Rus Articles Journal

The second amendment - a damnation of America? Part 2

On what the majority of plots is based? In a small town in the Wild West the population (armed) is oppressed by either the bad sheriff, or the bad mayor, or just the gang which seized power in this city … And so occurs until there is a newcomer who is skillfully owning the weapon He brings order, uniting around himself the armed people. Under its management the justice trampled by villains is restored. Bastards meet with the deserts. Are killed. The people exult, the newcomer (newcomers) disappears, or hangs up to himself on a breast a star of the bad sheriff who is just killed by him.

Sometimes in one western killed people more than in Arkansas in the 19th century in twenty years. For this period only 172 cases of murder were considered there. However, Mexicans and Indians for people for some reason were not considered. Today Arkansas does not even dream of this level of murders.

It is possible to remember the well-known “Magnificent seven“. Why the Mexican peasants allow to do with themselves anything? Against a colt with barehanded you will not trample. They call the armed people. And those begin to train poor people in knowledge of the weapon. Eventually peasants rise and give invaluable help to newcomers. Newcomers, as well as are put under laws of a genre, somewhere leave. In minds of the audience the opinion is precisely pressed that the weapon is just necessary, and it is necessary to be able to own it.

And still attempts to limit operation of the Second amendment were in the same 19th century. Business came even to the Supreme Court in 1875. In the city of Kolfaks (State of Louisiana) there was an armed conflict between white and black. In the ranks of the last there was a local militia. Battle became history under the name “Kolfaksky Slaughter“. Losses of white three persons, losses black (only officially counted) 65. But white could not reconcile that black nevertheless someone from them was killed and came to the Supreme Court with the requirement to forbid the former slaves to own firearms. The court, naturally, refused to them - the right of citizens for the Second amendment does not depend on skin color. All are equal! With bitter irony it is possible to notice that it would be better for the same black if the claim white would be satisfied. Today the main losses among this group of the population.

But we will leave history history. It is much more interesting what occurs with notorious the Second today. It is necessary to recognize at once that today its cancellation is impossible. And any figures of the killed with “help“ of an ognestrel, and they are terrible, will not convince Americans to refuse the weapon. Moreover, the politicians supporting any restrictions are almost doomed to defeat. So was with Gore. It lost the State of Tennessee - the rare occurence on elections. It was not pleasant to voters of this state its position on restriction of the right of Americans for the weapon, And the account on those elections went on units of electors. The position vice-the president cost much to the country. Bush with all that it implies came from this choice by consequences. heads of NRA accused

of Other candidate Carrey of the same sin, as Gore. Carrey, being senator, voted for some restrictive amendments. Carrey lost too.

should have seen how the governor of the State of New Jersey Chris Cristi when he was accused that it against possession of the weapon shouted. “Show at least one law which I signed about restriction of the rights for knowledge of the weapon! I regularly imposed the veto on all bills limiting the rights of Americans in this question“! God forbid will accuse of infringement of this right.

“We never imagined that it happens in Louisiana,“ the governor Jindal told after the resident of its state in June of this year shot the audience at movie theater. Came, began to watch the movie, something was not pleasant to it, he pulled out the semi-automatic gun and opened fire at the audience. Killed and wounded several people. Then it was shot. In staff death rate from an ognestrel, twice higher than on average over the country. The softest rules concerning restriction of the right for the weapon. Responsibility for it lies on the governor. Nedaromon deserved NRA praise: “When the speech comes about the Second amendment nobody made more for our freedoms than the governor of Louisiana“. In eight years on a post he signed at least two tens resolutions expanding access to firearms and in particular expanded application of the notorious law under the name “Stand your ground“. For Jindal a rifle it not the weapon, but a political trump which it beats the opponents. He wants to be a president. It is necessary to hope only that it to them will never become.

The president Obama has nothing to lose it. Therefore after kolumbaysky execution he submitted for consideration of the congress rather tough bill (not on a ban by no means) the limiting easy access for inhabitants to a certain type of arms. Obama chose complete approach to a solution of the problem of the armed violence. For the first time for the last 20 years the U.S. President showed leadership in a question of restrictions for the military weapon and the weapon with a holder of the increased capacity, in a question of checks of those who buy the weapon, and in need to stop illegal traffic in arms. The logician Obama it is clear: in the modern world semiautomatic devices are not necessary neither for hunting, nor for sport, on even for self-defense. But today such type of weapon automatic machines is good for massacre, as was proved by numerous acts of executions at schools, universities, movie theaters, military bases … Need of checks of a mental condition of owners of the weapon and their participation in the criminal world on one and all states is axiomatic.

