Peace will come to Venezuela now. Really!

[CFLarsen]

Peace will come to Venezuela now. Really!

Venezuela buying 100,000 guns (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/18/venezuela.arms.deal.ap/index.html)

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela signed an agreement with Russia to buy 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, formalizing a deal that has drawn sharp opposition from the United States.

The accord for the sale of the Kalashnikov AK-103 rifles was signed Tuesday in Caracas by Venezuelan Defense Minister Jorge Garcia Carneiro and Sergei Ladygin, the regional chief of Russia's state arms agency Rosoboronexport.

Garcia Carneiro told the state-run Bolivarian News Agency the cost will be $54 million and the first 28,000 rifles are to arrive in October.

But, wait:

U.S. President George W. Bush has said the United States is concerned the guns could fall into the hands of other groups, such as leftist Colombian rebels, and become a destabilizing force in the region. But Russian officials brushed aside the criticism, saying all along they would go ahead with the deal.

What happened to an armed militia, fighting for independence? Nah.... As long as we have a lot of guns in society, we won't have uprisings or violence. Everyone is just so much safer.

Really.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What happened to an armed militia, fighting for independence? Nah.... As long as we have a lot of guns in society, we won't have uprisings or violence. Everyone is just so much safer.

Really.
It's not the people on the street that's buying the guns, it's the government. The idea of the regular folks having guns is to defend themselves, including from the "leftist rebels" the governemnt might decide to give the guns to.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Donks
It's not the people on the street that's buying the guns, it's the government. The idea of the regular folks having guns is to defend themselves, including from the "leftist rebels" the governemnt might decide to give the guns to.

Isn't the government made up of people??

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Isn't the government made up of people??

Yes, yes it is.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Isn't the government made up of people??
How are the Colombian rebels part of the people of Venezuela?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Isn't the government made up of people?? You don't quite get this whole "politics" thing do you!?

Yes, ALL governments ARE made up of people. So? Dictatorships, Monarchies, theocracies, communism, socialism, etc.. They all, oddly enough, are made up of people and will continue to do so untill we come up with a replacement.

The term "people" as in "power to the people" is defined in this sense as The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people) So in this instance Donks is delineating...er... he is separating the ordinary people from the people in the government.

That governments are made up of people does not mean that the average person has any say so in his or her government. In the future when someone uses the term "people" try to imagine the common man and not the individuals that make up the government, 'k?

I hope this has been helpful

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Donks
It's not the people on the street that's buying the guns, it's the government. The idea of the regular folks having guns is to defend themselves, including from the "leftist rebels" the governemnt might decide to give the guns to. Local militias are regular folk, and might need to defend themselves from rightist rebels other governments might decide to give guns to. As the Nicaraguans found out.

The Venezualean rightists messed up their last coup, and with the FAL guns widely distributed amongst the reserve another one will be even more difficult. A very sound strategic move, I think.

[Donks]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Local militias are regular folk, and might need to defend themselves from rightist rebels other governments might decide to give guns to. As the Nicaraguans found out.

The Venezualean rightists messed up their last coup, and with the FAL guns widely distributed amongst the reserve another one will be even more difficult. A very sound strategic move, I think.
Yes, but the Colombians might not feel quite so happy about the Venezuelan governemnt giving guns to the Colombian rebels (from CFLarsen's link).

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Donks
Yes, but the Colombians might not feel quite so happy about the Venezuelan governemnt giving guns to the Colombian rebels (from CFLarsen's link). I missed that bit. When did they do that?

[Donks]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I missed that bit. When did they do that?
They haven't. That's Bush's concern, which is one of the points of this thread. Or at least it's one of the two snippets Larsen quoted.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Donks
They haven't. That's Bush's concern, which is one of the points of this thread. Or at least it's one of the two snippets Larsen quoted. Chavez's concern might be that guns might be provided to Venezuelan rightist rebels by the Columbian government. He might not be happy about that. On the other hand, he might be - maybe he thinks he might win a tussle with the Columbian government. It might be best to do it now, while the US is mighty distracted. He might think might is right, and right now. Or he might not.

[CFLarsen]

But isn't this a good thing? A population gets to be (even more) armed?

Come now, people. Say it: "'Tis A Good Thing".

..........right?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But isn't this a good thing? A population gets to be (even more) armed?

Come now, people. Say it: "'Tis A Good Thing".

..........right?

Only when you'll comprehand the difference between population/people and the government. Come on, you can do it, it's not that hard.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Only when you'll comprehand the difference between population/people and the government. Come on, you can do it, it's not that hard.

Just answer the question. Don't come up with conditions.

This is a good thing, isn't it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Just answer the question. Don't come up with conditions. "Conditions"? It's central to the question. {sheesh}

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. President George W. Bush has said the United States is concerned the guns could fall into the hands of other groups, such as leftist Colombian rebels, and become a destabilizing force in the region. But Russian officials brushed aside the criticism, saying all along they would go ahead with the deal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when has it become a genuine concern of the U.S. into whose hands a shipment of weapons might fall? After the Talibans? After Saddam?

No, wait, those were the hands that the USA placed the weapons in - the weapons didn't have to fall anywhere! (And, of course, they were never leftist ...)
Bush isn't worried about the Russian assault rifles falling into the hands of leftist Colombian rebels. He's upset because somebody sells weapons to a government that he wants to destabilize. That it just happens to be a democratically elected government and a democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez .... Well, who cares?!

