Mr J.D. Longstreet (Canada Free Press; source of translation - Mixednews.ru) quite seriously talks about the war between America and America:
“You see, America at this very moment is in full swing preparing to start a war with itself a second time. This is not unusual ... We already had two revolutions. You can recall the American Revolution against Britain and the second - the War of Independence of the South, which is often mistakenly called the Civil War in the United States or the War of the Northern and Southern States. "
The author notes the growing tensions throughout the country. Citizens are buying up weapon and ammunition. At arms factories, he writes, "piles of unfulfilled orders have grown." Americans "are preparing for the day when words no longer remain ..."
“The weapon that is in the hands of the civilian population is known to be enough to equip every woman and child in today's America — well over three hundred million.”
And if this is a lot, then in 2013 it will be much more. Manufacturers of "trunks" do not keep up with demand ...
"The very first exchange of fire between government agents and American citizens will be the flashpoint of the devouring whirlwind, which will cover the nation and nullify any possibility that America will be able to restore its former appearance."
What will be the cause of the protracted sharp conflict between the citizens of America, especially with respect to law-abiding and respectable? Perhaps, the southerners still do not like the black president who sat down on the throne for the next four years? Or both Southerners and Northerners agree with Mr. Senator McCain and believe that the past greatness of the United States, with the shame of carrying away the legs from the Middle East, does not remain and a trace - and the fault of that is Obama’s wrong policy, and he must be swept away from the White House, in full according to the Declaration of Independence? Or is someone trying to go contrary to the Constitution, and the citizens do not like it?
The cause of the coming civil war, as J. D. Longstreet thinks (he really wants to think so), can be a dispute between defenders and opponents of selling so-called “assault weapons”, but rather a dispute over the Second Amendment. The author himself is a supporter of America’s internal armaments, and believes that others like him are “determined to defend the constitution against all its enemies, internal and external.” Thus, civilian enemies are appointed — opponents of the private arms trade.
“For those of you,” the author scares the readers, “who allegedly serves society in their positions in Congress: remember, we are closely following your maneuvers aimed at depriving us of our constitutional rights, and we will work tirelessly to ensure the end your career when you next go to the polls. We promise. "
Workers of the media this American calls "idiots" who do not understand that
“... freedom of the press, freedom of speech can be ensured only when the right to possess and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The activities of the press is inextricably linked with armed citizens. There will be no armed Americans, nor will there be an independent, non-state-controlled press. ”
Hot Mr. Longstreet should read Mark Twain's “Journalism in Tennessee”:
“Both pistols struck simultaneously. The editor lost a tuft of hair, and the colonel’s bullet lodged in the fleshy part of my thigh. Colonel scratched his left shoulder. They fired again. At this time, neither one nor the other of the opponents was hurt, but something came to my share — a bullet in the shoulder. In the third shot, both gentlemen were slightly injured, and my wrist was crushed. Then I said that I would probably go for a walk, as this is their own business, and I consider it indelicate to interfere in it. However, both gentlemen convincingly asked me to stay and assured me that I didn’t bother them at all.
Then, reloading the pistols, they talked about the elections and the types of harvest, and I began to dress my wounds. But they, without delay, again opened a lively exchange of fire, and not a single shot was not in vain. Five of the six went to my share ... "
Then, reloading the pistols, they talked about the elections and the types of harvest, and I began to dress my wounds. But they, without delay, again opened a lively exchange of fire, and not a single shot was not in vain. Five of the six went to my share ... "
Here it is, an independent, non-state-controlled press (southern), described with a slight sense of humor. The activity of this press is undoubtedly "connected with armed citizens." Such a press in the literal sense of the word creates a "free speech", defining the Second Amendment as the main argument of the negotiations. The one with the adoption of which a whole century has passed since the time of Mark Twain.
“And because of such idiocy, people can cling to each other's throats.
And here we are again ready to arrange internecine strife, brother to brother, because of a question that was resolved two and a half centuries ago, ”wrote the wild Mr. Longstreet.
And here we are again ready to arrange internecine strife, brother to brother, because of a question that was resolved two and a half centuries ago, ”wrote the wild Mr. Longstreet.
The question is who will be the first to grapple with whom, the author does not ask himself or his readers. Firstly, it is clear to him who will start. Secondly, readers can guess about this. Who has a weapon, they will start shooting first. Those with hot heads will start. Those who have more ammunition. They always start. Someone always attacks, and someone defends. Everything is simple and scary.
It is unlikely that opponents of the arms trade from somewhere in New York will trample under white flags against Texans or Louisiana residents. But the opposite for some reason seems quite probable. Without white flags, of course.
The author throws in the face of those who “think to disarm” such as he, that, they say, in today's America there has been too much pent up anger. If the weapon dispute goes "beyond the stage of talk", then the violence in the country will reach an unprecedented scale.
