Here is good example of how prohibiting the private ownership of guns has contributed to the problems in Venezuela.  Venezuelans drank the Kool Aid and felt they didn't need to protect themselves from their  socialist government. Now they are paying for it.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves

Got that @Greenday?  The problems in Venezuela were not caused by the US.  They were caused by the people embracing socialism.

Oh yeah.

“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government,” Vanegas explained. “Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”

Sound familiar?

22 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Here is good example of how prohibiting the private ownership of guns has contributed to the problems in Venezuela.  Venezuelans drank the Kool Aid and felt they didn't need to protect themselves from their  socialist government. Now they are paying for it.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves

Got that @Greenday?  The problems in Venezuela were not caused by the US.  They were caused by the people embracing socialism.

This has 0% to do with socialism and 100% to do with being a dictatorship.

Uncle @GRIZ why do you even try? I gave up on this kid 

38 minutes ago, Greenday said:

This has 0% to do with socialism and 100% to do with being a dictatorship.

@Greenday name me one socialist state that doesn't have strict gun control including outright bans on private gun ownership.  

If you read the article it says how Venezuelans embraced socialism as a cure to all their problems.  That just made the problems worse.

I saw that article, and was going to post it. Some key snips from the article that people HERE should think about:

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

(Does that sound familiar????)

“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government,” Vanegas explained. “Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”

(Didn't care enough about it... hmmmm)

He said it didn’t take long for such a wide-eyed public perception to fall apart. “If guns had been a stronger part of our culture, if there had been a sense of duty for one to protect their individual rights, and as a show of force against a government power – and had legal carry been a common thing – it would have made a huge difference,” he lamented.

(Closing the barn door AFTER the horse runs away....)

“Venezuela shows the deadly peril when citizens are deprived of the means of resisting the depredations of a criminal government,” said David Kopel,

(coming to a state near you... soon..)

Luis Farias, 48, from Margarita, said that gun violence was indeed bad when guns were freely available for purchase. But it became much worse after the gun ban was passed. “Now the criminal mother is unleashed,” Farias said. “Trying to ban guns didn’t take guns off the streets. Nobody cares about the law; the criminals don’t care about the law.”

(Murphy.... are you listening????)

“Without a doubt, if there had been a balance of armed defense we could have stood up and stopped the oppression at the beginning,” he contended. “

(There's a lesson to be learned there...)

1 hour ago, Sniper said:

I saw that article, and was going to post it. Some key snips from the article that people HERE should think about:

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

(Does that sound familiar????)

“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government,” Vanegas explained. “Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”

(Didn't care enough about it... hmmmm)

He said it didn’t take long for such a wide-eyed public perception to fall apart. “If guns had been a stronger part of our culture, if there had been a sense of duty for one to protect their individual rights, and as a show of force against a government power – and had legal carry been a common thing – it would have made a huge difference,” he lamented.

(Closing the barn door AFTER the horse runs away....)

“Venezuela shows the deadly peril when citizens are deprived of the means of resisting the depredations of a criminal government,” said David Kopel,

(coming to a state near you... soon..)

Luis Farias, 48, from Margarita, said that gun violence was indeed bad when guns were freely available for purchase. But it became much worse after the gun ban was passed. “Now the criminal mother is unleashed,” Farias said. “Trying to ban guns didn’t take guns off the streets. Nobody cares about the law; the criminals don’t care about the law.”

(Murphy.... are you listening????)

“Without a doubt, if there had been a balance of armed defense we could have stood up and stopped the oppression at the beginning,” he contended. “

(There's a lesson to be learned there...)

Perhaps our wise Founders foresaw the above and drafted the 2nd Amendment to prevent that from happening here? It's about much more than just our rights in New Jersey,  it is our duty as Americans!

1 minute ago, JohnnyB said:

Perhaps our wise Founders foresaw the above and drafted the 2nd Amendment to prevent that from happening here?

Yep.

And it's really working out swell in the communist state of NJ, right?

 

11 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Yep.

And it's really working out swell in the communist state of NJ, right?

 

 When I entered the US Navy, I swore an oath to my Country to defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They never told me I was no longer held by that oath when I left the Navy! I never swore an oath to the State of New Jersey when I crossed that stupid bridge to move here 38 years ago!

My oath to my Country and my Constitution STANDS!

Venezuela will not happen here! There are WAY too many true Americans here that will never allow it!

1 hour ago, Greenday said:

This has 0% to do with socialism and 100% to do with being a dictatorship.

Did socialism have 0% to due with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Sung, Castro & Murphy?!  

 

8 minutes ago, Kawi7 said:

Did socialism have 0% to due with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Sung, Castro & Murphy?!  

 

Greenie can't seem to grasp the difference between theory and reality.

6 minutes ago, Handyman said:

Greenie can't seem to grasp the difference between theory and reality.

Yup, the theory when implemented results in dictators... 

37 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

When I entered the US Navy, I swore an oath to my Country to defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They never told me I was no longer held by that oath when I left the Navy! I never swore an oath to the State of New Jersey when I crossed that stupid bridge to move here 38 years ago!

My oath to my Country and my Constitution STANDS!

To you sir:

@Sniper  A Navy SEAL Lieutenant Commander in dress whites....I am honored Sir!

13 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

@Sniper  A Navy SEAL Lieutenant Commander in dress whites....I am honored Sir!

Well, I didn't think a Marine saluting you would have been a good choice.

