View Full Version : NO! The victory of the free Civil Society over the Totalitarian State.
Hi,
The referendum to ban the legal Firearms and Ammunition production and legal sale 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! 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 relation 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 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 them down, one by one. I'll make the words of a former socialist-terrorist mine, Mr. Gabeira:
"The Berlin Wall has only now fallen in Brazil".
Now excuse me, this is our second MAJOR victory over the totalitarian communist government, and it's time for me to join the organized civil society celebrations.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-24-2005, 01:00
Yay for Brazil!
Strike For The South
10-24-2005, 01:01
I read the whole thing wrong BRAZIL YOU KICK ASS 3 CHEERS. GREAT LOOKING WOMEN AND GUNS JUST PLAY YOURSELVES SOME FOOTBALL AND YOU MIGHT BE AS GOOD AS TEXAS (I DOUBT IT)
Productivity
10-24-2005, 01:07
So let me get your title right. If the referendum had won to ban guns, then it would be a totalitarian action?
Divinus Arma
10-24-2005, 02:06
My In-laws just visited Brazil. They refused to leave the hotel and they feared for their lives at all times.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-24-2005, 02:19
My In-laws just visited Brazil. They refused to leave the hotel and they feared for their lives at all times.
You sure that wasn't Columbia?
Soulforged
10-24-2005, 02:22
Out of the 27 states of the Federative Republic of Brazil, NO has won in ALL the states! 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 relation 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.Como foi tudo na Santa Catarina, especialmente no Florianopolis?
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!O que esta falando voce cara? Communism? Why is that every time that the people doesn't understand something that the state does, or it's related to dictatorship, this people relate it to communism. And why is it that you called it Bolivarian?~:confused: Foi so um referendo amigo, no um projecto pra lavar seu cerebro. Another ******* conspiration teory? ~:rolleyes:
They have failed MISERABLY, 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 them down, one by one. I'll make the words of a former socialist-terrorist mine, Mr. Gabeira:LOL- This was a rant!! anarcho-syndicalists. My aunt worked on the campaing of Silva. You've to understand that we're not in a real democracy, Luis Ignacio must adjust his policies to favour the great elites. You call him a communist, then you don't know what it's my friend...He's socialist, period. And if you confuse socialism with communism, then you must read more. So you prefer capitalism...sure you don't live in a "fabela" ~:rolleyes: . What was the point on saying this bunch of nothing to the world? I congratulate you..hey you've guns, now you can go against your totalitarist government :no:. I think that you're being romantic and ignorant, if you love guns then make a thread saying: "I love guns my friend" but this is exageration.
"The Berlin Wall has only now fallen in Brazil".Yeh!! Sure.~:rolleyes:
Now excuse me, this is our second MAJOR victory over the totalitarian communist government, and it's time for me to join the organized civil society celebrations.Hey man fire an M16 to the air to celebrate, maybe you achieve to kill some communist out there...jesus. WOW- I must talk to my relatives up there, maybe they're suffering the big problems of communism.
Adrian II
10-24-2005, 02:31
You sure that wasn't Columbia?Has Columbia gone Communist too? :bucktooth:
I know it's confusing, the whole point of it was to be confusing, to make people waste time discussing it instead of corruption.
@dgb: You got it right, thank Antonio Gramsci for the mess, he invented the "peacefull revolution", where the power is not taken by assault like in a civil war, instead it is conquered slowly, you change the mentality and the "common sense" of the population untill they naturally accept your intentions gradually leading to the progressive loss of true Democracy. The referendum, a noble tool of Democracy, as the Swiss can tell, is mis-used to pretend, legitimate and finally put the responsability of the decision in the hands of the people.
Of course, what would you expect from a government that has invested more in this referendum than the entire federal security budget?
Reverend Joe
10-24-2005, 02:40
@dgb: You got it right, thank Antonio Gramsci for the mess, he invented the "peacefull revolution", where the power is not taken by assault like in a civil war, instead it is conquered slowly, you change the mentality and the "common sense" of the population untill they naturally accept your intentions gradually leading to the progressive loss of true Democracy. The referendum, a noble tool of Democracy, as the Swiss can tell, is mis-used to pretend, legitimate and finally put the responsability of the decision in the hands of the people.
And that, my friend, is what the Reagenites are doing through Bush and the Right.
(Yeah. I had to do it. :jester:)
bmolsson
10-24-2005, 02:59
To much Hollywood on TV in Brazil........
Como foi tudo na Santa Catarina, especialmente no Florianopolis?
Here's the data from the TSE: http://www.justicaeleitoral.gov.br/
You are free to analize the numbers as you wish, many patterns can be traced, for instance, there are more than enough reasons to believe many people who voted NO voted as a protest against the government, a government that hasn't implemented any security plan.
