NO! Victory of the civil society over the Totalitarian State

[TteFAboB]

Hi, monster topic, I know there is little interest in South America, but this is a turning point in global history, the beginning of the end, the end of Castro's and Chavez's Bolivarian abomination. Democracy wins.

The referendum to ban the legal Firearms and Ammunition production and legal sales has been rejected by the civil population in Brazil. Numbers:

50.781.623 (64,25%) people voted NO!

28.259.374 (35,75%) people voted Yes.

21,10% of the registered population did not vote.

The result by region:

Center-West: 73,35% NO, 26,65% Yes.

North: 86,51% NO, 13,49% Yes.

Northeast: 60,08% NO, 39,92% Yes.

South: 76,74% NO, 23,36% Yes.

Southeast: 61,53% NO, 38,47% Yes.

Out of the 27 states of the Federative Republic of Brazil, NO has won in ALL the states and every city! Rio Grande do Sul (86,74% NO) is the state with the highest number of legalized Firearms in the houses of the civil population, yet it is the state with the lowest crime rates of the country, what happened to the absolute relation between legal Firearms <-> Crime again? In Rio de Janeiro, a state with terrible narco-trafficant problems, a state that had already banned the legal Firearms and ammunition sales years ago (without a referendum), NO received 61,89% of the votes.

I would like to let our friends in North America and Europe know you have nothing to fear, the Bolivarian Soviet Union of South America has been crushed before it was even implemented! The very foundations of the communist plan depended upon the brainwashing of the public opinion and the "democratic"(read:vote) rise to power (example: Hugo Chavez), this Referendum was a test of their Gramsciam intellectual army, can they brainwash enough people to win? Can they create a problem that doesn't exist to offer a magical solution and get the backing of the people? As in the Referendum, the answer to both of these questions is NO!

They have failed MISERABLY, the last Bastion of communism has fallen! The only use of this Referendum for them, and the reason why they rushed it wasting ~150$ million USD, was the smoke curtain it throwed to cover and distract the people from the corruption scandals, however, now it's over, back to corruption, back to the "Sao Paulo Forum" investigations where Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Luis Inacio da Silva and other communists, anarcho-syndicalists and self-entitled socialists leaders met secretly and quietly to discuss and set a plan of action of how to implement the Bolivarian "Democratic" Republic. Back to the demystification of history, and unfortunately our history is full of romance, however, we are knocking every myth down, one by one. I'll make the words of a former revolutionary terrorist mine, Mr. Gabeira:

"The Berlin Wall has, only now, fallen in Brazil".

Now excuse me, there are other victories to come, they are loosing the war, slowly bleeding to death and I must go do my part and help with a few stabs. What have YOU done for Democracy in your country today?

[fatty]

I have never really understood why some people so fervently relate firearms to democracy. Could somebody perhaps explain it?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by fatty

I have never really understood why some people so fervently relate firearms to democracy. Could somebody perhaps explain it?

No, do some research

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by fatty

I have never really understood why some people so fervently relate firearms to democracy. Could somebody perhaps explain it?

It's the other way around, it's the lack of firearms that is related to totalitarism. Maybe the best quote would be from Ghandi himself, from the book "The Story of My Experiments With Truth" page 372:

"Between many wrong things the British done during their domination in India, history will point the act of forbidding an entire nation the access to arms as the worst."

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

It's the other way around, it's the lack of firearms that is related to totalitarism. Maybe the best quote would be from Ghandi himself, from the book "The Story of My Experiments With Truth" page 372:

"Between many wrong things the British done during their domination in India, history will point the act of forbidding an entire nation the access to arms as the worst."

I don't see a correlation between lack of arms and totalitarian regimes. Now, the banning of arms can be seen as symptomatic, but not necessarily. In Norway, we have limited rights to own firearms. Many own shotguns, hunting rifles and such, but very few own handguns and such. We do not automatically have the right to obtain firearms, but what we do have is a right to obtain a license. Certain people may not be eligible for a weapon's license, though. But even if illegal firearms can be come by relatively easily with the right contacts, people don't own firearms unless they hunt, collect, have fun on the range or planning a robbery or something. I don't know anyone in Norway who feels the need to own weapons of any kind for safety reasons. Why, the police aren't usually armed, either.

[Sulikate]

his is right, here in Brazil my family voted NO!

Originally Posted by fatty

I have never really understood why some people so fervently relate firearms to democracy. Could somebody perhaps explain it?

The real question that no one wants to address is this: who has the right to do anything? If you believe something should be banned, you have to grant someone the authority and power to enforce that ban. The problem then arises that if the authority itself abuses it's power, how do you now stop it? As Mao Zedong said, "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun". If you believe that government itself needs watching and governing, who will you appoint to do it? And how will they enforce it if only the government has guns?

