"Freedom" in the USA: On Top of Piles of Corpses

In this article: 
"Freedom" in the USA: On Top of Piles of Corpses
Fecha de publicación: 
30 June 2022

Not for a minute does violence stop in the United States, and already the death toll from shootings is close to that of drug or medication overdoses, although still far from suicide, an endemic evil clinging to the system.

In the first years of the North American republic, those who left Europe later found that something similar was being forged in the promised land. Today, those who flee from hunger, exploitation or, simply, to improve their economic conditions, find themselves with a nation where life is worth nothing, where only the Powerful Knight Mr. Money matters, as the renegade figures of their homeland speculate in the various groups that swarm in Miami.

When crying out to do something against so much violence, such as the killing of children in schools, killings for any trivial reason, the Supreme Court of Justice ignored it and responded this Thursday, June 23, with a greater right to carry weapons, saying "Americans have the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense," overturning New York's "proper cause" requirement, which will unsettle a quarter of the population living in states that will be affected by the law passed.

The last time the court made major gun decisions was in 2008 and 2010, when it established a national right to keep a gun for self-defense in a person's home, and now it has just been allowed outside the home, in public.

Judge Clarece Thomas wrote in the court's majority opinion that the right extended outside the home as well: "Nothing in the text of the Second Amendment draws a distinction between the home and the public with respect to the right to keep and bear arms."

The ruling split the court 6-3, with the conservative justices in majority. In addition to Thomas, the majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alto, Neil Garnucho, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberals on the court who dissented are Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

So, in the future, New Yorkers will no longer be required to give a specific reason why they want to be able to carry a gun in public.

The decision also doesn't take effect immediately, and state lawmakers said Thursday they planned to review the licensing rules this summer. They have yet to detail their plans. Some options under discussion include requiring firearms training and a clean criminal record. The state could also prohibit the carrying of firearms in certain places, such as near schools or on public transportation.

The Associated Press, which charts the free movement of armed people in Hempstead, New York, argues that the decision does not address the law recently passed in New York in response to the Buffalo grocery store massacre that, among other things, banned anyone under the age of 21 buying or possessing a semi-automatic rifle.

A handful of states have laws similar to New York, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware.

While President Joe Biden just said that the Supreme Court's decision is "troubling," conservative justices tried to make up the situation, suggesting that states can still require people to obtain a license to carry a weapon, and condition them on “fingerprints, a background check, a mental health record check, and training in handling firearms and use of force laws, among other possible requirements.” The so-called gun control groups, really inoperative, said that states could review and perhaps increase those requirements, and say that those with a license to carry a gun should not do so openly, but should conceal them.

Quite a mockery since the prohibitions on criminals and the mentally ill having weapons have not been faithfully complied with, in addition to the fact that the Court's decision does not mention the types of weapons people can own.


Fifteen Republican senators joined Democrats in passing the largest gun safety package in three decades, providing a rare moment of bipartisanship on a politically divisive issue and a much-needed victory for Biden, which is nonetheless flimsy taking into account what the present requires and remains in question, after the decision of the Supreme Court to publicly allow the carrying of weapons, without being a crime, thanks to the revered Second Amendment.

Candy Woodall, a congressional reporter for USA TODAY, highlights that the bill's passing was a massive change in a Republican Party that has always been a firewall against any attempt to restrict gun rights.

But the top Republican negotiator of the arms deal, Sen. John Corning of Texas, said the legislation saves lives without infringing on Second Amendment rights, to the delight of lobbyists serving the National Rifle Association (NRA), who has mocked all his opponents, mainly Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who has been fighting for reform since the mass shooting at Newtown Elementary School in December 2012.

His efforts were renewed last month after a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, prompted him to call his colleagues from the Senate: "What are we doing?"

Senators finally passed the bipartisan Safer Communities Act 65-33 Thursday night, after nearly two months of passionate debate. The deal now heads to the House of Representatives, where it´s expected to pass, despite House Republican leaders encouraging their members to vote against it.

Even without a single Republican representative, House Democrats have a majority to pass the bill without Republican support and send it to Biden. It's a development the president can advertise as an achievement at a time when his poll numbers are plummeting, to just 39% approval and 47% disapproval, as Americans grow more frustrated with inflation and grim economic predictions.

Biden and other Democrats had been pushing for a broader package than is included in the Senate deal. Both Democrats and Republicans got some of what they wanted in the Senate deal, including $15 billion for health services, mental health, and school safety.

In any case, the law is still green, because it does not include the banning of assault weapons and the restricted sale of weapons to anyone under age 21, which, in any case, is something that will not give much loss to the NRA and its partner$.

Woodall admits the Senate arms deal leaves voters on both sides unsatisfied, frustrated.


Armed violence has become a serious and widespread problem in the US and the laws legislated for weapons control are really naive, avoiding to harm the aforementioned interests of those who profit from them at all levels. It´s not the first time that we have written about the possibility of eliminating the Second Amendment, misunderstood and obsolete, which does not want to be contemplated by the establishment.

Regardless, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for repeal of the Second Amendment in an op-ed for The New York Times, encouraging protesters demanding more gun control that they also asked for the repeal.

Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment "was uniformly understood as placing no limit on federal or state authority to enact gun control laws" until the decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller lawsuit in 2008. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that there is an individual right to bear arms, -rejected by Stevens and three other justices-, which "has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of enormous power."

In Justice Stevens' opinion, voiding that decision through a constitutional amendment to kill the Second Amendment "would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA's ability to stalemate legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option."


All of the above means that the only possible solution is the revoke of the constitutional amendment.

The US Constitution was created to do a variety of things, including delineating the powers of the federal and state governments and protecting the rights of the people. Considering the importance of this document, it’s not surprising that changing the Constitution is not that easy. In fact, the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcohol, is the only amendment that has been repealed with the adoption of the 21st Amendment.

There are two ways to repeal an amendment. One way is for the proposed amendment to pass both the House and the Senate with a two-thirds majority vote. The proposed amendment would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The second way to repeal an amendment is to have a Constitutional Convention. It would take two-thirds of the state legislatures to call for this convention and the states would draft amendments, which would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Considering the high threshold for making such a change to the Constitution, it’s unlikely that the Second Amendment will be repealed. After all, as Kevin McMahon, a political science professor and constitutional law expert, pointed out to CBS News: "It's hard enough getting gun control legislation through Congress now, which just requires a simple majority."

Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.