O que esta falando voce cara? Communism? Why is that every time that the people doesn't understand something that the state does, or it's related to dictatorship, this people relate it to communism. And why is it that you called it Bolivarian?~:confused: Foi so um referendo amigo, no um projecto pra lavar seu cerebro. Another ******* conspiration teory? ~:rolleyes:
LOL- This was a rant!! anarcho-syndicalists. My aunt worked on the campaing of Silva. You've to understand that we're not in a real democracy, Luis Ignacio must adjust his policies to favour the great elites. You call him a communist, then you don't know what it's my friend...He's socialist, period. And if you confuse socialism with communism, then you must read more. So you prefer capitalism...sure you don't live in a "fabela" ~:rolleyes: . What was the point on saying this bunch of nothing to the world? I congratulate you..hey you've guns, now you can go against your totalitarist government :no:. I think that you're being romantic and ignorant, if you love guns then make a thread saying: "I love guns my friend" but this is exageration.
I understand everything the state does, in this case, the state wants to prohibit the sale of Firearms to the civil population, private security companies would still be able to buy weapons and offer armed bodyguards for anyone who can afford it, the police already imports most of its arsenal and it would have to import even more, the rich would get armed body guards and the police would enrich foreign weapon industries.
I didn't invented the Bolivarian name, Hugo Chavez did, he usually manages to speak this word at least once in his speeches or interviews, it's a nationalistic term, refering to Simon Bolivar, the man who united South America against Brazil.
And I am not your friend if you are from Argentina. ~:joker: Just kidding. ~D
You think it's only a referendum because it was not your money that was wasted on it, money that could build prisons, build hospitals, build schools, buy kevlar vests for the police, buy better cars for the police, computers, etc.
Don't worry, it's not a conspiracy theory, you can search around the internet for the documents from the "Foro de Sao Paulo" in spanish, I only have them in Portuguese.
Could you tell me more about your Aunt? The presidential campaign is being investigated because it's flooded with corruption, the Financial Secretary was expelled from the party and if the investigations succeed the party may have to be shut down because during the 2002 campaign they received international "donations" which violates the constitution, no party can receive foreign money to an election campaign, nobody knows the origin of the money, but since it came from the outside it doesn't even matter, it's a crime and it can shut a party down.
The Anarcho-syndicalist is an attempt to label their model of government, but in each sector they act in a different way, for instance, they have the most conservative economical policy, but that's because they wanted to assure everybody they are not radicals and would only put their hands on the economy in 2006 when they won the re-election.
You can call him anything you want, If you want to call the president a socialist then call him a socialist, I heard since Argentina went bankrupt the poverty levels in the country rose to levels never seen before, don't worry, hopefully some "fabelas" will grow around Buenos Aires too and you won't have to worry about ours.
I don't love guns, I don't own guns, the president himself owns 2 revolvers, you just can't leave all guns in the hands of bandits, criminals, terrorist organizations such as the MST which is financed by the government and in the hands of the government itself (police and army), that's what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others did.
Yeh!! Sure.~:rolleyes:
Hey man fire an M16 to the air to celebrate, maybe you achieve to kill some communist out there...jesus. WOW- I must talk to my relatives up there, maybe they're suffering the big problems of communism.
Unfortunately we can't own an M16 or any other automatic weapon, you can only buy pistols and revolvers from caliber .22 to .38, 9mm is restricted to police and army and rifles must be single-fire action. To buy a legal gun you must be at least 25 years old and have no criminal records, even a sue for sexual harassment is enough to deny, so you must be a perfect law-abiding citizen, firing an M-16 or any other weapon in the air is a crime and if it wasn't in self-defense you go to jail without bail, which is actually unconstitutional. You also must go through psychological tests and pass a firing range exam with a high score to prove you know how to shoot a weapon. Also, you can only buy and register one weapon in the first year, you can also only buy 50 Bullets and register them, so shooting in the air would be a waste of valuable bullets, you can ask permission for more bullets if you prove you practiced at a firing range. And of course, when you transport your weapon to the firing range it must be in a secured case and you need an authorization from the army for each trip.
It's not much but it's enough to keep our frontiers safe from Argentinian bandits and keep our cattle safe.
Kanamori
10-24-2005, 03:37
And I am not your friend if you are from Argentina. Just kidding.
Damn Argentines! ~;p
Now, now, you have a friend in me, my latin equivilant of an American~:)
Crazed Rabbit
10-24-2005, 04:44
Congratulations! It's too bad that even without this passing, you still have restrictive laws.
Are you allowed to own revolvers in calibers greater than .38?
*does double take at AdrianII*
Whoa...how long have you had an avatar? It can't be more than a couple days, can it?
Crazed Rabbit
Soulforged
10-24-2005, 05:46
Here's the data from the TSE: http://www.justicaeleitoral.gov.br/
You are free to analize the numbers as you wish, many patterns can be traced, for instance, there are more than enough reasons to believe many people who voted NO voted as a protest against the government, a government that hasn't implemented any security plan.Obrigado. La e donde meus otros familiares moran.
