" “Why are they putting handcuffs on a citizen that’s working or a woman in a public square?” Bolsonaro said, translated in English. “And the Justice doesn’t say anything? You have to ****ing speak!” "They keep on humiliating our people, and that’s growing…What these sons of bitches want is our freedom.” “Look how easy it is to impose a dictatorship in Brazil, how easy it is,” he continued. “The people are locked in their homes.” “That is why I want…that the people arm themselves. That’s going to ensure that a *********ker is not going to show up and impose a dictatorship here. Because it’s easy to impose a dictatorship here. Too easy. A ****ing mayor makes a ****ing decree, handcuff people and keep everyone at home.” “If they were armed, they’d go to the streets. And if I was a dictator, I’d want to disarm people, just like all the others disarmed people before they impose their respective dictatorship.” Bolsonaro added that he wants to “send a ****ing message” to the “*******” communists on why he’s advocating to arm the people. “Because I don’t want a dictatorship,” he said. “And it can’t be postponed anymore.” “I want everyone armed. Because an armed people will never be enslaved,” he added." video here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1264263778620911616 source article here: https://www.infowars.com/what-these...ws-to-arm-brazilians-to-prevent-dictatorship/ I like this guy! There is no message that more clearly identifies a leader as interested in liberty than this.
I wish Trump was on video saying such things. But he has, thus far, done a very good (not perfect) job of protecting the right to bear arms.
Bolsanaro told his police that if they saw anyone in the favelas carrying a gun, or rifle, to shoot them no questions asked. So, if you live in a nice neighborhood and you are carrying a gun, you will not be shot. But you live in a poor neighborhood and are carrying a gun, you will. The man is a hypocrite. Moreover, his logic wanes, as the state has Jets, 50 cal. machine guns, tanks, mortars, howitzers, etc., that no citizen 'defending liberty' will ever have It's a bogus argument, Bolsanaro is a moron similar to Trump.
Source, please. Its not so much that it would surprise me, but I figure its just as likely that there is missing and relevant context. Such is frequently enough the case. If machine guns, tanks, jets and artillery could quell an armed populace, we wouldn't have (had) such horrible problems in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/world/americas/bolsonaro-police-kill-criminals.html This week, he [Bolsanaro] said he favors extending the military intervention, which is set to end in January, for an additional 10 months. And he proposed using snipers, some aboard helicopters, to gun down anyone spotted carrying a weapon in low-income urban communities known as favelas. False comparison. American military are not desert dwellers fighting on foreign soil with the resolve of the mountain men in Afganistan on their turf, nor can they match the jungle accustomed resolve of the viet cong on their turf. History has proven this. On our turf...... You get your average block of suburban bourgeoise of Americans with rifles to fight against the American military, and that block of Americans, most of whom have never engaged in real combat, are going to lose.
As I suspected. The missing and relevant context of course is that its from 2018. Since then: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/22/brazils-murder-rate-finally-fell-and-by-a-lot/ Sounds to me like they're getting the problem under control and shifting gears. You're comparing Brazil's war with drug cartels to a 2nd American Civil War... Not very intellectually genuine. The only way the US military is ever going to be fighting otherwise law-abiding US citizens on any sizeable scale will be a Civil War. In every civil war in history, the military has been divided similarly as the populace. Which means our military will be fighting civilians and itself. Most Civil Defense groups even now are made up partially of, and usually led by, veterens of our armed forces. Those Civil Defense groups combined with the active duty personell who will interpret their oath to the Constitution as loyalty to The People in armed resistance will result in a division of the military, including its weaponry, command structure, infrastructure and supply. Not at all similar to the situation in Brazil.
Imagine if Trump allowed the military to shoot at people, just because they were carrying a gun, when 2a types are shouting about 2a freedoms, wantonly into poor neighborhoods? I imagine crime would drop, but the tyranny of it is astounding. If you are a 2a guy, you can't have it both ways. Either you are for a police state, or you are not. No, Bolsanaro was making the same 2a argument many 2a people in America make, 'we need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Yet, there he is, a tyrannical government, shooting people without due process. You don't see the hypocrisy in this? Sorry to disabuse you of any apopaclytic and dystopian visions, there is not going to be a civil war. You can go back to playing paint ball, now.
Im for arming the people no matter what. Whether in response to a police state, whether hypocritical, w/e. An armed populous is stronger than a disarmed populace regardless whatever tyranny preceded or led to it. I support Bolsanaro in his calls to arm his people regardless of anything else hes done. As the link I provided indicated, the 'police state' seems to have served a constructive purpose by destructing some of the murderous hold the cartels held over Brazil. It wasn't 'right' and I don't advocate for LE killing outside of due process. But neither can the results be ignored, nor Bolsanaros populist support, nor his calls to arm the people now. Your apology at disabusing me of visions of a civil war is unnecessary. Why would you presume, as your apology indicates, that I would prefer such a thing? Usually folks make an argument that something will fail because they don't want that something to occur in the first place...
You can't even respond to what another poster actually said without putting a disingenuous spin on it. Bolsonaro said that at a time when the law-abiding good citizens didn't have very many firearms and the gangs, criminals, and liberal criminal filth of Brazil did. Bolsonaro enabled the good citizens to defend themselves and/or make that criminal filth be leery about starting something using "gunplay". Telling a lie and/or spin and keep repeating it won't work either. Try something else that is an actual argument and not a spin, dodge, or lie. 'Shifting gears" is what another poster PROVED to you. Your ignorance is in your spin of what was said. Sooooooooooo... when you ignorantly said... ...you're still sticking by your position that it will be the general populous against the might of the military. Are you a physic or something? The men and women of the military are more inline with the Constitutional rights of the people. And they are sworn to fight against all enemies, both foreign AND domestic. When (not if, 'cuz it is definitely leaning to when) we get around to playing Cowboys and lib/prog/socialists, we, the good Americans, will be more heavily armed than the scourge that we will be fighting. We'll also know which bathrooms to use and our helmets won't need cut-outs for man buns.
Might not be a good idea for hoplophiles to cheer a clear fascist. Its not really a good look. Just saying...
Fascists, being authoritarian by definition, tend to oppose arming The People. What makes Bolsonaro's 'fascism' clear to you?
I can see how this might seem very paradoxical to many people. But it's really not. You might take some more effort to understand the other side. I will admit, there is a certain paradoxality of Bolsonaro expanding gun rights while at the same time empowering police forces to use more fascist tactics. You see, the Left hates guns, but is also very critical of the government law enforcement who uses them. Those on the Right like Bolsonaro are suspicious of government, but tend to believe that law enforcement are generally good. They are just critical or suspicious of government in different ways. I think there has been discussion about this seeming sort of "paradox" in other threads: I think I understand the difference between Progressives and Conservatives
That you have to ask it a worry! Are Americans always ignorant of world affairs? Try here, chosen randomly: https://forward.com/news/world/445836/letter-from-brazil-is-bolsonaro-a-nazi/
Fascism is defined as 'an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.' The nationalism and rightism are there. Whats missing is the authoritarianism and the social organization. From your own article: "The idea of the State as the engine of the economy and mediator of class conflicts" is absent from 'Bolsanarism.' Sounds to me like just the sort of social organization necessary for fascism and lacking in Bolsanaro's agenda. Basically Bolsanaro and Brazil are exhibiting two of the four ingredients for fascism. Or 50%. If they were being graded on their fascism, they'd get an F (and no, not an F for Fascism... XD).
I'll help you with a proper definition: "Fascism is a jampot of joviality because of its multiple definitions. To highlight its right wing nature, however, there are several elements we can refer to. I'd first refer to Keserich's definition of fascism as 'the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital'. I'd then describe how fascism is incompatible with socialist political economy. Zanden (1960, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol 19, pp 399-411) is a good source. First, the movement is characterised by anti-intellectualism ('obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along independent lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism'). That is closer to a worship of alienation. Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). A socialist, on the other hand, appreciates the destructiveness of class. Third, we have a reaction against democracy: 'the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions'. That ain't participatory socialism! Fourth, we have 'fascism is in its broadest meaning a revolt against the modern age, against democratisation, secularisation and internationalism'. That is conservatism! Fifth, we have corporatism where fascism is defined as 'a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government' (Sarti). Ultimately fascism and economics, unlike socialism, do not go well together". He's a fascist. That you don't recognise that only informs me that your support for freedom is a sham. But heck we already knew that! I don't intend to change your mind as, because you can't recognise fascism, you are in practical terms no different.
Please don't edit any of my comment out in your quotation of me. If you would like to draw attention to a specific portion for specific rebuttal, emboldening, italicizing or underlining are all great ways to do that without decontextualizing me. If you would like to continue our discussion, please reply with my entire quote and not just a snippet. If, however, you just want to have the last word and be done with it, continue editing me and have a great day
No problem. Given you think a fascist is consistent with freedom, let's celebrate your please. Goodbye
I read your link. Egregious stereotyping. The very definition supplied for 'progressives tend to....." is viewed from a right wing lens. Your very statement "the left hates guns" is a statement viewed from a right wing lens. I know a number of democrats who are avid hunters. Did you know that Rachel Maddow visits shooting ranges, loves to shoot pistols? Does she hate guns? Doesn't look like it.
related thread, in the Latin American vein: Maduro disarmed civilians in Venezuela, now he wants to arm his supporters Venezuela shares a border with Brazil, so one wonders if this could have anything to do with it.