As an ex-cop friend of mine once said (perverting a famous modern American saying): "If guns are outlawed, only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?".

[TteFAboB]

Thanks for being so civil guys , I know you could care-less about South America but we're growing smarter everyday, even though the government denies education to our population because they do not want smart people wandering around, thinking, creating, speaking, we are getting there, slowly.

Kissaki, you are from Norway, go commit suicide. Just kidding, just kidding! When was the last time you had an authoritharian gov't again? Hmm during Hitler's invasion? All you ever suffered was from Social-Democracy, down here we had Leninism, Fascism and now Communism, our Democracy is young and immature, your country and your people exist for centuries, you are one of the best countries in the world on anything, safety, longevity, competition, freedom of press, happiness, richness, equality and anything else you can think of, your rich government invests in education, health and security, your cities are clean and your people have a high standard of living, the only problems in the life of a Norwegian is bad weather and boredom, should I start comparing with Brazil? Just don't go to the other extreme, I don't have any weapons and I don't feel the need to own one at this moment, but I know many people do need and I know this must be a choice and not imposed from the state, by the way, the laws here are already so restricted nobody can own a 12 gauge shotgun, we're not asking for much, we just want our right to choose.

Sulikate I'm happy to know you and your family voted NO, we did our part to tell the government we don't want it to interfere even more in our lifes and we demand a national security project and serious investment in security! We sent them the message!

Sailor Steve you are absolutely correct, the people MUST have the right to choose if they want to buy a firearm or not, the rest is already heavily regulated and controlled, one of the main problems is the urban mentality, people forget Brazil is not only a country made of cities where people want to have a weapon at their homes, it is a frontier country that borders Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay, there are many cases of banditism in the borders and many farmers also have to deal with wild-life, alligators, pumas, wolfs, etc.. Denying them a firearm would be a death sentence. And that's why the NO won, NO for government intervention, NO for the monopoly of firearms restricted to the Police, Army, a few classes (Judges, Prosecutors, Private Security body-guards and a few others) and criminals!

It is always good to remember Hitler disarmed the Jews before starting the holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and others took similar measures, perhaps the government wants to disarm the farmers and the citizens so their armed police or armed organizations financed by them can start grabbing land? So the criminals are free to move against the society leading to chaos where they can present themselves as our saviours and offer a magical solution which is giving them totalitarian powers? NO to all of that, we don't want to go buy guns, what we want is our constitutional rights preserved, and we want serious investment in security, health, education, infrastructure, etc. etc..

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Kissaki, you are from Norway, go commit suicide. Just kidding, just kidding! When was the last time you had an authoritharian gov't again? Hmm during Hitler's invasion? All you ever suffered was from Social-Democracy, down here we had Leninism, Fascism and now Communism, our Democracy is young and immature, your country and your people exist for centuries, you are one of the best countries in the world on anything, safety, longevity, competition, freedom of press, happiness, richness, equality and anything else you can think of, your rich government invests in education, health and security, your cities are clean and your people have a high standard of living, the only problems in the life of a Norwegian is bad weather and boredom, should I start comparing with Brazil? Just don't go to the other extreme, I don't have any weapons and I don't feel the need to own one at this moment, but I know many people do need and I know this must be a choice and not imposed from the state, by the way, the laws here are already so restricted nobody can own a 12 gauge shotgun, we're not asking for much, we just want our right to choose.

Hey, you think you can handle our boredom? One week and I'll bet you'll be begging for violent crime! Besides, the prices here are ridiculous. Whenever I read about Americans complaining about their gas prices, I feel like smacking them silly with the newspaper. We still pay three times what they do here in Norway. You want to know what I'd have to pay for SH3 if I was to purchase it locally? 90-100 USD. Thank gods for play.com. Food is also expensive. And a pint can cost as much as £4-5, or $7, and it's not even a full pint. You want a driver's license? Another $2000.

Whew!

But anyway, I feel that complaining a lot is a good sign, that we're well off. My father lived through harder times, during the war and after, and he says that back then, you were grateful for what you had. But a spoiled child always wants more, and most of us Norwegians don't fully realize exactly how sweet our lives are.

I never criticized the results of your election, TteFAboB. Quite the contrary, I said that the banning of firearms is indeed one of the symptoms of a totalitarian regime, but I just added that there is a distinction between a firearms ban and a general lack of firearms. We're not that big on firearms in Norway, but that doesn't suggest we're a totalitarian regime, or anything. My point was that the lack of firearms isn't necessarily bad.

[jason10mm]

The lack of firearms isn't bad until you NEED them, or if you have others providing for your defense. Just ask your neighbors to the South (Finland, for those far from Northern Europe about their feelings for firearms ownership, particularly those around in the first half of the 20th century.