I understand everything the state does, in this case, the state wants to prohibit the sale of Firearms to the civil population, private security companies would still be able to buy weapons and offer armed bodyguards for anyone who can afford it, the police already imports most of its arsenal and it would have to import even more, the rich would get armed body guards and the police would enrich foreign weapon industries.Yes. But it has nothing to do with communism.
I didn't invented the Bolivarian name, Hugo Chavez did, he usually manages to speak this word at least once in his speeches or interviews, it's a nationalistic term, refering to Simon Bolivar, the man who united South America against Brazil.Ahhhh....Agora me lembro.
And I am not your friend if you are from Argentina. ~:joker: Just kidding. ~D Eu tenho nacionalidade dobre (mea mae e santa catarinenze)
You think it's only a referendum because it was not your money that was wasted on it, money that could build prisons, build hospitals, build schools, buy kevlar vests for the police, buy better cars for the police, computers, etc.Formally it's just a referendum. In every act the government does it spends your money. Now if it has another purpose that's another thing.
Don't worry, it's not a conspiracy theory, you can search around the internet for the documents from the "Foro de Sao Paulo" in spanish, I only have them in Portuguese.I was talking about the instauration of totalitarian regime on Brasil.
Could you tell me more about your Aunt? The presidential campaign is being investigated because it's flooded with corruption, the Financial Secretary was expelled from the party and if the investigations succeed the party may have to be shut down because during the 2002 campaign they received international "donations" which violates the constitution, no party can receive foreign money to an election campaign, nobody knows the origin of the money, but since it came from the outside it doesn't even matter, it's a crime and it can shut a party down.Meu tio foi Ademir Rosa. Ele viviu en Florianopolis ate 1994, cuando morreu de cancer. But don't worry he never was involved with any corruption movement. He was more involved with the help provided to the "Sem terra", that the party of Lula so much helped.
The Anarcho-syndicalist is an attempt to label their model of government, but in each sector they act in a different way, for instance, they have the most conservative economical policy, but that's because they wanted to assure everybody they are not radicals and would only put their hands on the economy in 2006 when they won the re-election.Bem, isa e a mesma mentira que meus governates falan uma e otra veiz. Os gringos aqui saben muito bem porque e que iso esta pasando. No e so culpa dos nosos governantes. In any case I don't see the sindicalism there, and I certainly don't see anarchy.
You can call him anything you want, If you want to call the president a socialist then call him a socialist, I heard since Argentina went bankrupt the poverty levels in the country rose to levels never seen before, don't worry, hopefully some "fabelas" will grow around Buenos Aires too and you won't have to worry about ours.I'm not worryng about any fabelas, we have villas here, you know...I'm worryng about the views of so many people on the static caracter of capitalism, and how it's an acceptable evil, like the same state.
I don't love guns, I don't own guns, the president himself owns 2 revolvers, you just can't leave all guns in the hands of bandits, criminals, terrorist organizations such as the MST which is financed by the government and in the hands of the government itself (police and army), that's what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others did.The state already has the "imperium" in all those areas. The thing with all the totalitarian states is that they do this more openly, and without so much formalism. The basic premise of communism is that the proletariat own the power of all the society, a strong force to destroy other strong force.
Unfortunately we can't own an M16 or any other automatic weapon, you can only buy pistols and revolvers from caliber .22 to .38, 9mm is restricted to police and army and rifles must be single-fire action. To buy a legal gun you must be at least 25 years old and have no criminal records, even a sue for sexual harassment is enough to deny, so you must be a perfect law-abiding citizen, firing an M-16 or any other weapon in the air is a crime and if it wasn't in self-defense you go to jail without bail, which is actually unconstitutional. You also must go through psychological tests and pass a firing range exam with a high score to prove you know how to shoot a weapon. Also, you can only buy and register one weapon in the first year, you can also only buy 50 Bullets and register them, so shooting in the air would be a waste of valuable bullets, you can ask permission for more bullets if you prove you practiced at a firing range. And of course, when you transport your weapon to the firing range it must be in a secured case and you need an authorization from the army for each trip.Iso foi so uma piada cara... We've basically the same rules here.
It's not much but it's enough to keep our frontiers safe from Argentinian bandits and keep our cattle safe.There we go nationalism again...Well if your government turns totalitarian, you can come here anytime you want...~D ~:cheers: ~:grouphug:
yesdachi
10-24-2005, 06:03
As restricted as the gun laws seem to be it is still nice to have option or more appropriately, the “freedom” to own them. Congrats. ~:cheers:
PanzerJaeger
10-24-2005, 06:53
Great Job guys! Muy bueno! ~:cheers:
QwertyMIDX
10-24-2005, 07:06
As an Anarchist I take offense to you calling Lula or his government Anarcho-syndicalist. I'm sure you know that the whole idea of a statist government flies in the face of anarchist principles and were just making leftie boogeyman claims for effect. It would probably be very helpful to any attempts at serious debate or conversation here if you wouldn't do things like that. In return I will refrain from calling everyone from Chavez rightwards a Facist ~;).
