Brazil’s Presidential Candidate Bolsonaro Doesn’t Understand the ‘Right to Bear Arms’

It's not merely a matter of public safety, but the sign of a Free Man

0 1,667

Bonobos of the liberal-conservative right, like the grand-bonobo Jair Bolsonaro, propose the right to bear arms as a “policy of public security. It is somewhat embarrassing to have to dwell on this subject, because the imbecility of this proposition is overwhelming.

It is as if the Bolsonaro was a six-year-old child who could only understand or express opinions about the great issues of State by reducing everything to short words and phrases. Longevity? “Improve health”. Pedagoy? “Improve education”. Safety? “Give weapons.”

Is the expectation, absolutely insane, more surreal than a painting by Dalí, that the Brazilian population, armed with light and low-caliber firearms (probably worth shit), will fight against organized crime?

It is not that an armed people can not organize militias of self-defense, patrol the streets themselves, etc. There are even cases of combating organized crime by popular militias, as in several provinces of Mexico. But a presidential candidate insinuating this is ridiculously absurd. Unless you want to take Brazilians to slaughter.

It is not that the possibility of carrying arms should not be extended. It should be. But if THAT is the ONLY public safety measure and nothing else, then there will be a bloodbath. The Brazilian people will be slaughtered with their pistolinhas (little guns) in hand by bandits armed with rifles and imported sub-machine guns.

Fighting organized crime is fundamentally a role for the state. And the people organized horizontally, from the bottom-up, only do this of their own free will in moments of despair. And not with pistolinhas and revolvers of bad quality.

To make matters worse, the grand-bonobo opens the door for a whole bunch of bourgeois pseudo-intellectuals with their “Harvard polls” to focus the public security debate on gun ownership, (absolutely neutral, of course) saying this or that about the correlation between crime and possession of weapons.

Except this is irrelevant.

Man must have weapons because possessing and bearing arms is the mark of the free man since Antiquity. However much the centuries have changed, it has not changed the fact that bearing arms is the only concrete guarantee and protective material of one’s life.

- Advertisement -


Without the possession of weapons, the “right to life” is a dead letter in the Constitution. It’s just an empty word. When the tyrannical regime (natural and inevitable decadence of all democracy) deprives the citizen of his arms or the possibility of having them he is invalidating the right to life.

And this cannot mean simple pistols and revolvers, as Bolsonaro proposes, but machine-guns and beyond.

This is irrefutable, indisputable, undeniable. It does not matter if the possession / possession of weapons increases or decreases homicide rates. It could be tenfold. This is a utilitarian debate. Totally irrelevant.

Possession / possession of a weapon has nothing to do with “public security policy”. It is a simple and fundamental way of guaranteeing the constitutional right and the mark of the free man.

Against Bolsonaro!
Against right-wing stupidity and leftist hypocrisy!
Weapons for the People!


Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.