I think the main point of pro-second amendment/pro-firearms is that your government SHOULD TRUST the law abiding citizens (or subjects, as the case may be). Part of that trust is recognizing the basic human right to self-defense. Firearms are a fundamental component to self-defense. Not tanks, thermonuclear weapons, or anthrax spores, all of which are beyond any rational concept of self-defense (but commonly bandied about as the inevitable outcome of no "gun control" by the leftists).

If a government can not trust it's population, perhaps that means that the government no longer adequately represents its people. In Democracies, this means that a new government will soon be in power, but if the government becomes oppressive then it will ignore the will of the people. The ability to defend oneself can then easily become the ability to overthrow an oppressive government. But if you have no ability to defend oneself (no guns), then you have no ability to free yourself of an oppressive government. Trying to "get" guns after the fact is a long hard struggle, just as the Pols in Warsaw, circa 1944.

The only faction of a population who will abide by gun control laws are the LAW ABIDING! Criminals, by their very nature, BREAK laws! So gun control laws only restrict the most upstanding and honorable members of a society, while allowing the outlaw element free reign since they ignore laws by default.

So it is really pretty simple Free access to firearms in a society means that the government is held in check by the people and criminals have to fear for their lives. No guns means the government can do whatever it wants and armed criminals can break into homes without fear.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

I never criticized the results of your election, TteFAboB. Quite the contrary, I said that the banning of firearms is indeed one of the symptoms of a totalitarian regime, but I just added that there is a distinction between a firearms ban and a general lack of firearms. We're not that big on firearms in Norway, but that doesn't suggest we're a totalitarian regime, or anything. My point was that the lack of firearms isn't necessarily bad.

You are absolutely correct, there's much more to the equation than a simple formula: Lack of firearms -> Totalitarism. For example, in Japan since the 16th century firearms are restricted to civilians except for hunters and it is a pretty unarmed country, Switzerland is far more armed than Japan, both countries are rather far from totalitarian states. Many other factors must be considered to trace a real pattern.

[TteFAboB]

jason10mm I agree with all your words, what a fantastic post, I wouldn't be able to resume it in so few and nice words as you did.

We had to teach all of that to our population in less than two months, as you can see, we succeeded, the more intelligent and educated the population the more votes NO received, and I am not kidding.

In the South where we have some of the best states in the country in matter of education and etc. NO won with an advantage of 59.18% over the Yes, in the Northeast where education is far, far worse (and it's meant this way, no Man-of-the-People-Proto-Dictator wants a clever population thinking, speaking, voting), the advantage of the NO was of only 15,02%. Check for yourself here: http://www.justicaeleitoral.gov.br/

Another important factor that makes it hard comparing countries is continental size, how do you plan to stop contraband, smuggling and border banditism with frontiers of this size?



We have a lunatic in Venezuela who armed 2 million loyal followers, he could "secure" the Amazon with them from American Imperialism you know.
We have the FARC, the paramilitary-right and free-for-all drug lords in Colombia, there are MANY cases of the FARC crossing our borders into Amazon for many purposes, we have only 3 federal police outposts in the border with Colombia, two were shut down due to lack of funds.
Bolivia is an unstable democracy and at any time it could become an unfriendly and even hostile nation.
Paraguay, such a small border, is one of the main sources of drugs (though the drug routes fluctuate alot) and illegal firearms.

People, to this day, DIE eaten by alligators, pumas, wolfs and other wild-animals, perhaps it is a coincidence, but during the referendum vote, in a small little town, an alligator invaded the voting session getting everybody to run away in panic! Denying these people a firearm would be like sentencing them to death.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by jason10mm

The lack of firearms isn't bad until you NEED them, or if you have others providing for your defense. Just ask your neighbors to the South (Finland, for those far from Northern Europe about their feelings for firearms ownership, particularly those around in the first half of the 20th century.

East, you mean. To the south is Denmark.

I think the main point of pro-second amendment/pro-firearms is that your government SHOULD TRUST the law abiding citizens (or subjects, as the case may be). Part of that trust is recognizing the basic human right to self-defense. Firearms are a fundamental component to self-defense. Not tanks, thermonuclear weapons, or anthrax spores, all of which are beyond any rational concept of self-defense (but commonly bandied about as the inevitable outcome of no "gun control" by the leftists).

I agree, the government should be able to trust its law-abiding citizens. But the opposite is also true, the law-abiding citizens should be able to trust the government (fat chance, though). More importantly, however, the law-abiding citizens should be able to trust eachother. And there is an awful lot of trust here in Norway. Anyone acquiring a fire-arm for purposes of self-defense over here is typically viewed as paranoid and anti-social.

The only faction of a population who will abide by gun control laws are the LAW ABIDING! Criminals, by their very nature, BREAK laws! So gun control laws only restrict the most upstanding and honorable members of a society, while allowing the outlaw element free reign since they ignore laws by default.

Very little of Norwegian crime involved firearms of any kind. Gun control laws do more than restrict the law-abiding, because not every criminal has the contacts to obtain guns illegally. And especially in the case of drug-addicts (who are the most likely to use firearms, if they have them), they rarely have the strings to pull to obtain guns. So your point here is only valid in a country like the US where guns already flow like wine. In Norway, however, you can safely bet on a mugger or intruder not having a gun.

In fact, a considerable portion of break-ins (in rural areas, at least) happen pretty much the way it happened to the grandmother of a friend of mine:

She was awakened in the dead of night from the loud crash of a window shattering. Walking downstairs with broom in hand, she found a strange man sleeping on a couch in the livingroom. He stank of alcohol, and as this was a night between Saturday and Sunday, so he had probably come from a party somewhere. She fetched some blankets, tucked him in and went back to sleep.

So it is really pretty simple Free access to firearms in a society means that the government is held in check by the people and criminals have to fear for their lives. No guns means the government can do whatever it wants and armed criminals can break into homes without fear.

Well, like I said... no guns significally reduces the odds that a felon will be armed, too. Sure, it's fully possible to obtain guns illegaly, but why make it easy for them?

I used to be of the opinion that guns were bad, anywhere and everywhere - that gun restriction was a decidedly good thing. After having had talks with Americans from various states, however, I've come to the conclusion that our gun laws would do more harm than good over there - just as their gun laws would do more harm than good over here. Here, there simply is no need. Provide guns where there is no need, and what good will come of it? Conversly, take guns away from where they're needed, and what good will come of that?

In any case, I'm all for gun control, though. This is not to restrict gun ownership of law-abiding citizens, but to map gun ownership, and allowing the state to make an assessment on how many guns there are out there, both legally and illegaly. It's easier to make an estimate of illegal guns when there are clear records from manufacturers, merchants and owners. And then there are people - violent criminals, the mentally unstable - who should not be issued guns.

[jason10mm]

Heh heh, up where you are, EVERYTHING is south!

Anyway, you make some good points considering your particular environment and culture. I know almost squat about Norway (all blonde and blue-eyed, right?) but I suspect that you have a relatively homogenious ethnic population, almost universally shared culture, and a generous government dole provided by the state controlled export of natural resources. That type of scenario lends itself to a low crime rate since there is probably a pretty comfortable base standard of living, no major ethnic conflicts, and everyone just "gets along" since they have a pretty similar background.

Heck, I'd probably put up my guns and kick back with a few shots of iced vodka too if I was living in your slice of arctic paradise But here in the States we have a lot of bad elements. A 6'2" (about 2 meters to you euros :P 225 pound (100 kilos?) thug doesn't NEED a gun to intimidate, injure, or kill a grandmother, young woman, or disabled man. 2-3 of those guys can even take on a robust isolated man.

But a gun is the great equalizer. No woman should ever be at the mercy of a rapist, no grandmother should ever have a drugged up guy kick in her door, and no father should ever fear for the safety of his children when walking down the street. Common sense and proper preparedness can stop a lot of things, but sometimes it just boils down to who is going to cowboy up and make a stand, taking their own wellbeing into their own hands.

Us Americans (and Brazilians too, apparently) have decided that it is better to accept the risks of an armed criminal population and go armed ourselves than it is to disarm. I can't help but look at the rising crime stats of England and Australia since they enacted strong gun control laws and be glad that I have a pistol at my side.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by jason10mm

Anyway, you make some good points considering your particular environment and culture. I know almost squat about Norway (all blonde and blue-eyed, right?) but I suspect that you have a relatively homogenious ethnic population, almost universally shared culture, and a generous government dole provided by the state controlled export of natural resources. That type of scenario lends itself to a low crime rate since there is probably a pretty comfortable base standard of living, no major ethnic conflicts, and everyone just "gets along" since they have a pretty similar background.

Hey, not everyone is bright blonde! To paraphrase the waitress in Bob's Bunker (need I mention the movie?): We got both kinds: Bright blonde and dark blonde!
Oh, and red, too. I myself am very typical Norwegian: dark blonde, blue eyes and red beard.

You're right, though: we do have a pretty homogenous ethnicity, which I agree lends itself to a low crime rate. As much as I like diversity, and as un-PC as it may sound, you can rarely mix ethnicities without breaking a few eggs in the process. People are skeptical of what's different, and mistrust leads to animosity. Animosity, in turn, can turn into conflict. It would be nice if we could all live happily together. Individually, we can, but collectively we're a bunch of thick-headed racists. It's human nature, regrettably.

I'm all for a diverse society, and believe there are ways we can effectively work around the problems that follow. But I'm not going to say that it's unproblematic just for the sake of political correctness.