Productivity
10-24-2005, 10:00
@dgb: You got it right, thank Antonio Gramsci for the mess, he invented the "peacefull revolution", where the power is not taken by assault like in a civil war, instead it is conquered slowly, you change the mentality and the "common sense" of the population untill they naturally accept your intentions gradually leading to the progressive loss of true Democracy. The referendum, a noble tool of Democracy, as the Swiss can tell, is mis-used to pretend, legitimate and finally put the responsability of the decision in the hands of the people.
So a referendum is a totalitarian act - that is an impressive feat of doublethink on your part.
Woohoo, go guns for all. Clearly that is the route to freedom!
Just look at Afghanistan.
English assassin
10-24-2005, 11:47
JUST PLAY YOURSELVES SOME FOOTBALL AND YOU MIGHT BE AS GOOD AS TEXAS (I DOUBT IT)
I'd just like to draw attention to the unintentional irony of this comment to anyone who knows that real football is played with a round ball. Brasil? play football? I think I heard about that...
As I read it, Brasil already has pretty tight gun control laws, so despite my general prejudice against those who think Jesus said "though shalt own an assault rifle" this did seems a rather curious referendum.
Crazed Rabbit
10-24-2005, 18:48
As I read it, Brasil already has pretty tight gun control laws, so despite my general prejudice against those who think Jesus said "though shalt own an assault rifle" this did seems a rather curious referendum.
Actually, he just told people to sell their garments and buy swords if they did not have them.
Woohoo, go guns for all. Clearly that is the route to freedom!
You think the Taliban wanted people to have guns? Being armed is good preparation against tyranny.
Crazed Rabbit
Actually, he just told people to sell their garments and buy swords if they did not have them.
Enough with the Jesus. It's not pertinent.
Well, I'm not very concerned with Brasil's politics, but I seem to misunderstand the scope of this referendum. Okay, you get to keep guns, even though the chances of a person owning one are ridiculously low. I must have missed something.
Being armed is good preparation against tyranny.
Yeah... :rolleyes2:
@Crazed Rabbit: Exactly, .38 is the limit but you can only buy a .38 after the first year after you registered, everybody is stuck with a .22 for the first year, it's not a .45 but if you know how to shoot it it's better than a pellet gun, a pepper spray, a sling shot or a knife.
@YesDachi: You got it right, that's exactly the point, Switzerland, Canada, the USA, Great Britain and between others if I remember even Argentina has more Firearms in the hands of civilians than Brazil, we're already unarmed and the article #4 and beyond in the gun control law guarantees the right to buy a weapon and ammunition (the constitution also guarantees the right of legitimate self-defense for the citizen, his property and his family), if you prohibit the production then the entire law is useless because it doesn't matter who's permitted to buy a weapon if you can't simply buy it anywhere, you see how strange this is? Don't you smell something wrong? I do, and 59.108.898 Brazilians also did, we're a frontier country with borders with Venezuela (2 million civilian armed "defense force"), Colombia (the kingdom of drug lords), Peru, Bolivia (unstable democracry, a border city blockaded a road to prevent Brazilians from crossing the border), Paraguay (the main source of contraband, including illegal firearms, no border control), Uruguay and Argentina. So remember we're not only talking about someone in the city who wants to own a gun, we're talking about alot of people who MUST own a gun, not only against border bandits, but also to protect themselves from wildlife, such as alligators, pumas and wolfs.
@QwertyMIDX: I completely understand, but don't worry, you are not the only one offended, Luis Inacio da Silva dissapointed alot of people, socialists (Popular Socialist Party, Democratic Labour Party and other minors) left to the opposition along with true Anarchists, Greens and even a few communists, every "true" socialist in this country already moved to criticize the government because it is more than obvious they are nothing but a speech, a bluff. My intention was not to offend you, this government tried and continues to try hard to earn the Anarcho-Syndicalist label, the problem is they fail, they are not coherent hence I agree they do not deserve this title, they are not good Anarchists nor good Syndicalists and you can rest assured you are not alone in your protest, if you can come up with a better label, such as: Proto-Anarcho-demi-Syndicaloyd we will use that instead. Personally I have nothing against Anarchists: Hay gobierno, soy Contra. No hay gobierno, también soy Contra. ~D
@dgb: I don't know if the problem lies in semantics, I don't know if you misunderstood something I said or is just willingly interpreting me wrongly. In any case, a referendum per se is not a totalitarian act, it is a valid tool of direct democracy, like the European constitution referendum in France, thank god the French had a chance to vote on that! Better definitions could be found in dictionaries. THIS referendum, if succesfull, would be a totalitarian act, you know, it would do the same Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Mao and etc. did, if you remember, Hitler exclusively disarmed the Jews right before starting the holocaust. THIS referendum did not have enough time to be discussed, some people still did not understood what was being voted, and the government directly financed the campaign for the Yes, a direct interference on a subject that should be left for the society to decide upon. The involvement of the government was far too massive on the Yes campaign to be ignored and the population noticed it and sent a clear message.
