"Down Arms, pleading in his blog the lovely Angela Vitaliano, telling the sad and emblematic story of Christina, born September 11, 2001 - in New York when the Twin Towers collapsed - and died nine years later in Tucson, while witnessing the meeting between the deputy Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents, trying to understand how democracy works.And I'm of course, body and soul, the part of this heartfelt appeal. The problem, however, is that the good citizens of Arizona (Arizona and beyond) do not seem to be of the same opinion. I read, in fact, in a dispatch agency Bloomberg, as follows: "There are growing after the carnage, sales of the Glock." The Glock - or, more exactly the Glock 19 - is the semi-automatic pistol used by Jared Lee Loughner (the pazzerellone that last Saturday, has renewed the very American tradition of the massacres of madness) to kill Christina and other 5 people and injured more seriously 14 (including, of course, the same Gabrielle Giffords, still hanging between life and death).
Indeed, given that the same gun was also used in April 2007, killing 32 people screened in the Virginia Tech massacre - you can safely say that the Glock 19 (very light and capable of firing 31 times in less than 10 seconds) has long been the "weapon of choice", the weapon of choice for those who, through madness, for pleasure or for political and religious faith, they feel the urge to kill as many humans as quickly as possible.
The agency attributes the exponential increase in sales to two factors. Al (rather unfounded, but very present) fear that after the massacre, selling the Glock may be prohibited or restricted, and - as required by the most elementary laws of commerce, advertising that the massacre has generated.
The Glock was created to kill. The more kills, the more you want. Wanting to look at things with a pinch of realistic cynicism with his performance in Tuscany Village in Tucson, Jared Lee Loughner has not only disseminated horror and dismay among many Americans (armed and unarmed) who hate violence, but has also given a effective television commercial free to Glock GmbH, the company Deutsh-Wagram, Austria, which produces the increasingly popular weapon.
Something like that - or if you prefer, something like a paradox - the rest is successful, with a look of wanting to give, even in the battle for the so-called "gun control" in the U.S.. In 1994, when Bill Clinton pushed through the last measure of some weight in this field (the so-called "Brady Bill" which prohibited a number of military weapons and introduced the requirement of a prior criminal history and psychological control over buyers weapons), over 70 percent of the public was in favor of a more rigid control of the sale and distribution of firearms (250 million pieces or so).
Today, this figure fell to 44 percent. Merit of the NRA (the powerful lobby of manufacturers and owners of weapons) that in recent years has made - before the political class, then public opinion - in front of the inappropriate practice of a battle for the "gun control". In essence: who touches the "third rail" of the sale of arms control, died electrocuted.
And this for the simple fact that very rarely those who support the control consider this a decisive factor in choosing the candidate to vote for, while, on the contrary, on this - call it, if you like, the factor "F", as effe fanaticism - base their electoral choices advocates of full and absolute freedom to "bear arms".
In the presidential race of 2000 (decided by just over 500 votes and the political geography of the Supreme Court), Al Gore lost the state of Tennessee (his state), just for the campaign against him conducted by the NRA. Or at least that was the conclusion to which came many of the politicos.
Result: very few since then have been that the Democrats have staked his political career in the name of "gun control". And less and less - inevitably - the Americans are now willing to believe in the possibility of limiting the sale of arms. So much so that Obama - the candidate of change and hope - from the very first bars of his presidential campaign in 2008, one thing made clear: he of the Second Amendment (the one that guarantees the "right to bear arms") was an unconditional supporter.
And, if elected, would do nothing (a promise kept) to restrict arms sales in the United States of America. Some might, at this point, thinking that, in their triumph, the NRA and the American right (which, notoriously, consider the "freedom to arm themselves" an essential element of their ideological arsenal) have, like, weakened his aggression .
But the opposite is true. With the election of Obama (under his direction, we recall the way, the right to bear arms was surreptitiously extended to national parks) aggression is, indeed, become a real form of paranoia. The government - have been repeated in these two years, making each echo, the NRA and the Tea Party - is preparing to knock on your door to take away their weapons in what can only be the first step towards a new form of tyranny.
Which tyranny - see health care reform - will, through its "faceless bureaucrats", to decide about life and death of citizens become subjects. So not only continue to arm yourselves, but be prepared to shoot. The massacre of Tucson - whatever the ideas going on in the sick mind of Jared Lee Loughner - has matured into this artfully fed paranoia.
And this paranoia are part of the "sights" - the best known of countless cases - in which the campaign of Sarah Palin (Angela also speaks in his blog) had framed Gabrielle Giffords and other Democratic candidates "to be killed" ( "Take Down the 20" campaign was called). Question: What will be, now, the consequences of the massacre? America "will lower the weapons" as Angela calls? O - as the news of Bloomberg seems to suggest - the rise further? Christina How many more must die, nine years, trying to understand how American democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment