terça-feira, 23 de junho de 2015

How many firearms requires a well-organized civil militia?

There is one aspect of the massacre less discussed in public: the legislation on the possession of weapons. The history of the United States formed a cultural profile of the nation which is not easy to understand for the Europeans, in particular with regard to the use of firearms by private individuals.

The discussion about gun ownership has become a poisoned terrain over the years. Nowadays, it is almost impossible to legislate in favour of a stricter gun control, because the powerful lobby of producers keeps a firm control on national and State legislators and can derail even the most tiny changes to the status quo-despite public opinion to demonstrate in favour of the introduction of stricter checks of potential gun buyers.

Here are the stats: Per population, we kill each other with guns at a rate 297x more than Japan, 49x more than France, 33x more than Israel.

When Barack Obama spoke to the nation after the shooting Charleston, was the frustration of perceptive President on this impasse. Obama gave clear signal this feeling by recognizing that "this kind of mass violence does not happen in other civilized countries".

Following the massacre of students and teachers in primary school Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, Obama tried, unsuccessfully, to pass new gun-control measures and the opposition to his proposals weighed once again faced with the tragedy of Charleston.

Why this resistance in the United States the adoption of policy measures that put obstacle to armed violence. Here are five important facts that can help you understand the issue:

The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Approved in December 15, 1791, along with the other nine first constitutional amendments contained in the Bill of rights of the United States, States that "Being necessary to the security of a free State, the existence of a well-organised militia, the right of the people to own and use guns cannot be stopped."

It has long been debated in the United States if the political environment of the 18th century (when the pioneers in remote territories were forced to defend themselves against the Indians, the British soldiers or gangs of robbers) can serve as a practical model for regulating the use of weapons by citizens.

In the case of district of Columbia vs. Heller, in 2008, the Supreme Court issued a historic judgment, claiming that the Second amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear firearms and, declaring unconstitutional the law at the same time the District of Columbia, which proíbia the possession of arms to residents. Was thus established the individual right of citizens of the United States to arm themselves, voiding the law that, 32 years before, had forbidden that if I had a gun at home for self-defense, in Washington.

So, the judges reversed previous interpretations of the Constitution. In the case United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; This is in no way dependent on that instrument for its existence "and limits the applicability of the second amendment to the federal Government.

In the case United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Government and the States could limit any kinds of weapons are justified as collateral of "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

In the process versus Chicago on 2010 McDonald, the Court clarified the earlier decisions, declaring that the decision applied not only to the federal Government, but also, to the same extent, State and local governments. The ruling gave a definitive reading of the Second Amendment, which since 1791 sancionara the right to bear arms, recognizing this right as inviolable, as well as the right to vote and freedom of expression.

If You Enjoyed This, Take 5 Seconds To Share It