@English Assassin: I am delighted with the amount of people on this thread that noticed something strange about the referendum, you are all correct in your suspicions. Are you from England? If so I would ask you to take better care of your governamental spending, now we know you sold arms to Pinochet, but apparently you also wanted to sell weapons to us too, as you have contributed to the campaign of the Yes, I understand you'd like to see our national industry dissapear so we could buy your Enfield rifles for the Army, but please, go sell weapons to China instead and leave us alone alright? Oh, and your creation, Australia, also contributed, dammit you should pull the leash on your former puppets!
@NeonGod: See how confusing it is? Imagine an entire population discussing this mess instead of corruption, this referendum is only a smoke curtain to blind people from talking about corruption.
Soulforged, the desire to install a totalitarian regime in Brasil is not false, the plan FAILED, that's why it must look false to you, but the intention was real, these people are all fake, they convinced the population, as they convinced you, they were serious politicians but all they wanted was to reach power and stay in power and as President Luis Inacio said in one of the meetings of the "Foro de Sao Paulo": "We will do in South America what was lost in Eastern Europe", he's talking about the communist dictatorships Stalin made there after the end of World War 2, these dictatorships you agree were communist I believe.
May your uncle rest in peace because if he was alive to see what the party has done today he would probably die from heart-attack or suicide from sadness. We can only trace back corruption to 1998 in the city of Santo Andre, it is possible other campaigns back in 1994 had corruption too but it was probably in a much smaller scale than the 2002 or 1998, so if your uncle was not close to the party leaders he probably never heard anything about it.
I was just kidding about the Argentinian bandits too, the trouble is actually with Paraguay, Bolivia and Colombia, but there's probably an Argentinian bastard who crossed the border to rob a Brazilian farmer just as there's probably Brazilian criminals who cross into Argentina aswell.
Meneldil
10-24-2005, 20:15
I was told the Yes would won easily.
Well, another step back in the History of Humanity.
Goofball
10-24-2005, 21:14
Now excuse me, this is our second MAJOR victory over the totalitarian communist government, and it's time for me to join the organized civil society celebrations.
Erm...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "totalitarian regimes" usually let their people decide anything democratically, as has just taken place.
So, I'm wondering exactly what the point of your post is?
Congrats Brazil. Banning guns wont stop crime/violence.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "totalitarian regimes" usually let their people decide anything democratically, as has just taken place.A defining characteristic of totalitarianism is subordination of individual rights/priveledges to the state. So, voting to give up the right to own arms could be considered a step in a totalitarian direction. Hope that clears it up for you.~;)
Goofball
10-25-2005, 00:15
A defining characteristic of totalitarianism is subordination of individual rights/priveledges to the state. So, voting to give up the right to own arms could be considered a step in a totalitarian direction. Hope that clears it up for you.~;)
Nice doubletalk. The fact remains that the people were allowed to vote and the government is respecting the result of that vote, which is not a characteristic of totalitarianism.
I could just as easily argue that not restricting gun ownership is a step toward totalitarianism, because it takes away the right of the non-gun owning population to live in a gun-free society.
But the reason I would be wrong to argue that is the same reason why you are wrong to argue the other way: this issue was decided by the people, not the government.
No, you'd be wrong by trying to say that restricting a previous right is somehow a freedom. Now that's doubletalk.
Hitler was elected by the Germans.... I guess that wasnt a step towards totalitarianism either? If the people voted that minorities couldn't own property, it wouldnt be a step towards totalitarianism? People can vote away their rights and they can incrementally vote in totalitarianism.
Goofball
10-25-2005, 00:59
No, you'd be wrong by trying to say that restricting a previous right is somehow a freedom. Now that's doubletalk.
Ahhh. So.
Abolishing the right to own slaves was also a step toward totalitarianism then?
And since when is owning a gun a universal right? My natural (or God given, if you prefer) right to not live among people who own devices that can shoot me full of holes far outwieghs your natural right to own devices whose main purposes are 1) to kill people, and 2) to make their owners feel tough.
Hitler was elected by the Germans.... I guess that wasnt a step towards totalitarianism either?
No, it wasn't.
The fact that he used strong-arm methods to seize additional powers not specifically granted to him by the electorate was what led to totalitarianism.
If the people voted that minorities couldn't own property, it wouldnt be a step towards totalitarianism? People can vote away their rights and they can incrementally vote in totalitarianism.
An extreme example, but still not totalitarianism, because the power still rests with the people. The people in your example could (if they wanted to) vote to repeal their racist legislation.
You are mixing up totalitarianism with another concept: the tyranny of the majority.
