There are many articles and posts out on the internet that dives in to the foolishness of such anti self-defense and anti Second Amendment propaganda programs for the fools who are willing to hand in their alienable rights to Big Daddy for a false sense of security and funds. This article will focus on one small aspect which is the definition of buyback and a summery of this anti-gun tactic.
What is the word buyback? Taken from the dictionary (dictionary.com and dictionary.cambridge.org) noun 1) The buying of something that one previously sold. 2) Any arrangement to take back something as a condition of a sale, as by a supplier who agrees to purchase its customer’s goods. 3) The act of buying something from the same person you sold it to, especially an offer by a company to buy shares of its own stock from shareholders
At the heart of the divisive issue of gun control is how one reads the Constitution. Many people are of the opinion that the very words of the 2nd Amendment, “shall not be infringed,” speak for themselves as far as the legality of government gun control. While, by definition, the Constitution is a “living document,” some attack this philosophy by reading into the intentions of the framers, taking a spirit-over-letter approach. Regardless, it is important to take a long, hard look at the facts of other nations that have attempted to control civilian gun ownership in order to fully understand the question at hand, and form an opinion that reflects the real goings on in places like Venezuela.
What is going on in Venezuela?
A case study in the result of banning civilian
gun ownership is the unrest currently playing out in the nation of Venezuela.
President Nicolás Maduro’s socialist
state is facing massive backlash from starving, poor citizens living in a
nation with inflation rates surpassing 1,300,000 percent. While upset Venezuelans, led by political
challenger Juan Guaidó, have attempted to rise up
against their oppressive socialist government, they have been met with sharp
resistance from Maduro-backed troops, who also happen to be the only people in
the nation allowed to possess guns of any kind. These issues in Venezuela are a
part of a disturbing pattern of gun control being a tool of oppression. One
common comparison drawn is with that of Adolf Hitler’s rule over Nazi Germany,
and his support for disarming citizens in order to maximize government control.
While Hitler did not, as is often mistakenly thought to be the case, disarm all
German citizens, he did create a registry to
disarm groups that opposed his political and societal targets, namely Jewish
people. In fact, much like Maduro, Hitler weaponized fellow Nazis by allowing
them to own guns, setting them against his opponents. While Hitler’s plan
involved arming private citizens, and Maduro’s support is coming from already
established armed forces, the idea of taking the means of defending against
oppression away from the oppressed population is eerily similar.
