No products in the cart.

News

Venezuelan Gun Destruction Shows Danger of ‘Just Following Orders’ Culture

ScreenHunter_04 Aug. 18 19.53
What else would someone who would follow these orders obey?

“Venezuela crushes 2,000 guns in public, plans registry of bullets,” Reuters is reporting. “Interior Minister Nestor Reverol said the event marked the renewal of efforts to disarm Venezuelans, through a combination of seizures and a voluntary program to swap guns for electrical goods.”

Don’t “electrical goods” need to be plugged in to work? For a country with an “electricity crisis” marked by rolling “planned blackouts,” and with continuing food shortages forcing Venezuelans across the border into Bolivia to purchase something to eat (with drastically devaluing currency to the point of worthlessness), what good does a toaster do someone with no working outlets, and no bread if he did have any?  Assuming the government can actually deliver appliances any better than they can anything else besides crushing Marxist tyranny…?

It should surprise no one that Reverol has been indicted in the U.S. on drug-trafficking charges, or that drug money fuels much of the criminal violence plaguing Venezuela. Nor should it surprise us that socialist President Nicolás Maduro calls a Marxist Spanish professor “the Jesus Christ of economics.”

So is anyone surprised a tyrant, desperate to hold on to power, demands a monopoly of violence?  Or that such an imbalance in power results in a murderous military/police state?

Killings by security forces are a chronic problem. According to the most recent official statistics, law enforcement agents allegedly killed 7,998 people between January 2000 and the first third of 2009. In July 2013, military officials opened fire at a car in the state of Falcon, killing the driver and one of her daughters, and injuring her two other children. After the case received widespread media coverage, prosecutors charged 10 military officials for their alleged responsibility in the killings. However, impunity remains the norm.

Such a state requires agents to carry out the orders. The “officers” destroying the guns at Reverol’s obscene demonstration of impotence (the number of “illicit” guns in Venezuela significantly dwarfs the number of registered guns) know the public showing was pure theater. Some of them actually make money supplying guns to gangs.

This is the kind of corruption made inevitable by out-of-control control freaks, restrained by nothing but how far they dare push their savage impulses. Assuming they can keep food in the bellies of their minions and their families, “loyalty” of the troops, such as it is, will be assured – unless a better deal, making betrayal worth the risk, comes along.

The enforcers destroying guns do so knowing it will have no impact on Venezuelan violent crime, and know the most violent criminals are the ones in government who will brook no competition. You wonder, of the 2,000 firearms reported destroyed (out of an estimated 3.25M “licit and illicit” civilian guns) how many have been sold by the “authorities” instead, and how high up the payoffs went.

What’s not hard to infer, when assessing enforcers for a corrupt socialist regime (is there any other kind?) is that there’s probably literally no order they won’t obey. What are they gonna do, say “No” and get shot on the spot? They, like the populace they coerce,  don’t have Constitutional protections that mandate limited, lawfully-delegated powers, and put enumerated and unenumerated rights and powers off limits.

That’s why, while we still have the semblance of such a system in place, it’s important our military and police understand those rights and powers, and their obligation to uphold their oaths. And that’s why it’s incumbent on all citizens who believe in freedom to defy and resist collectivist politicians who disparage our right to keep and bear arms, and to refuse to submit to unlawful orders infringing on that right.

We expect those in command chains to invoke “I will not obey” when that happens. The rest of us have an equally sacred obligation to keep faith with “I will not comply.”

Also see: Venezuela marks International Day of Peace with Orwellian contradiction

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

17 comments

  1. As always, the boundary that separates appropriate judiciousness and willful tyranny is a thin and flimsy one.

    Is anyone surprised that a tyrant, desperate to hold on to power, demands a monopoly of violence? Or that such an imbalance in power always results in a murderous military/police state?

    A storm is coming to us, there can be no doubt.

    The reason “universal” background checks are so important to the gun-ban crowd is because it’s a system of backdoor gun owner registration. Only with such lists can these statists begin the business of government “gun collection.” It is the universal first step under the phony guise of curbing the “epidemic of gun violence” that only thier “common sense” gun control can solve.

