And here we go again …
From time to time we find ourselves discussing the umpteenth shooting in some American school, and everyone starts discussing nonsense, like the second amendment, and a dialectic is built that is entirely based on a fantasy, that is the constitution. American grants you the right to own an assault rifle.
I know this is going to sound shocking, but the second amendment to the American constitution says this:
"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."
that is to say:
"Since a well-organized militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of citizens to possess and bear arms cannot be infringed."
Interesting. It appears that the American constitution guarantees the right to have and bear arms. But that's not exactly the case.
- Can an American citizen have an atomic bomb? No.
- Can an American citizen have cruise missiles? No.
- Can a US citizen have MLRs or long range howitzers? No.
- Can an American citizen have manPads (like javelin)? No.
- Can an American citizen have a 30mm cannon with sabot bullets? No.
- Can you have a stinger missile? No.
You see, then, that someone has started writing MORE laws, based on the constitution, that they say
"Yes, okay, weapons, but WHICH weapons?".
The right to bear "arms", therefore, is regulated by further laws.
I know that now you will tell me that I have given extreme examples, and therefore now I destroy this topic too:
- Can an American citizen walk the streets with a 16cm spring knife?
You will be led to think that if you can shoot with an assault rifle or a large-caliber pistol, you will be able to shoot with snap knives.
Surprise: no.
As you can read, neither the clothespin knives (or snap knives, if you prefer), nor the ballistic ones (those of the WWII paratroopers, which open with the weight of the blade holding them downwards), can be sold or imported. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation#United_States let alone carried around.
But there's more: let's talk about Texas.
Owning a clothespin knife was illegal until September 2020. The penalty was a $ 4,000 fine and up to one year in prison. It has now become legal, but in return it has become illegal to own these things:
In any case, Texas has recently become permissive on pocket knives (two years) while the rest of the USA … depends on the states:
This is a lot of fun, isn't it?
This should undermine your belief for a moment: if the US can buy an AR-15, the constitution has little to do with it. It is an arbitrary decision: both a Zip Gun, a shotgun and an AR-15 are weapons, but only the AR-15 is allowed among the three.
Nothing in the American constitution prohibits regulating weapons, and defining which weapons can be carried or not.
With even absurd results, as in the case of the forbidden brass knuckles where an assault rifle is allowed, but anyway: which weapons can be brought is at the discretion of the legislator.
In short, in short, the debate on the second amendment is completely useless, and refers to a delusion that politicians throw on the plate precisely to create a distracting debate.
If current legislation is possible, someone has read the constitution and:
- defined what a weapon is.
- defined which weapons are allowed or not.
- has decided that the AR-15 is possible while the Sicilian shotgun is not.
when he asked himself the problem of knives, he decided that:
- ballistic knives are always prohibited.
- snap-in ones in some places are allowed under two inches.
- snap-fit ones are prohibited in some places
- snap ones in some places you can't even build them
- snap-fit ones in some places you can take them
you understand that it is PERFECTLY possible for the American legislator to decide that the permitted weapon is, I know, the truncheon, and zac: the citizen can carry arms, the rest is forbidden, and the constitution respected.
When you ask why it is not done, the know-it-all comes and says "but I lobbied them". Sure, lobbies exist. But this is not the point: to understand it we have to ask ourselves some questions.
First:
You have surely seen a security guard in front of a jewelry store or bank. Let's ask ourselves: but with 4,000 students dying every year, why doesn't the US put security guards in front of every school?
The answer is that to do so it would be necessary to increase the school budget.
But, surprise surprise: in American history, with the same purchasing power, the budget for primary education (which the state does, with some exceptions) has NEVER increased.
behind the massacres in schools there is not only the problem of weapons or the NRA lobby. There is a historic government indifference to whatever school problems are. Americans just give a shit about public school.
But coincidentally, the massacres do not take place in all schools: in the private ones there are security guards and how. If you go to American PRIVATE schools, you will find these:
Quite simply, private schools have a higher budget and can afford armed guards.
So if you try to propose security in public schools, you will face another lobby, which is not that of weapons, but that of PRIVATE schools, which want to keep ahead by offering affluent parents "a safer environment".
Whenever there is a shooting in a school, at least in the vicinity there will be N families who do the math in their pockets and get information to understand how much a private school costs. With the vigilantes.
The insecurity of American public schools and the feeling that their children are in danger, that is, suits private schools. Not a small business.
Obviously, little is said about the lobby of private schools in the Italian press, so as not to annoy the Vatican.
Of course, these shootings don't just happen in schools. Some time ago they also happened in Malls (shopping centers, in short), crowded restaurants, etc. But over time the security men have begun to proliferate, which today in the USA you can find, complete with uniforms and weapons, practically everywhere, from company porters to "good" restaurants, many large supermarkets, and so on. In the "gentrified" areas they are everywhere, and I did not mention the "gated communities", those gated residential neighborhoods where you enter through a gatehouse.
Of course, it also happens in Europe, but you won't find many outside Montenapoleone or Königsallee. In the USA it is very common.
The feeling of insecurity that a shopping mall shooting can give is enough to make people go shopping in a mall with an armed guard, for one thing.
That is, there is a security business, fueled both by the fact of having so many veterans of the armed forces, and by the sense of insecurity that spreads with every massacre.
Also in this case, if you propose to limit weapons to limit the massacres, you will not only have against the NRA and the lobby of private schools, but also that of the security agencies.
Am I trying to lessen the responsibilities of the NRA, the arms lobby? No. We know that they are pigs without conscience.
But what I mean is that NRA is not the only lobby that opposes it: if we also include things like insurance (your health insurance does not necessarily pay you in the event of a shooting: you have to pay a surplus for that), I can find at least half a dozen lobbies who will be against you if you try to make the US a less violent place. crime is a business!).
So no, the debate over these shootings, as to how it's done, is definitely smoke and mirrors.