A once-prosperous nation is crumbling, leaving its people to fend off lawlessness, hunger and despair. As the government and infrastructure collapse, desperate citizens fear for their safety — but they’re left defenseless after having their guns seized by corrupt officials.

No, it’s not the plot to a postapocalyptic survival novel. It’s happening right now in Venezuela, and victims of the South American country’s crippling socialism are now sounding an alarm about the right to keep and bear arms.

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” lamented Javier Vanegas, a young teacher who fled Venezuela as the situation became dire.

Speaking to Fox News, Vanegas confirmed what conservatives have been saying for years: There’s a shockingly thin line between a government that protects its people and one that turns on them. Without the ability to defend themselves, citizens can find themselves in the middle of horrors.

“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,” Vanegas continued.

TRENDING: Tim Tebow Teams with Trump Administration To Fight Human Trafficking

He was talking about a gun control bill that passed in Venezuela about six years ago. The measure confiscated weapons from the hands of law-abiding citizens.

At the time, almost nobody in the country said anything. Now, as socialism has crumbled into anarchy, Venezuelans like Vanegas are realizing that allowing the government to take their arms was a tragic mistake.

“Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the ‘Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,’ with the explicit aim to ‘disarm all citizens,'” explained Fox News.

“The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all — except government entities,” the news outlet continued.

Would a Venezuelan version of the Second Amendment have changed the outcome there? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 94% (3502 Votes) 6% (214 Votes)

It’s the classic scenario that pro-gun voices in America have alluded to for decades. Gun control, no matter how well-meaning, never eliminates guns. What it does is strip the ability of good citizens to defend themselves while ensuring that only government forces and criminals are armed.

The result, as history has repeatedly shown, is usually deadly chaos.

“Since April 2017, almost 200 pro-democracy protesters in Venezuela — armed mostly with stones — were shot dead by government forces in brutal retaliation to their call to end the oppressive socialist regime,” Fox reported. “The once oil-wealthy nation has continued its downward spiral into financial ruin, extreme violence, and mass human rights violations.”

Violent crime is rampant. Venezuela now has among the highest homicide rates in the world, with at least 90 murders per 100,000 residents. In the gun-owning United States? The homicide rate here is just 4.9 per 100,000, with many of those crimes happening in large, liberal-run cities.

Would an armed citizenry have prevented Venezuela from slipping into the hellish conditions it now faces? It’s impossible to know for certain, but citizens like Vanegas believe that the outcome could have been very different.

RELATED: Kamala Harris Spotted Being Protected by Type of Gun She Wants Banned

“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,” the exiled teacher said.

A core part of the problem is that Venezuelans simply assumed that their government would protect and take care of them. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

“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,” Vanegas explained.

“The people of Venezuela should have rights for gun carrying because there is just too much crime and people should have the right to defend themselves because the justice system is not working,” echoed Maribel Arias, a Venezuelan law student who, like Vanegas, was forced to flee her country.

Geopolitical experts are now pointing to Venezuela as an example — and a warning — about trusting corrupt governments and giving up the means of self-defense.

“Venezuela shows the deadly peril when citizens are deprived of the means of resisting the depredations of a criminal government,” stated professor David Kopel of Denver University.

“The Venezuelan rulers – like their Cuban masters – apparently viewed citizen possession of arms as a potential danger to a permanent communist monopoly of power,” he said.

World events have shown that “it can’t happen here” is a naive and frequently wrong assumption. Nobody believes that his or her home country will descend into chaos until it happens, often with shocking speed.

The United States can stay secure and prosperous for years — if not centuries — to come, but it must keep a mindful eye on the lessons of history. The Second Amendment is vital in limiting both crime and tyranny — and the next time gun-grabbers scold citizens for owning arms, it would be wise to think of Venezuela.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.