    The 2016 presidential election could lead to a cataclysmic reshaping of the Supreme Court, and with it our country and our freedoms.

    Imagine Hillary being able to nominate 4 Judges to the supreme court that have the same morals, values, and ethics she does. One of them being Barack Hussein Obama whom Hillary has stated would be a good choice for Supreme Court Justice.

    Barack Obama as a Supreme Court Justice would do more damage to this country than he ever did as President.

    Remember that the first Clinton Administration was vehemently anti Second Amendment. Another Clinton Administration will be no different. If Hillary ends up becoming the next president of our great nation, you can kiss freedom goodbye, as this woman is bent on finishing what Obama started and completely destroying what remains of the America we know and love.

    1. “The 2016 presidential election could lead to a cataclysmic reshaping of the Supreme Court, and with it our country and our freedoms.”

      No, you are confusing those who SERVE WITHIN our government as actually being the government – they are not.

      Here in the USA our US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, PLUS each state’s Constitution are the government; they are also the contracts that ALL who serve within our governments serve under and are Oath bound to – the highest lawful binding; and the US Constitution is definer of our governments (yes, plural), while the state Constitution defines that state’s government; add to those things and realize that it also assigns the delegated duties to the different BRANCHES and to certain specified in writing OFFICES WITHIN THE DIFFERENT BRANCHES. The people WHO SERVE WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENTS have no authority beyond that they are ALLOWED to use while serving as that authority is associated and assigned to the branch or office they will occupy. They do not come into office with that authority, nro do they leave the office with that authority. Admittedly the enforcement arm of our US and state Constitutions have been very lacking, but that is OUR fault since we have not been doing OUR duty to enforce them.

      Benjamin Franklin: “In free governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them.”

      Thomas Paine: “THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.”

      John Adams: “Is it not intolerable, that the opening Spring, which I should enjoy with my Wife and Children upon my little Farm, should pass away, and laugh at me, for laboring, Day after Day, and Month after Month, in a Conclave, Where neither Taste, nor Fancy, nor Reason, nor Passion, nor Appetite can be gratified?
      Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”

      Even Abraham Lincoln said: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”

      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33: “…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….”

      Alexander Hamilton: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

      And those apply if they are LAWFULLY elected to those positions. But they are REQUIRED to meet certain qualifications, not just be elected.

      Hilary (treasonous scum) Clinton cannot lawfully run for, be in, and/or hold any office within the USA, but WE the people have to LAWFULLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY enforce it, just like we have been/and still are required to do for all these treasonous acts that have been committed by those “serving within our governments”.

      Take U. S. Code Title 18 Section 2071 – stored wire and electronic communications and transnational records access: ““(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
      (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

      Then there is all the Election Fraud that has been ongoing in EVERY state so far.

      Traitors who take office have NO LAWFUL authority until after they are found guilty or not guilty. If found not guilty they then can serve. But three is little in HC’s life that she is not guilty of with multitude of evidence.

      So if she is put into office, as Obama was, as B. Clinton and both Bush’s were, NOTHING THEY DO IS LAWFUL AND BINDING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. It does not bind this nation to any agreement they have made. Until we prosecute them and they have their day in court, along with their administrations, and EVERY single person in the high ranks of military – all branches, and all who served within our governments including the floor sweepers, etc are to be removed. Not one kept their Oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND the US Constitution above any orders of superiors and above and before the duties of the position they occupy anymore then they are doing so today.

      All it is is treason, and those that enforce those unlawful happenings instead of keeping their Oaths are made into *Terrorists – hired elected, contracted, etc.

      *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

      Please read the US Constitution. That is the contract that every single person from floor sweepers to teachers, to administrators to military to LEAs, etc are lawfully bound to. Why are you not doing YOUR duty? READ the US Constitution, read the framers words, read what was debated, etc. READ the Declaration of independence, another lawful document.

      Daniel Webster: “We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution.”

      Read Dr. Vieira’s books, listen to his lectures.

      Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

      The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
      The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.” (end quote)

      Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

      “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

      “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

      “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

      “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

  2. I’m sure every rebel, criminal and gang member in the city as well as the jungle rushed to turn theirs in too.

  3. Kudos to the previous comments! Definitely right on and pointed. Keep up the good work Dave!
    All I can say is: Are they all Democrats?? Sorry, just had to do it..