 

1 minute ago, Sniper said:

Well, I didn't think a Marine saluting you would have been a good choice.

 

Actually, I had many Marines salute me during active duty.  But you made the right choice for sure! I actually went out of way to avoid being saluted and returning salutes. Strange, just felt awkward to me at times!

I am not about being recognized, just want to do my job! In the past, present and future! I will never let my country down! but thank you!

2 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

I am not about being recognized, just want to do my job! In the past, present and future! I will never let my country down! but thank you!

I missed the opportunity to serve, in hindsight I wish I did. I appreciate all you guys stepping up and volunteering/serving. You're the true STARS of the country!!!

3 hours ago, Greenday said:

This has 0% to do with socialism and 100% to do with being a dictatorship.

in the 20th, each dictatorship started out from the leftist/socialist sphere.  You do know this right?

And it's funny how some American politicians like to point to Venezuela as a model that we should embrace. GTFO of here.

10 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

 When I entered the US Navy, I swore an oath to my Country to defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They never told me I was no longer held by that oath when I left the Navy! I never swore an oath to the State of New Jersey when I crossed that stupid bridge to move here 38 years ago!

My oath to my Country and my Constitution STANDS!

Venezuela will not happen here! There are WAY too many true Americans here that will never allow it!

Roger that. 

 

10 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

 When I entered the US Navy, I swore an oath to my Country to defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They never told me I was no longer held by that oath when I left the Navy! I never swore an oath to the State of New Jersey when I crossed that stupid bridge to move here 38 years ago!

My oath to my Country and my Constitution STANDS!

Venezuela will not happen here! There are WAY too many true Americans here that will never allow it!

disagree

LE cares about contracts and getting to early retirement so your rights don't matter

FBI, nuff said

politicians...lol

sheeple....do I need to even go there?

We have house reps openly saying they'd restrict free speech if they could.  We have reps that routinely want to restrict rights as a matter of business.

Venezuela can definitely happen here

16 hours ago, GRIZ said:

@Greenday name me one socialist state that doesn't have strict gun control including outright bans on private gun ownership.  

If you read the article it says how Venezuelans embraced socialism as a cure to all their problems.  That just made the problems worse.

Canada has no outright ban on private gun ownership.

Australia has no outright ban on private gun ownership.

Even the UK doesn't have an outright ban.

They've all basically just made it so you have to prove to be a responsible user in order to get a license which we don't do here.

2 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Canada has no outright ban on private gun ownership.

Australia has no outright ban on private gun ownership.

Even the UK doesn't have an outright ban.

They've all basically just made it so you have to prove to be a responsible user in order to get a license which we don't do here.

incorrect or rather, parcing the inherent meaning of gun ownership

you are NOT allowed to own an AR style rifle in the UK and Australia.  Single shot and shotgun type rifles in the UK is not really gun ownership and in Australia, it's hardly different 

 

Why our republic has flourished for over 200 years is because of the bible and the bullet. 

7 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Canada has no outright ban on private gun ownership.

Australia has no outright ban on private gun ownership.

Even the UK doesn't have an outright ban.

They've all basically just made it so you have to prove to be a responsible user in order to get a license which we don't do here.

@Greenday as bad as the situation is here, NJ looks like Arizona compared to those countries you listed.

Try again.  There is no socialist country that doesn't have severe restrictions on gun ownership if not an outright ban.

You need to educate yourself before you throw out a bs response.

22 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

@Greenday as bad as the situation is here, NJ looks like Arizona compared to those countries you listed.

Try again.  There is no socialist country that doesn't have severe restrictions on gun ownership if not an outright ban.

You need to educate yourself before you throw out a bs response.

You said outright ban. I proved you wrong. Most do not have an outright ban.

It's still not hard to own a gun legally in those countries just like it's not hard to own a gun in any state in this country.

12 minutes ago, Greenday said:

You said outright ban. I proved you wrong. Most do not have an outright ban.

It's still not hard to own a gun legally in those countries just like it's not hard to own a gun in any state in this country.

@Greenday read my post.  You didn't prove anything.  I said,

"strict gun control including an outright ban"

You seem to be the only one who didn't understand that. Would you have felt better if I said "or" instead of "including".  I'm glad your knowledge of chemistry is better than your reading comprehension.

Being you brought it up earlier, do you think you should prove yourself responsible to exercise free speech? You should tested before you practice a religion so you can do so responsibly?  What about fully testing 18 year old voters to make sure they vote responsibly?

Don't get me wrong.  I might take some heat on this but I'm not for many felons, drug addicts, children, and other categories of people access to guns.

Why do you see the 2A as different from the rest of the Bill of Rights?

I think voting ought to conditions attached to it

2 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

I think voting ought to conditions attached to it

Property ownership? Gender? Race?

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

Property ownership? Gender? Race?

property ownership was debated for a long time.  I think you are being disingenuous by adding 'gender and race' but you know this.  If you are going to discuss something, do it honestly. 

I'm not sure anyone taking from the government should be allowed to vote as that is clearly a biased vote.  I'm not really sure what conditions to apply to be honest but you should absolutely have skin in the game to be able to vote

4 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

property ownership was debated for a long time.  I think you are being disingenuous by adding 'gender and race' but you know this.  If you are going to discuss something, do it honestly. 

I'm not sure anyone taking from the government should be allowed to vote as that is clearly a biased vote.  I'm not really sure what conditions to apply to be honest but you should absolutely have skin in the game to be able to vote

It’s history...