Utopia.
I don’t think the word means what he thinks it means.
He really should look up the definition.
When I read that I thought of, “Come on, Baby; it’ll be great! Just put on these handcuffs and get into my windowless van…”
Most of the guns in Venezuela are now held by “Leftist revolutionary” criminal street gangs like Tupamaro who collectively form the ranks of the Chavistas.
It was Hugo Chavez who first armed them in exchange for their help in killing and intimidating opponents of the regime. Nicolas Maduro still employs them to help police breakup pro-democracy demonstrations.
I highly doubt these are the citizens that Maduro is intent on disarming.
There are many examples of the Soviet regime later arresting those who helped them initially, and sending them off to destruction in the Gulags. There were several purges of party higher-ups even. As any society descends deep into communist hell, no one is safe. It is axiomatic. We saw the same thing among Sadam’s henchmen in Iraq.
A dictator has no respect for anyone dumb enough, cowardly enough, or evil enough to follow him, and all people are dispensable once they’ve served their purpose. Additionally, those who’ve “earned” a place in the apparatchik are often seen as a threat to the Supreme Leader. Anyone capable of independent thought, and action, are a threat and must be squashed.
Loyal members of the Soviet Army returning home from certain campaigns were summarily arrested.
Further; when problems and shortages arise, as they always will in any authoritarian society, someone must be blamed. The Soviets invented the term “wreckers” to define those they decided to blame. They often included the engineers, builders, agriculturists—anyone with strength and ability to get things done. Obviously suspect as wreckers! They were arrested in droves and sent off to die in the camps. Their families and all associates to the third and fourth degree were then arrested.
Well, you can’t let the revolutionaries stick around, they’ve proven that they’ll overturn the existing order. Need new shock troops? Gotta get them early, that’s what the vanguard in the ‘education’ department is for.
One of the universals of history is that all dictators aim to disarm their subjects.
A constitutional government has nothing to fear from armed citizens. Corollary: any government that tries to disarm the citizens clearly intends to subvert the constitution and the liberties of the people.
Americans should know this. Never mind what it says in the Bill of Rights — just remember Governor Gage. (This is one reason why it is so appalling that Massachusetts has become one of the major disarmed victim states.)
“Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore
deprive them of arms.” — Aristotle
Pingback: SayUncle » Of course, they’re socialists
Pingback: Venezuela Proceeds with Disarming Centers
Remember that murder numbers only include amateur/ private citizens. Any professional/ government killings don’t count.
My theory, still developing: socialism always leads to genocide. In the 20th century, that meant cattle cars, death camps, political famine — “hard” genocide that is obvious to any witness.
In the late 20th century, first world socialists came up with a “soft” form — not as obvious, but still with the goal of removing or replacing a population that resists tyranny with one that prefers it. Call it mass immigration or open borders.
In Britain the UK, Canada, and Australia, the left has been focused on bringing in millions of people with no intention of becoming free citizens, but rather serfs, just as they were in their homeland. In payment for their support, these populations receive immunity from laws and cover from the government when their less savory customs are exposed.
Unless you don’t put a time limit on “always”, in which case your claim is unverifiable, I think your claim is too strong.
Name a socialism that hasn’t involved either genocide by the regular definition or mass immigration coupled with spite towards the native population.
Cuba MIGHT fit, but I’d love to see if the demographics changed since Castro took power.
I suspect Cuba would not do as an exception. The oppression, including by murder, is well documented. And not so well known given media biases but just as clear is the nasty racism of the dictatorship.
I was thinking Sweden. But Wikipedia says they have 15% to 20% immigrant population with significant unrest.
Chavez died a billionaire two times over, having siphoned off that amount to foreign bank accounts before he kicked the bucket.
Maduro has a way to go to top that, and the pickings aren’t as great as when Chavez started.
I keep hoping he’ll leave office the way Ceaucescu did.