The bill safely rolled in the Congress. Shout of the congressman to the opponent was remembered: “I do not know how you, the sonny, but my old mother is necessary to joint stock company - 47 for protection against burglars!“. The argument of opponents of rigid control and universal checks of all who want to buy the weapon was reduced to the fact that in the bill there were no guarantees that these checks will not become the instrument of repressions against political opponents. That is, everyone can declare mentally unbalanced and disarm forcibly. They consider obligatory checks at psychiatrists as invasion into private life. Still! Prayves are sacred. Though from it prayves remained lumps after Snowden`s revelations. And you will not overpersuade legislators though to 90% of Americans keep this or that shape for clarification of the personality and last each buyer of the weapon.

One more argument of unconditional supporters of the Second amendment: Obama, wants to disarm the people to push the socialist ideas. The unarmed people in this case will be powerless against the socialist`s arbitrariness. Let`s not begin to stop on a subject Obama - the socialist. Critics insist on it. And time so, the people has to be armed. As though we still still live in the 18th century, and the weapon is necessary for opposition to the government.

History, by the way, showed that in fight against the Washington authorities it is impossible to resort to the weapon. Only what it is possible to receive, it a bullet in a forehead. Examples of that weight. Let`s begin with axiomatic: Civil war. People undertook the rifles to put into place the gone too far government in Washington. What did it end with? The southern states long could not recover from defeat.

Second example from absolutely recent past: Davidov`s sect with her founder David Koresh resisted to the federal authorities too. People of sect were armed. It was just destroyed together with children, women and the founder. 76 people died. Survived justified.

And third example: some farmer refused to pay a tax for the empty federal land used by it. Came to support hundreds of people it. The majority with the weapon. What ended with? He quietly paid taxes, his supporters dispersed out of harm`s way. Well, nobody began to shoot. There would be a bloody bath.

So does not maintain this argument of criticism. It is more than that. God forbid, if during collision with authorities someone from employees is killed. The murderer instantly loses sympathies of society, turns into the derelict and hunt for it until kill. If carries to remain live, then life imprisonment is provided to it.

Strike at the rights? The person can go to court. The court in this country is independent. And for its independence Americans are ready to offer much. Million payments receive the one who appeals to court concerning an arbitrariness of the mighty of this world and wins the claim. Examples can be not given, they are very famous.

As for a role of the Supreme Court concerning the Second amendment, it is marked by two historical resolutions of 2008 and 2010 - go. In one of them definition is given that not only members of national guard can carry arms is a privilege of the American citizen. And the second - laws of the state in respect of infringement of the rights of owners I cannot be more strict than federal. It is possible to understand members of the Supreme Court - they realized that the people will not manage to be disarmed though the country in an awful state from - for this amendment.

From the moment of September 11 from - for acts of terrorism in the States several tens people died. The number of the victims falls short of one hundred. For the same time more than 400 000 people were killed. And in 50 years after Kennedy`s murder the country lost one and a half million people from firearms! Show these figures any other state, the State Department surely would warn the citizens about need to refrain from trips there or, it is less to measure, to put on bulletproof vests at a trip.

The statistics of FBI counted 317 massacre in the USA during the period between 1999 and 2013 with 1554 victims. Since then in the country there were more than 30 mass executions during which more than hundred forty people died. Sometimes the impression is made that shouts about deadly threat of act of terrorism are unnatural. In mind of people thoughts that terror - especially Muslim, is the main threat to national security are put. Republican candidates did not discuss massacre at the last debate, but spoke about hypothetical threat of Muslim terror. Today the country, you see in bigger danger than it was before September 11, 2001. We wait for blow! Here, here … And there is no blow everything and is not present. Messages that FBI does not doze and exposes plots, it is a lot of. America woke up after September 11. But there is such feeling that republicans will only be glad if, God forbid, something serious occurs. And the real problem - massacre of people, is suppressed.

However, it is necessary to be honest and to recognize that the most part of losses comes from firearms from - for suicides. If in 2012 the total of the killed made nearly thirty thousand, then sixteen thousand from them killed themselves. It is necessary to tell about it especially.

Carrying out a journalistic assignment, I visited courses where there passed treatment people attempting upon the life or from a depression, from which absolutely nearby to suicide. It was necessary to listen to a passionate monologue of the unaccomplished suicide (it cut to itself(himself) veins and it was managed to be rescued) when he said about antinaturalness of this act, about how the organism resists it because wants to live! Through what terrible pains and mental torments there passes a suicide before the death. He said that he is happy to be live - life and desire to live returned, he in a full order and nevermore … He understood everything! And at the end he added that it has a gun, he would not sit here.

The instant, painless, easily reached death pushes thousands and thousands of people on suicide. When there is a gun near at hand, it is possible to take with bigger ease this step under influence even of some small disorders. How many times we read that this or that teenager was shot from - for love or sexual failures with the girl, misunderstandings by parents of his restless soul, from - for some nonsense from our adult point of view … They have no guns stolen from the same parents, these teenagers would be living and today.