(And, Claus, it's true. It's not a question of Chavez fulfilling an NRA Libertarian's dream that every man should be able to own his own handgun. If the weapons were going to be sold in retail, Bush wouldn't really mind. Hell, he might even consider it a way of arming the next coup against Chavez!)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RandFan
"Conditions"? It's central to the question. {sheesh}

I am asking you - what is your opinion?

Surely, you are capable of stating your own opinion on whether or not it is a good thing that Venezuela buys 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles from Russia, without demanding I tell you what I think about government first?

People might think that you are either incapable of it, or are simply stalling.

Now, is it a good thing?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
(And, Claus, it's true. It's not a question of Chavez fulfilling an NRA Libertarian's dream that every man should be able to own his own handgun. If the weapons were going to be sold in retail, Bush wouldn't really mind. Hell, he might even consider it a way of arming the next coup against Chavez!)

That's not my point. I am simply asking gun-proponents if they think it is a good idea that a people are (even more) armed.

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's not my point. I am simply asking gun-proponents if they think it is a good idea that a people are (even more) armed. I know that's your point, but then you should acknowledge that there's an incongruity between your point and the AP report from Caracas.

The Danish army buys new weapons and ammo all the time, but that would not lead anybody to talk about, "As long as we have a lot of guns in society," since these weapons are not meant for society as such, but for the army. The army may use them in Iraq, for instance, and since Bush would never object to a member of the Coalition using arms to fight insurgents in Iraq, he wouldn't blame the Russians for selling weapons to the Danish army. He also wouldn't worry about into whose hands they might fall.

[WildCat]

What's wrong Claus? Couldn't find any instances of criminals or terrorists using single-shot .50 caliber rifles to cause death and destruction, so now you started this straw man thread?

BTW, did your photoshopped pic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56638) leave evidence of photoshop or not? You seem to have bailed out of that thread, or maybe you just forgot about it...

[WildCat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's not my point. I am simply asking gun-proponents if they think it is a good idea that a people are (even more) armed.
You're deliberately misrepresenting the Bush administrations concerns here. This (misrepresenting claims) is a recurring, pathetic and desperate tactic of yours it appears.

The worry is that Chavez will use the weapons to arm the criminal (kidnapping, drug producing, etc.) group FARC, further destabilizing Colombia. No gun proponent here has ever argued that criminal gangs should be armed. Law abiding citizens, sure. FARC? The Gangster Disciples? The Latin Kings? I don't think so!

Spin away, Claus...

[WildCat]

Originally posted by dann
I know that's your point, but then you should acknowledge that there's an incongruity between your point and the AP report from Caracas.

The Danish army buys new weapons and ammo all the time, but that would not lead anybody to talk about, "As long as we have a lot of guns in society," since these weapons are not meant for society as such, but for the army. The army may use them in Iraq, for instance, and since Bush would never object to a member of the Coalition using arms to fight insurgents in Iraq, he wouldn't blame the Russians for selling weapons to the Danish army. He also wouldn't worry about into whose hands they might fall.
Is this what you mean?

Claus is against people having guns. The Danish police and military are made up of people. Therefore, Claus thinks the Danish police and military shouldn't have guns. :p

We could play this all day, but I have to go t work. I expect 3 pages of Claus spin by the time I get home.

[LW]

Originally posted by WildCat
Therefore, Claus thinks the Danish police and military shouldn't have guns

Not that it would make a large difference. I'm not completely certain of this but I think that the last time when the Danish army has won a major land battle was in their war against Erik XIV of Sweden in 1563.

[dann]

The Danish army actually won a war against Sweden? I never heard that!
Oh, I see that it was just a major battle.
Unfortunately Denmark now has very powerful allies and has therefore been able to win a few wars in recent years ...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
The Danish army actually won a war against Sweden? I never heard that!
Oh, I see that it was just a major battle.

The Kalmar War, 1611-1613. (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmarkrigen)

Well, it's something.... ;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am asking you - what is your opinion?

Surely, you are capable of stating your own opinion on whether or not it is a good thing that Venezuela buys 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles from Russia, without demanding I tell you what I think about government first? I'm not asking you to tell us what you THINK about governments because that would require a process on your part that I have some concerns about. In any event I can't answer untill you clear up the matter. IT IS CENTRAL TO THE QUESTION!

I'm not sure how I can be more clear.

People might think that you are either incapable of it, or are simply stalling. Only really stupid people.

Now, is it a good thing? {sigh} I'll let someone else respond.

Originally posted by dann
I know that's your point, but then you should acknowledge that there's an incongruity between your point and the AP report from Caracas. Thanks dann.

[President Bush]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This is a good thing, isn't it?
http://www.bushspeaks.com/img/bush_gun.jpg
Guns don't kill people; guns are designed and manufactured for the purpose of enabling people to use the guns to kill people. I said that.

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The Kalmar War, 1611-1613. (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmarkrigen)
Well, it's something.... ;)
I can imagine that the inhabitants of "købstaden Væ" were also the victims of some very nasty Danish Limericks.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Just answer the question. Don't come up with conditions.

This is a good thing, isn't it?

I do not completely understand the question and require clarification on what the "good thing" thing is. Are you referring to the government of Venezuela having more weapons or the population of Venezuela having more weapons?

If you can't see the difference between the two I will gladly attempt to explain it to you as best as I can. I am also sure others will help me out in that regard.

[LW]

Originally posted by LW
Not that it would make a large difference. I'm not completely certain of this but I think that the last time when the Danish army has won a major land battle was in their war against Erik XIV of Sweden in 1563.

Just adding a bit of information here after checking my sources: the battle that I meant was the Battle of Axtorna in 1565, and the Danish army was actually composed almost entirely of German mercenaries ...