Sunday, August 28, 2016

The Venezuelan Solution

In blood-drenched Venezuela, police may be part of the problem

The police (and the Military) in Venezuela have a tough decision to make every day.

They don't know whom to shoot.

The Militants, the Criminals, or the Citizens?  

Tough call, so the Police and Military have refined their problem until it is no longer a problem:

Just shoot everybody who has a gun.

The Criminals and the Militants have also adopted this philosophy, except that they don't require their victims to have a gun.   They just shoot everybody.

In fact, they often shoot police (and military) just to gain possession of their guns.

The Citizens of Venezuela are in a quandary, though; they're not legally allowed to own a gun, but they know that the police, the military and the criminals consider them to be sheep; all three groups predate on them to one degree or another, and so they have decided that it's better to be shot for a wolf than a sheep.

As a consequence, they find guns, somewhere, if only to protect themselves from the police, the Military, and the Criminals.   Hell, they're going to die anyway!

Which doesn't work out very well for the (otherwise) peaceful citizens of Venezuela, except that they might ... maybe .. someday .. be able to defend themselves against the criminals; who are not necessarily to greatest threat to the peaceful citizens of Venezuela, and their families.

In America, there is a great cry to restrict legal firearms possession to the police, and the military.

Criminals, it is widely accepted, will have guns anyway.

But in a country (Venezuela .. I love that name) where firearms ownership is forbidden, as soon as an honest citizen acquires a firearm to protect themselves ... they have allowed themselves to be a target for the police, and the military.

Well, they're already a target for the criminals.  And in Venezuela, there is a fine line between police, military and criminals.  A line which has been crossed, as a matter of course.

Venezuelan military/police have been murdered by criminals for the sole purpose of acquiring their guns.

Some Americans have made the case that firearms in America should only be possessed by police, and Military.

Is this what you want America to turn into?  You want to live in a Northern Venezuela?

Remember .. in America, police have no obligation to protect citizens from crime.   Even the near likelihood of murder imposes on obligation on police to protect citizens.  Their job is to show up when the blood runs cold, and 'investigate'.  Not to stop mureders.

And today, in California, a new law designed to keep arms away from 'dangerous persons' is adding problems to the already addled mix of Laws and Permissions, to the point where nobody seems comfortable with their Second Amendment rights because .... who knows?

It seems to me that when you try to abridge constitutional rights, you've opened a Pandora's Box of complications and confusion which serves no citizen well.  

California has long been a hotbed of conspiracy against the Constitution; the lawmakers there seem to consider their state to be the testing ground of new ways to impose limitations on the civik rights of their citizens.

Other than as an exercise of their power over the people who elected themselves to high office, it's difficult to understand why elected officials in California should consider their High Office as a license to steal ... steal away the freedoms, steal away the protections, and steal away the dignity of their fellow citizens.

I use to live in California.  It has an "iffy" weather pattern, they buy water from other states and could not otherwise sustain their bloated (both in ecological and political terms) population.

There is not a great deal to choose from, between Venezuela and California.

Except that in Venezuela, you get to shoot the bastards.


Anonymous said...

California is a bellwether for the rest of the nation. It has long been said that as California goes, so goes the rest of the country in ten years. California is busy exporting it's citizens and politics to other states. Look at Colorado.

Archer said...

It seems to me that when you try to abridge constitutional rights, you've opened a Pandora's Box of complications and confusion which serves no citizen well.

True. But since when have laws abridging constitutional rights been passed to serve the citizens?

Jerry The Geek said...

good points, all. Dammit!