Shooting themselves in the foot? Amendment to the Constitution that has divided the United States for decades | Israel Today

"Since a well-run militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and possess a weapon shall not be infringed upon," reads the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment, as its name implies, was intended to amend the initial draft of the constitution that the various states in the United States were asked to approve. It was written long before automatic weapons were invented, and long before the issue began to divide America

. Britain and becoming independent, it was clear to any reasonable person, regardless of his political affiliation, one thing: for a situation that existed in Britain, which concentrated power and power in the hands of a monarchical or central government, must not be repeated.

So when the fathers of the nation like Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison gathered in Philadelphia to draft a constitution (for all its shortcomings and discrimination against women and blacks), the goal before them was as clear as day: to ensure that King George's tyranny did not repeat itself Itself in the federation they create.

For this reason, they considerably limited the power of the President in domestic affairs and formulated clauses that would ensure him a perpetual headache in front of Congress;

For this reason they created a system of separation of powers and balances and brakes, which were revolutionary for their time;

And for this reason, in the process of ratifying the constitution, an amendment was also introduced that ensures access to weapons.

But to whom will it be given?

And how sweeping will it be?

This is the question that divides America even today.

And especially this week, after the Las Vegas massacre, in which 59 people were killed.

Abysmal differences between countries

During the drafting of the Constitution it was clear that the military power needed to be preserved by the people, as a central guarantee that there would be no totalitarian rule - for example, it survived them from London until 1776. Thomas Jefferson, undoubtedly one of the figures most identified with the spirit of the period. The big ones in weakening the centralized regime, also at the risk of slipping into violence.

"Little uprisings here and there," he once said, "it's not so bad."

More than 200 years later, America is grappling with the question of how this amendment should be implemented.

Incidentally, the First Amendment to the Constitution - which guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of expression - often allows for difficult-to-watch plays, such as neo-Nazi marches and riots that elsewhere lead to an indictment for incitement.

However, it is hard to imagine that America would ever repeal these two amendments.

President of the United States Thomas Jefferson

But if the second amendment is an integral part of the American being, why does it divide America?

The reason lies mainly in its vague wording.

The first part deals with a well-run militia;

The second part says that the people should not be prevented from possessing weapons.

For the left, the amendment allows states, i.e. the people, to produce militias that will counterbalance the federal government through their own forces (what is now known as the National Guard of each state and state, usually responsible for conducting large-scale emergencies and riots).

For the right, the amendment refers to the citizen's personal right to bear arms, not necessarily within the framework of a militia.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been required to rule on the issue several times, and meanwhile the right-wing interpretation has won. And to walk the street without interruption, even without a proper license;

In other countries, on the other hand, it is permissible to carry a weapon only when it is hidden from view (and only after a thorough examination).

Selling at an arms store in the United States // Photo: AFP,

Although in the 1990s the "Brady Law" was enacted (following the severe injury of James Brady, a spokesman for President Ronald Reagan, during the 1981 assassination attempt on the president), which required a background check on those seeking to acquire weapons.

But the law only applies to official sales at gun shops, or from people whose profession it is.

How should a transfer of arms outside of a formal transaction, such as a gift from a white father, be treated?

At the federal level, there is no way to curb the phenomenon.

Not only that, but as long as it is an American citizen with no criminal record, who is not dangerous to the public - the state can not prohibit him from possessing a weapon in his home.

While federal law prohibits civilians from carrying automatic weapons, there is no impediment to obtaining "cracks" that would make it possible to turn the weapon into one.

It seems that the next big battle on the issue will focus on these items.

President Trump has already shown signs of willingness to talk about changing gun laws, but the decision is not up to him, but to Congress.

Shots in the Cultural War

Amid the heated debate, only one thing seems undisputed: the NRA - the National Rifle Organization, which functions as the U.S. Arms Holders' Lobby - has succeeded in convincing the public that weapons are part of American existence. Other freedoms, too, thus paving the way for a slippery slope that would lead to the U.S. becoming the Big Brother state.

The NRA has succeeded in conveying the message that the solution for a crazy person carrying a weapon is many armed citizens who can protect themselves from lunatics.

Of course, this conclusion is not always correct.

"Many Americans believe that if there are more weapons in the public sphere, general security will increase and crime will fall," Politico recently wrote, "although studies show that in places where gun laws are less stringent, homicide rates remain the same."

The shooting at a Texas school, Photo: Reuters

At the end of the day, like everything in today's America, it's part of the civil war: between the coastal towns, for whom weapons are a recipe for violence, and the villagers in the southern states, who see weapons as a necessary tool for defense and part of the hunting heritage they educated;

Between the liberals, who believe that a large availability of weapons will inevitably lead to more cases of violence, and the conservatives, who believe that the lack of deterrent enforcement leads to repeated violence among criminals.

One can bet cautiously that even after the massacre in Texas, which terrified the state due to the young age of the murdered, America is unlikely to turn its back on its legacy as a nation of weapons.

As has been the case since other massacres - in debating between stricter arms regulations and civil liberties, a clear majority in the US will opt for the latter option. Suspicion of the regime is part of the American psyche, and it crosses sectors. 

Were we wrong?

Fixed!

If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us