Progress in Venezuela

Back in the late 1990s when I was still living in Florida, I went to church with a family that had fled from Venezuela after Hugo Chavez had come to power.  They left a lot of extended family and friends behind and did their best to keep in touch. 

They were quite willing to talk about the horrific conditions of life down there. Terrible inflation, rampant and very blatant crime, thugs doing strong arm robberies in broad daylight, murder and mayhem.  A common denominator of the criminal thugs was that they not only supported Hugo Chavez, but they were his enforcers at the polling places. 

The immigrants were willing to admit that the things they saw in the SEIU here in America looked frighteningly close to what they left in Venezuela.  I say all that to introduce this from Joe Huffman's blog:

                               Quote of the Day
"We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace." Nicolas Maduro      [the new dictator who replaced Hugo Chavez]
September 23, 2014

Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?]  -- Joe Huffman
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.

So what happens when the powers that be decide to try that here in the U.S.?

You Took An Oath

I will try not to simply use this blog to link to other blogs and let other people do all the writing.  I'd like to always have good ideas and write original stuff, but nobody is that good all the time.  So, I will proudly link to and highly recommend that you go read this post, which was so good that it is a requested repost.

Assuming that you either went and read it, or that you will read it when you leave here, let me say that it gives me no joy to have to think of the people who carry guns and badges as just a smarter class of criminal because they just figured out that if they did what was necessary to get the badges, they could get away with a lot of stuff.

I'm sure that there are still some good police in various places, but I've personally seen enough up close and personal to know that more than half of the LEOs out there, especially in the big "blue" cities share the following traits:

1. They see themselves not as civilian peace officers, but as some kind of paramilitary organization and the rest of us are "civilians."  They see themselves as a separate and distinct class of people.
2.  The oath they took to uphold the Constitution, or the law, or whatever they take an oath to, is nothing but a formality of getting the job.  You are either the predator or the prey.
3. Everything is political, and if you have to play politics to get ahead, and that means schmoozing whoever you have to, then so be it.
4. Carrying out orders and doing what it takes to get promoted is far more important than supporting and defending the Constitution and protecting the public from an overreaching and tyrannical government.

If you are one of the good cops, you know it's true as well and it grieves you as well.  Maybe you stay in the profession because if all of the good guys abandon it, then only the rotten SOBs will have the badges and superior firepower.  Maybe you even have to keep quiet about how you really think because it wouldn't be safe to speak your mind.  If that's the case, I pray for you and your safety.

But the ones who fit the profile that I numbered above are in it for the adrenaline rush and the power trip and think that all of the rest of us should just shut up and be thankful that they are keeping the streets safe.  "You don't need a gun, that's what we are here for."

They Admit It

Those of us who have been defending the Second Amendment for all these years have always said it wasn't about hunting, and it was more than just self defense.  It is about defending against a tyrannical government that wants to control every aspect of your life in the name of "Progress."   Progressive, Socialist, Democrat; it's all the same thing.  And every once in a while, like Obama did with Joe the plumber, they slip up and tell you what they really believe.

Hat tip to Eternity Road and the Curmudgeon Emeritus for this delicious tidbit:

There's a new slander in town, and it's likely to find favor among the enemies of freedom:

Recognize Insurrectionism as a threat to the entire progressive movement. Too many political progressives assume that the gun rights movement can be co-opted or simply ignored. Progressives fail to understand that the Insurrectionist idea is part and parcel of a broader reactionary worldview. Unless progressives recognize that the Insurrectionist premise of the modern gun rights movement is fundamentally hostile to the progressive project and its values, the "conservative" movement will use gun rights as a building block for organizing and propagandizing.

Applause to the esteemed PolyKahr for the citation. He comments as follows:

So, finally, after eight decades of this stuff, they finally admit it. Gun control has been framed as a crime control method. When that didn't work, we were told that we needed more of it. When that didn't work, we were told that it was because other States hadn't implemented sufficiently restrictive laws. When some States passed shall issue concealed carry, and crime rates went down, they fought similar laws in other States tooth and nail. Now the gun grabbers are left with no real arguments, their ideas having been defeated on both principled and practical grounds. Now, the truth finally comes out-our guns do help us prevent tyranny from taking hold, thus interfering with the Progressive agenda.

Indeed. The Founding Fathers knew that full well. It's one of the pitiful few of their insights that a large majority of Americans have managed to retain.

But don't misunderstand your Curmudgeon: That a leftist author should have admitted it in print is ammunition for us, and not merely in arguing for the retention of our right to keep and bear arms. It makes plain the root of their hostility to an armed -- and therefore self-sufficient and free -- populace.

Please spread this around...and keep your powder dry.        

Thank you, Professor Poretto

Okay, I'll Play

This particular questionnaire has shown up on several of the blogs that I read, so I've thought about it and decided I would go ahead and answer them.  I tried to answer them by leaving a comment on this woman's blog doing so, but I couldn't even get to question 12 out of the 20 before I exceeded the character limit.

Her list of 20 questions resembles a "push" poll. Perhaps you've experienced such things. A political operative calls you on the phone to ostensibly get your answers to a series of yes or no questions. Each question lays out a scenario or seems to report some bit of information as true, or states a theory as if it were fact and then expects you to agree with it.

I like most of the answers I found on a Texas Law Enforcement Officer's blog. I suggest you go read his answers as well.  Then go back to the main page and read his further answers to others.  Now, here are the questions and my answers:

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?    A:  Your question is silly. It doesn't have anything to do with what you think is a problem. Criminals, and that includes "domestic abusers," don't use legal or legitimate means to obtain firearms. They steal them or purchase them on the black market.  That's like asking if I agree that we should have background checks for buying heroin.
2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?   A:  Outside of non-violent criminals, those who have committed capital murder, child molestation,  and rape  should be executed. Foreign terrorists should be hunted down and summarily executed after any valuable intelligence has been obtained.  Criminals with a proven history of violence and the dangerously mentally ill, should be confined to an appropriate facility.
3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?  A: Yes. And if we followed the answer to question #2 we wouldn't need background checks, just as we did not need them for the first 150 or so years of this country's history. Furthermore as answered in question #1, background checks have done nothing to reduce gun violence in cities with the most restrictive gun laws.
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?   A: Yes.
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?    A: Banning something just means passing a law.  Kind of like demanding background checks.  See answers to questions 1 - 3.  If you mean "confiscation," I'm not going to give you any helpful suggestions.
6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?    A: You would have to ask her.
7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?    A:  Perhaps you don't get the fact that the reason there is a second amendment is because there was already a first amendment.  If someone is "doing" something to take away my God given rights, then according to the laws of nature and the God who created them, I not only have a right but a duty to stop it.  But under our Constitution people have the right to free speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?   A:  If someone is lying, then the appellation is correct and should be applied.  But your obvious implication is that the people you are aiming this questionnaire at engage in such behavior. Please cite any specific examples.
9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?     A: If you purposely hide facts, distort facts, or assert things that are not true; oh yes, I will proclaim it in public, to your face, and let you have the opportunity to correct the record.
10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?    A:  The men who wrote the Constitution were brilliant, well educated men, with tremendous command of the English language.  They specifically wrote the words "shall not be infringed." to convey that ANY restriction was prohibited.  They understood that once you started down that slippery slope we would end up in the mess we are in today. 
11.  Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.   A:  You have two completely different questions there, Sparky.  See answers 1, 2, 3, and 10.  There are too many different gun laws across the country and they are enforced at different levels.  Are we talking about Chicago, IL, or Kennesaw, GA?   You are the one who needs to explain.
12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?    A:  Do you mean shoot an innocent person, or a criminal who needs to be stopped?    
13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?     A:  What do you mean by "included?"  I think you mean to include every person shot by anybody, including law enforcement in order to push your propaganda.  Just like you include ages of gang-bangers up to the age of 25 as "children."  If all data on gun deaths were broken down into all the relevant categories, the push for more gun control would be seen for the illogical nonsense that it is.
14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?    A:  See my answer to #13.
15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?          A:  All modern firearms designed since circa 1900 have passive safeties that make it physically impossible to discharge a bullet unless the trigger is pulled.  I challenge you to demonstrate or cite a single instance that disproves this.
16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?        A:    Compared to what?  45,000 deaths in vehicle accidents?  Influenza and Pneumonia kill over 50,000.  Septicemia: 34,000.  Heart disease over 540,000.  But out of the 30,000 gun deaths, how many were drug deals gone bad; gang related; Law enforcement action?  Inanimate objects do not indiscriminately kill people.  They require someone to use them.  Whether or not 50 people were killed via firearm is not nearly as important as WHY they were killed.
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?    A:  Prevent which shootings?  See my answer to #16.
18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?      A:  Anecdotes are not the same thing as data.  I can use stories about overzealous and out of control government and law enforcement officials as reason for protecting our second amendment rights.  Confusing anecdotes with data does not help your case.
19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).       A:  Do you mean like the ATF sniper who shot and killed Vicki Weaver while she held her baby at Ruby Ridge?  The raid on the Branch Davidian compound that was promptly bulldozed and there were no weapons shown as evidence?  The West Point graduate who had a legal concealed carry permit who was gunned down outside a Costco store?
20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?        A:  The key word here is reasonable.  The discussion will require that both parties understand logic and reasoning.  Feelings and emotion lead to illogical and irrational conclusions that won't help anyone.  If either of the parties cannot recognize a false premise or a faulty syllogism, then it will indeed be an exercise in futility.