Chavez’s Militia

by

I really love people on the left. Not only are they short-sighted enough to actually believe the writings of Marx, but they are pretty bad at common sense, too.

(Remember the old Reagan joke: A Marxist is someone who reads Marx; a Conservative is someone who understands Marx.)

Chavez wants his militia armed all the time. The militia in Venezuela is made up of volunteers who train much like our National Guard. And much like our National Guard, they don’t do much until they are activated.

Our Founding Fathers thought really hard about whether there should be a militia and if so, who should be in it. They came to the conclusion that if we wanted to remain a free country, we should always, forever and ever, have a militia, and every able-bodied male of all ages should be a member of it. Thus, the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Here, our Founding Fathers were saying what Chavez, the leftist tyrant of Venezuela is saying today.

Now, if Chavez allows and encourages every able-bodied male to be a member of the militia, and actually allows this to be, and then allows them to carry arms 24/7 (arms being the weapons that soldiers typically carry), then he is signing the death warrant of his regime. He will only be able to serve for exactly as long as the people tolerate it. The same goes for local leaders as well.

No military, mercenary, volunteer, or otherwise, is going to be able to resist an armed uprising of the people. The way dictators typically keep the people from rebelling is through disarmament. Here, Chavez seems to have missed that.

On the other hand, if Chavez is really saying, “I want to arm only my supporters 24/7”, which personally, I believe is his real message, then he’s doing what Hitler and all the leftist leaders of history have tried to do, and what some have suggested Obama eventually wants to try to do. It is the dream of the leftist to have their people armed and their enemies disarmed. Under these conditions, it is a simple matter to enslave those who work to pay for their supporter’s room and board. See, leftists are parasites. They cannot exist without a host animal, the hard-working middle and upper classes in our country. Heck, here in our state, it’s apparent that they can’t even survive without eating the lower class as the democratic legislature raises taxes on the poor again and again and again in our state.

I had a nightmare one night. It was that all the guns and bullets being bought up after Obama was likely to win were actually being bought by the left in our country. When I woke up, a little sane thinking reminded me that the left is far too short-sighted to do such a thing, ensuring that the conservatives who believe the constitution actually means something will always have the upper hand in the end.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Chavez’s Militia”

  1. demo kid Says:

    When I woke up, a little sane thinking reminded me that the left is far too short-sighted to do such a thing, ensuring that the conservatives who believe the constitution actually means something will always have the upper hand in the end.

    Again… proof that you’re willing to murder people for your own political gain.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Sir, killing those who would take our life, liberty and property is not murder.

      • demo kid Says:

        Brilliant. So let’s say, through some miracle, your theocratic utopia comes into being and adulterers and alcoholics and practicing gays and lesbians are thrown in jail. If I decide to ruthlessly execute politicians and police officers and anyone else that agrees with such policies, is it murder? Or merely my natural right to defend myself against those who would take my life, liberty and property?

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        If you want to do those things in your so-called theocratic utopia, you are free to do so. There is no way we can ever peer into your private life and see what you are doing. If you want to make public the fact that you practice adultery, then we have a debate about whether such behavior should be tolerated. The laws of the land can never stop private behavior, provided the behavior remains private and you and your partners in crime don’t go bragging about it openly.

        Yes, there is a lot of gray area when it comes to natural rights. They aren’t easily defined, and no one can define them for you. It’s obvious that pre-meditated murder is an infringement on the right to life; however, there are many ways someone might die (and thus lose their right to live) due to someone else’s actions and not all of them are obviously worthy of death.

        My rule of thumb, and the rule of thumb that I think most would adopt, is to ask whether the behavior increases the options available to someone or decreases them. Someone addicted to alcohol has obviously less options than someone who never touches the stuff. While the person who never intends to taste alcohol always has the option of changing his mind, the alcoholic will have a great, life-long battle against himself should he decide to put the bottle away. Thus, there is a strong argument to be made that, as a society, we may not want to allow people to drink alcohol. (Substitute “drinking alcohol” for any other addictive behavior and a similar argument can be made.)

        Once we’ve identified a behavior that limits our freedoms, there comes into question the cost of enforcement.

        We can choose no enforcements, and thus no law. This is how most communities enforce their high standards of behavior. Shame is a very powerful motivator, and doesn’t require government intervention. There is a lot of behavior I disagree with and promise never to engage in that I believe we shouldn’t enforce as law.

        We can choose to use limited fines. This is what it looks like California is going to do with marijuana possession. That is, as long as you are doing it a little bit, we don’t care, just don’t let us catch you with it or you will pay a small fine. We aren’t going to hunt you down, because we really don’t care what you do in the privacy in your own home and among friends.

        We can choose to pursue obvious violations with strong punishments and leave the rest alone. I’d prefer to handle alcohol in this way. Enjoy it if you really want to; it’s not good for you. However, should you get wasted and find yourself in public, we’re going to pick you up and slap you in jail. If you are doing something dangerous like driving a car, we’re going to take away your rights and privileges.

        Or we can choose to be draconian about it and allow cops and officials the ability to do things that we find very disagreeable. This is where we’re at with the war on drugs. I’m having second thoughts about whether this is effective. All signs point to “no”.

        If I had my way of things, there would be very few laws that we would enforce with draconian measures. Probably treason, murder, and rape and that’s about it. There are a very wide range of laws where we would punish those who do it openly very severely. This includes pretty much all the other ten commandments except the ones that have to do with your state of mind. For instance, theft and property crimes; prostitution; adultery; drug abuse; gross fraud; etc… Then there are a very wide number of punishments that I’d like to see as slaps on the wrist, including bad behavior in public (disturbing the peace), minor fraud (where no one was really hurt that badly), etc…

        In short, under my “theocratic utopia”, the war on drugs would’ve never started, adulterers and addicts would be pushed underground where they belong (those doing it wantonly in public being thrown in prison), and otherwise you’d be free to do what you like as long as you don’t annoy people too much, in which case you’d be fined a few dollars and asked to stop being a jerk. Of course, no one would live with their hand in the taxpayer’s pockets, except those providing public services such as judges and government officials.

        First of all, I don’t know what complaint you’d have against such a system. You’re free to enjoy whatever you like to enjoy with consenting adults, provided you don’t do it in front of the kids. What would you gain by killing members of the government? Taxes would be virtually non-existent. If someone threatened you or injured you, you’d have recourse through the justice system. Supposing someone did buy out the judges and government officials. What kind of power would that get them? Are they really that interested in controlling what happens when one guy has a complaint against another? Without trillions of dollars flowing through the system, there is nothing to be parasitical about.

        So, under such a system, what would it serve you to kill judges and members of the government? What would you gain by it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: