NO! The victory of the free Civil Society over the Totalitarian State.

[Xiahou]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Xiahou]

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."

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.

[Slyspy]

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?).

[Wardo]

@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]

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."

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."

[Xiahou]

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...

[Goofball]

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...

Plainly, we have now taken the discussion to the limit of your ability to form coherent responses.

Have a nice day.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Wardo]

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:



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]

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.