It's funny. When we discuss stories of voters deciding by majority to limit other rights/privileges (i.e. abortion, gay marriage), conservatives are quick to defend the decisions because they are the "democratic decisions of the majority." But whenever there is even a possibility that people might vote to limit gun ownership in any form, we hear all the rhetoric about "totalitarianism."
Make up your minds.
Kralizec
10-25-2005, 01:12
Xiahou: gun laws are far more restrictive in most European countries, and if anything else, we are certainly democratic countries. Owning a gun is certainly a freedom, but then again, many other things are. Not all freedoms are necessary for a nation to be a proper democratic law state. The freedom of murder that people enjoy in a state of total anarchy, for example, would only cause chaos.
I don't think gun ownership is wrong per se though, I think it's more of a cultural thing. I think most people in Europe are happy that guns are mostly restricted to the police force and military, but I can see why some would disagree. I applaud Brazil for having a referendum about this.
Louis VI the Fat
10-25-2005, 01:13
I'll make the words of a former socialist-terrorist mine, Mr. Gabeira:
"The Berlin Wall has only now fallen in Brazil".
Now excuse me, this is our second MAJOR victory over the totalitarian communist government, and it's time for me to join the organized civil society celebrations.Excuse me, but isn't this this the fourth major victory over alleged socialist-terrorist plots? What about the brilliant victories the Brazilian right achieved in 1930–1934, 1937–1945 and 1964–1985?
~:mecry:
You are mixing up totalitarianism with another concept: the tyranny of the majority.No, Im sorry, but you're apparently mixed up. Accumulation of rights by the state over the people is totalitarianism- no matter how it happens. Tyranny can similarly be implemented democratically.
Regardless, this discussion pretty much nullifies your original point. Whether or not you see it, that is what was meant by a victory over totalitarianism.
It's funny. When we discuss stories of voters deciding by majority to limit other rights/privileges (i.e. abortion, gay marriage), conservatives are quick to defend the decisions because they are the "democratic decisions of the majority." But whenever there is even a possibility that people might vote to limit gun ownership in any form, we hear all the rhetoric about "totalitarianism.":rolleyes:
Not all freedoms are necessary for a nation to be a proper democratic law state.That's pretty much my point. People can vote away their freedoms. And, doing so is a characteristic of totalitarianism. That doesnt, necessarily, mean there's what's traditionally viewed as a totalitarian state is in effect as soon as freedoms are voted away- but you certainly could argue its a step in that direction.
Let's not get caught up in a dictionary battle- the poster's point was and is clear.
If the democractically determined will of the people is carried out by a government then that government can hardly be a tyranny. It can, however, be argued that people will unknowingly vote themselves into tyranny: Julius Caesar is a case in point here. Such is the danger of democracy. In fact it is why the elections in Iraq are so dangerous. If an Islamic tyranny is born of those elections then there is little we can do for democracy will have spoken and the US and its remaining allies will have lost their causus belli (sp?).
@Xiahou: You are correct, in 2004 and in the first semester of 2005 approximately 3000 firearms were sold to civilians including Judges and Prosecutors who are special classes allowed to walk in the streets with their weapon, you would be basically banning the sale of 3000 firearms a year, not very dramatic don't you think?
@Goofball: Your speech is very similar in many aspects to those of the Yes campaign, by now I already know they imported their speech, the fundamental problem with this, and the fundamental reason why they lost, is that you cannot import a speech from a different reality! When Brazilian crime rates are equal to those of America or Great Britain, when our society has access to the same public services the common Swede enjoys in Sweden, then we'll import their politically correct speech, however, if the realities are different, the speech becomes unrealistic, which was the case with their speech, when faced with reality they had no answer and instead of debating and admiting they were wrong they turned crazy and started appealing to populism and emotional/passionate speeches, of course, such desperate strategy wouldn't lead them to victory. The most important point is knowing to differentiate these realities, one of their main mistakes was to defend a widespread "Urban violence" mentality policy to the entire country, thus creating a problem that doesn't exist, the problem of violence in Brazil is limited to small regions, 7 states to be precise and in confined Urban areas, one interesting data: 45% of all robberies in the city of Sao Paulo occur in 2% of the streets, similar patterns can be traced elsewhere, so there is no point setting a nation-wide policy to a focused problem.
The point of my post was to share the victory of Democracy and Freedom over totalitarism, I did not made myself clear enough yet that this referendum was a FRAUD, it was not meant to let the people decide anything democratically, it was meant as a smoke screen and to give more time to corrupt politicians to appeal to the supreme court while the population is busy discussing the referendum so nobody notices, and this is not all but I do not want to bore you, don't nit-pick on this point like dgb did because he was bored and had nothing better to do, THIS referendum, if victorious, would be a totalitarian act, I do not mean every referendum is a totalitarian act, I'm not talking about the European Constitution one, I'm not talking about the Dissolution of the Swiss Army one and I'm not talking about the Gay Marriage one, I'm speaking about this specificate case, this is the FIRST referendum EVER done in Brazil so there is not even background for me to be partial and decide which referendum is totalitarian and which is not. Understand that there are many more facts involved that prevent this referendum from being simply a way to democratically decide something, and those factors cannot be ignored, THIS specific referendum was a political move and that's where the totalitarism comes from, from the involvement of politics, not the referendum itself.
@Germaanse Strijder: I applaud you for your maturity to recognize different countries have different realities, you don't forget how far Europe has come and how far from Europe Brazil is, in 2002 the elected government promised what they called the "national security plan", it was a bluff, as everything else, the states did not received increased federal funds for security even though this government has beaten the tax income historical record and we are basically left out to our own luck, doing what we can to fight something you don't have on this scale in Europe, organized crime, and you have a fine financed police. Would you trust to leave all your weapons to the police if I told you that in Brazil one of the main sources of illegal weapons comes from the police? That's correct, 10.000 police officers in the state of Sao Paulo (10% of the force) are prosecuted each year for different criminal offenses such as corrupting the bureaucracy to sell aprehended, or their own firearms to criminals, there are weapons that were aprehended more than 6 times! So, do you trust your police? We can't trust ours yet. If you think that's bad, what if I tell you criminals have access to hand-grenades? That's correct, a few days ago one robber injuried himself after attempting to throw a grenade at the police, how did he get it? From the Army, they also have anti-tank rocket launchers and magnetic land-mines, all "acquired" from the Army one way or another (supply truck theft, supply base theft, corrupt soldiers/officers, etc..).
@Louis IV the Fat: I wasn't alive when the events you mentioned took place, I meant it as our victory against this government elected in 2002, but you are correct, we always thought we were favoured by history because we never had to go through a communist dictatorship in Brazil, however, that was actually a double-edged sword as today we had to go through this "socialist" (if I use any other term I will offend someone) gov't to learn they are not the messiah they led us to believe they were and they do not hold the magical answer nobody had thought of before to magically solve all our problems.
@Slyspy: You are also correct, that was their plan, I apologize to you and to others who thought I meant referendums are a totalitarian tool, that's not what I meant, my point is a referendum can be used to achieve a totalitarian state, an educated, mature, healthy society with access to multiple sources of information would hardly be fooled, and that's why I believe people from Europe or America would not believe a referendum could be used in such a way.
I'd like to thank all of you, including those who only came here to make jokes, for stopping by and sharing your voice, I did not expected this much attention to a South American subject as the continent is usually ignored (which is not necessarily always a bad thing).
Goofball
10-25-2005, 16:49
You are mixing up totalitarianism with another concept: the tyranny of the majority.No, Im sorry, but you're apparently mixed up. Accumulation of rights by the state over the people is totalitarianism- no matter how it happens. Tyranny can similarly be implemented democratically.
Regardless, this discussion pretty much nullifies your original point. Whether or not you see it, that is what was meant by a victory over totalitarianism.
No it doesn't, you just don't understand it yet.
When the people vote to take away a freedom but still retain the power to give themselves that freedom back if they so choose in the future, that is not totalitarianism.
OTOH, if the people were to vote (to use this example) to implement a law banning firearms, and also write into that law that the president will be the final authority with respect to all future decisions concerning firearms in the future regardless of what the people want, that would be a step toward totalitarianism.
It's funny. When we discuss stories of voters deciding by majority to limit other rights/privileges (i.e. abortion, gay marriage), conservatives are quick to defend the decisions because they are the "democratic decisions of the majority." But whenever there is even a possibility that people might vote to limit gun ownership in any form, we hear all the rhetoric about "totalitarianism.":rolleyes:
Why join a discussion if you're not willing to examine the points that are raised and maybe even reexamine your own viewpoints?
You are arguing that people voting to restrict gun ownership, which you apparently view as a fundamental right, would be a step toward totalitarianism.
Yet in an almost identical example, people voting to restrict someting as fundamental as an individual's freedom to marry the person they choose, you dodge the point with an emoticon.
Apparently, it's only "totalitarianism" when people vote to give up freedoms that you support. If they are voting to restrict freedoms that you don't support, that's just "democracy in action."
No it doesn't, you just don't understand it yet.
When the people vote to take away a freedom but still retain the power to give themselves that freedom back if they so choose in the future, that is not totalitarianism.
OTOH, if the people were to vote (to use this example) to implement a law banning firearms, and also write into that law that the president will be the final authority with respect to all future decisions concerning firearms in the future regardless of what the people want, that would be a step toward totalitarianism.Legislators, not voters, determine what gets put on a referendum. Once something is voted off, it need not be brought back up for repeal. Regardless- ceding rights to the government is a characteristic of totalitarianism. How many times do I have to repeat this?
Why join a discussion if you're not willing to examine the points that are raised and maybe even reexamine your own viewpoints?Because, all of these red herrings have been discussed ad naseum before, yet you still drag them out as though this hasnt been covered before in discussions you've took part in. It's just a weak attempt to prop up your argument by declaring your opposition is somehow hypocritical.
1. State-sanctioned marriage is not a right.
2. No one is voting to strip away previous held rights- state sanctioned gay marriage has never been allowed. You can't claim it is a step towards totalitarianism when something that's never been allowed still isnt allowed- there's no change.
Again... ~:rolleyes:
Goofball
10-25-2005, 17:12
1. State-sanctioned marriage is not a right.
No, but the freedom to marry the person you love was pretty much universally accepted as a right, until gays decided they wanted it.
And by the way, since when is gun ownership a universal right?
2. No one is voting to strip away previous held rights- state sanctioned gay marriage has never been allowed. You can't claim it is a step towards totalitarianism when something that's never been allowed still isnt allowed- there's no change.
Really? Then why did voters in several states vote in constitutional amendments specifically banning gay marriage?
If gay marriage was already not permitted, why would they have had to do that?
Again... ~:rolleyes:
Plainly, we have now taken the discussion to the limit of your ability to form coherent responses.
Have a nice day.
No, but the freedom to marry the person you love was pretty much universally accepted as a right, until gays decided they wanted it. It still is. You're still confusing marriage with state-sanctioned marriage
And by the way, since when is gun ownership a universal right?That's an irrelevant question. It was allowed in Brazil and it was proposed that the government take it away- totalitarianism.
Really? Then why did voters in several states vote in constitutional amendments specifically banning gay marriage?
If gay marriage was already not permitted, why would they have had to do that?Obviously, to keep to courts from imposing it over the will of the people. Also irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Plainly, we have now taken the discussion to the limit of your ability to form coherent responses.
Have a nice day.And you've gone beyond the ability to have a civil debate without dragging out either gay marriage or abortion and derailing a thread- congratulations.
You guys can have your fun and discuss anything you want but indeed in Brazil the right to bear a firearm is guaranteed by the constitution for self-defense in your home or property (house, farm, business).
The phobition of firearms and ammunition production and sale is beyond the control of the govn't, Brazil is not the only country in the world that produces firearms and it would need it's neighbors to cooperate and shut down their factories too, for example, Paraguay has no gun control and they don't even ask for your ID card or Passport to buy a firearm there, even if the Yes won, because they cannot violate the constitution you would still be allowed to LEGALLY buy a firearm in Paraguay and import it, or from the USA or any other country for that matter, what is being dissolved is the national market, not the right to buy a firearm, as that would be unconstitutional in Brazil. So if the Yes had won, only the poorest would be denied access to firearms as it costs much more to import a firearm and anyone even richer would be allowed to hire private armed security body-guards and these can carry their weapons on the streets.
This proposition, if serious, would have merit in another country, in a country with low crime rates, in a country where the police receives massive investment and is free of corruption, we have more police officers per citizen than the US (though the American population is larger) yet our police is far more inneficient, they don't have money to use DNA and other modern forensics in every case like Americans can do so most murders end up unsolved as the investigation depends mostly unpon testimonies, right now this would be like beginning from the end, you don't disarm the law-abiding citizen first, not untill organized crime is reduced drastically, and especially not while criminals have access to all sorts of restricted arsenals. But what's most important, in the USA for example you can't stop drugs and firearms from being smuggled through that tiny border with Mexico, look at the size of the Brazilian frontier and tell me how you intend to stop the illegal black-market and how do you plan to secure our frontiers if our poorly policed border towns and properties are unarmed and ready to be overrun by foreign bandits:
http://www.dgl.salemstate.edu/Profs/Young/World%20Region/South%20Am/Images/Goode's_S.A._web.jpg
Brazil is not only a big urban city where people want to feel tough over the others, it is a country where people die eaten by wild animals if they are unarmed, it is a country which had many cases of border banditism where there is no presence from the state, no police nearby, no army, the people are left to their own luck, these people would NOT obey such prohibition when they can buy a gun in the black market for less than 300$USD, it is not the constitution, the universal right or anything else that is at stake, it's their own LIVES.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-25-2005, 23:11
No, but the freedom to marry the person you love was pretty much universally accepted as a right, until gays decided they wanted it.
And by the way, since when is gun ownership a universal right?
Really? Then why did voters in several states vote in constitutional amendments specifically banning gay marriage?
If gay marriage was already not permitted, why would they have had to do that?
Plainly, we have now taken the discussion to the limit of your ability to form coherent responses.
Have a nice day.
1. So what? They didn't want to get married before, what's the big deal now?
2. Because it's their right
3. Because there was no law specifically forbidding it, it was up to an interpritation of the constitution, and we all know how badly judges do that.
4. Universal Gun Rights is implied in the constitution of the United States, of course, in the leftist mindset the Constitution is merely an anciet document with no valid bearing in todays society. However, according to that mindset, I can own slaves as well. So obviously, their 'logic' backfires.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.