  4. We are told the Constitution is outdated and that it has to be continually ‘revised’ for each new-day’s societal needs. Do you believe that baloney? I don’t either.
    The Constitutionality of an amendment, a law, a regulation, an act or whatever is being examined is by applying the original intent of the Founders. In other words, what did the Founders intend to accomplish by their writing is the only matter to be decided. It matters not what the Socialists’ want. It matters not how you or I may interpret it; or a lawyer; or a judge the original intent of the Founders is the only factor to be considered. I cannot over emphasize that fact. And, the Founders’ intent transcends time and politics.
    Our system is very simple: the government of our Republic is to follow the rules as are described for its management in the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution can lawfully be more strict than intended but an amendment cannot lawfully weaken it nor can it change its original intent. The Constitution is nearly set-in-stone and is time-honored.
    “The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed”. Easy to understand isn’t it? Allow me to add:
    The Founders debated the right to bear arms and discussed the issues over many years basically agreeing that:
    a) defending ourselves against invasion and,
    b) defending ourselves against the insurgence of a tyrannical government (our government) quantified this right. To defend against all threats, foreign and domestic is cut-in-stone and things do not get more domestic than the government.

    The Declaration of Independence tells us that ‘when our government becomes destructive to these ends (Constitutional adherence), we have the right and the duty to alter or abolish it’. Our Founders, in their infinite wisdom and experience knew that defense from a despotic government can easily become a reality. The Founders very clearly understood the dangers of runaway government. In fact, early on the colonists did not want a central government at all; they simply did not trust government. Do you fear government today? Do you feel secure in your home or on the street? Again, I believe it is safe to say the Founders originally intended for us to be prepared to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Further, I believe it would be ludicrous for anyone to argue against the Founders’ original intent for the Second Amendment.
    Today we are told assault-style weapons should be banned because those types of weapons were not present in the days of the Founders. To them I say, “I agree” there were no assault weapons at that time. But, let me tell you what else there wasn’t any of during those times: home-invaders; gang-bangers; drug cartels; street gangs, and terrorists. Now understand this, all of these groups have assault rifles and more! Let’s fast-forward the Founders to today: do you think if they were writing the Second Amendment today they would ban assault rifles? I think the Founders would allow us to own whatever we feel is necessary. Muskets were “the weapons of the day” at our Founding. Well, “the weapons of the day” currently are assault rifles and more! I want to have at least equal firepower, how about you?
    Our military during the War for Independence carried muskets, the same as the British. As we found ourselves in more wars weapons became more sophisticated and our military issued more sophisticated weaponry. It just makes sense: if the enemy has an AR-15 it is probably not wise to face him with a Daisy air-rifle. I say the same principle applies to We the People today. We have guaranteed rights to defend ourselves and if those that wish to harm us have assault rifles then we have every right to have what is necessary to even up the odds.
    Our nation’s police officers at this very moment are having a very difficult time defending themselves on the streets of America. And those officers have assault weapons at hand. These officers know those who mean to harm us are heavily armed so they prepare as is necessary but what about us, the public? The same groups that kill officers have no compunction against killing us yet there are congresspersons who feel we should not have adequate means to defend ourselves?!
    The questions concerning the Second Amendment are not about the intent of the Founders it is about disarming the people of America thereby weakening our ability to protect ourselves from attack and the government. Now I ask you, what people would be advantaged by disarming the American public? Who is just as adamant about disarming us as the communists are? The government! Who were the Founders afraid of from the very beginning of our Republic? The government!! Is there still a question as to what the Founders would do if they were here today? I think not! Do you believe the Constitution is very, very clear on this issue? I do too.
    We have the right to defend ourselves and there are no exceptions to it. If we want a Howitzer, bazooka or electronic Gatlin-gun we have the right to own them because our enemies have them and the Constitution guarantees that right! Since the Founders only had muskets is no reason to deny us to own whatever weaponry necessary to defend ourselves in today’s society.
    Personally, I don’t believe government is able to completely protect me and my family; police officers are not on every street corner. If I want to own a weapon, of any kind, the right to own it is mine and I support your right to do the same. We all have the right to even-the-odds as much as possible. I ask for your vote to serve you and our Republic.

    1. Thank you Michigan Bubba. I am VERY pleased to read what you wrote about there should be no exceptions to whatever weapons we feel we need.

      You REALLY ‘hit it out of the park’ with what you wrote about the founders “knowing” what governments eventually become and why we need weapons that are equal to what the governments have.

      This has been on my mind for a very long time – thanking you again,Sir.

      1. Joe S and Bubba:
        Being a Maryland Oath Keeper there are many here who beleive and fight for having the same firearms police and military use with same ammo/magazines. Court seem as we don’t speak and falls of deaf ears in the general assembly. Many move, I have alway been one to stand and fight and not cut and run. My family lives here and I will protect. We do have about 6 or move CSPOA we work with.

  5. “That’s why, while we still have the semblance of such a system in place, it’s important our military and police understand those rights and powers, and their obligation to uphold their oaths.”

    THIS IS THE CRITICAL ONE! Every government employee swears an oath to support and defend our Constitution. This includes ALL, whether federal, state or local. It is a condition of their employment! They are the “first responders” when it comes to dealing with despots. And, they are the ones who need to be held accountable! The depots are “toothless” without their cooperation! If they do not honor their oaths and defend, they should suffer the same consequences as the depots they “de facto” support!

  6. OVERT is the way the parasites have been chiseling away at our second most important amendment. There has been a lot of “noise” regarding our right to bear arms.

    COVERT is the way the parasites have been working to destroy our most important amendment, the First. This is being done very quietly, sneakily, steadily, and successfully.

    Without free speech and a free press, there won’t be enough information to apply our right to bear.

    I think “they” are still working hard to have control over the internet. They want us silenced even more than they want us disarmed. Without logistical communications, what can We the People accomplish?

    1. Mr. Carrilho,

      Not rebutting or disagreeing with you. Merely using your sentence to toss my opinion into the fray:

      “Without free speech and a free press, there won’t be enough information to apply our right to bear.”

      Monopolistic corporations conniving with government politicians, bureaucrats and bureaucracies have created strangleholds upon all media types; print and broadcast especially. An adage written long ago applies today but needs to be mentally expanded by you, the reader, to make it applicable to today’s reality;

      Freedom of the press is a wonderful thing for those that can afford the presses.

    2. Exactly my Brother, just yesterday I was in a heated debate over the tyrannical attempts at controlling, and to an extent ELIMINATING (as much as they can) OUR ability to converse being almost as important as their attempts at gun confis___oops “common sense gun control”!
      Which of course EVERYONE, including them KNOWS is a crock, and is about NOTHING more than the CONTROL!!
      What’s frightening is that there are, and will always be those stupid enough to either just follow along, no matter what they hear, read, or even witness first hand, or to actually BELIEVE that taking guns from law abiding citizens will EVER accomplish the deluded task of actual ” gun control” when the very “common sense” they refer to when they mention the FARSE of “common sense gun control” would dictate that the CRIMINALS which perpetrate these CRIMES will ALWAYS get their hands on guns, no matter how many draconian, tyrannical, dictatorial new “laws”, or “rules” these buffoons come up with, in their ATTEMPTS at making it SEEM that they actually give a damn about keeping the masses “safe”!!!!

    3. Excellent points. They are effectively neutralizing the citizen’s OODA loop — hiding what they’re doing from Observation and, if it gets out, neutralizing the development of a negative Orientation toward them and/or fomenting a negative Orientation against the Statist’s opponents (i.e. us). Therefore, the typical citizen cannot rationally Decide and effectively Act, if at all. Sleep walking thru history. Never contemplating and coming to grips with what and who we are and why. Easy prey for putting a ring thru our noses and “legal” extermination for the crime of being an anachronism to the so-called Progressives (a crock of a name for, essentially,totalitarians).

  7. Such is what happens when Armed Forces are Natonalized. Bring back the militias, under sovereign control of the individual states. The US Constitution is the solution. Not our Armed Forces under U N or NATO control! The same for ‘Nationlized Police Forces.’

Comments are closed.