Do you know what Mr. J. D. Longstreet makes his article? He is threatened.
Yes, he threatens those who will continue to oppose the "disarmament" of citizens, against the "assault weapons", from which adults and children are shot in terrible regularity in the USA.
At the same time, he is scaring the public that the US arms dispute will quickly turn into a dispute about “will the country continue to exist as a single entity from the 50 states or will it fall into separate states?”
For some reason, he believes that the Americans do not understand this. Probably because he thinks so that many of them are really against weapons.
Especially for these imbeciles, J. D. Longstreet reports that "as soon as a serious struggle begins, there will be no turning back, as there will be no way, and when it ends."
At the end of the article, he says that he does not want war in his homeland. But in his words hard to believe. Rather, this Mr. anticipates the war, gladly writes about it, intimidates his potential adversaries. He waits can not wait for the day when you can start to kill. And when his native southern state finally gained independence from the black president.
One can only ask: hey, boy, and why do you broadcast from Canada?
Ii. On patriotism and constitutionality
The main mouthpiece of the American opposition (or rather, the alarmist-minded opposition, which acts equally against Democrats and Republicans and advocates for the freedom of America and its return to certain values of the founding fathers) - site Infowars.com. On the issue of “disarming” US citizens, he adheres exclusively to the Second Amendment of 1791 of the year, allowing everyone to arm. There is such an amendment, therefore, we will all go around with shotguns, pistols, rifles and store at home in the closets of the Glokov and Zig Sauers collections - about the same as Adam Lanza’s mother, a resident of Newtown.
Such logic, in many respects similar to the thinking of aggressive types from the National Rifle Association of the USA (motto: “It is not gun shots, man shoots”), is followed on the above-mentioned website.
After the tragedy of December 14 in Connecticut and after the statement of Democratic Senator Dian Feinstein about the need for prohibitive measures against "assault weapons" on Infowars, many articles of various authors appeared (including those copied from other sources) protesting against the infringement of the constitutional right of Americans on the weapon.
For example, 13 January on the resource was made public article one of the ardent opponents of the "disarmament" of Kurt Nimmo. Obama's preliminary actions (very mild, by the way, formal, and hardly promising almost complete disarmament, which was held in Australia's 1996 year), undertaken in response to public and senate initiatives, including the proposal to disarm those Americans The government qualified as terrorism, a journalist calls "measures aimed at rolling back the Second Amendment."
That is, obviously, even terrorists in the United States should be armed: for this allows them the Second Amendment. Such a wide margin in America is probably the ideal of the authors Infowars.com. Here, they deny any reform of Obama, any proposal of Congress. These journalists must be the basis of all the basics of 1791 year. Well, well, guys: why don't you go out on the streets with muskets? Dianne Feinstein does not object to museum exhibits.
In addition to the Democratic Senator Feinstein, who is extremely unpleasant to the author of the article by the mere fact that she “led the newest efforts against the Second Amendment,” and in addition she commands the Senate Intelligence Committee (which also seems to be a sin), Kurt Nimmo is outraged by the fact that US weapons “continue to exploit the Sandy Hook school, along with other armed violence incidents. Moreover, in the opinion of a heated journalistic head, now the opponents of weapons will begin to compile all kinds of lists of enemies “for observation”, thereby achieving certain political goals.
The so-called firearm control, according to alarmist Nimmo, is not at all aimed primarily at protecting children. It is, he angrily remarks, about the removal from office of political opponents. And who sees the Democratic Party as enemies? Who has she actually cornered and designated as disruptive? The author answers his own question: groups of patriots and constitutionalists who "understand the importance of the Second Amendment and its real purpose - armed defense against tyranny."
As in the previous article discussed above, here is a transparent hint of the coming confrontation. Only under threatening constructions this time is laid down a clear theoretical base, whose strong foundation is “patriotism” and “constitutionality”. Comrade Obama is on the other side of the barricades.
Iii. Thirteen sentences
Actually, neither Obama nor the Democratic Party plan to ban weapons. Alarmists sound the alarm only because they are alarmists. They need any reason to show that everything is bad, they were right in their gloomy predictions.
Today we are talking only about the bureaucratic complication of procedures for the acquisition of weapons. It is likely that new strict restrictions on the total number of 13 related to the arms trade will be introduced at the federal level in the United States, and supervision of the circulation of arms and ammunition will also be strengthened. Philip Rucker writes about this in a newspaper. Washington Post, and you can't call it a mouthpiece of alarmism.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) recommends thirteen new proposals for the arms trade to the White House. All these proposals take into account the wishes of the progressive American community.
CAP offers include: the requirement of universal identity checks, a ban on selling military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity stores, upgrading weapons sales tracking systems, and enforcing existing laws. All these proposals will certainly face a tough confrontation between the National Rifle Association and its many congressional allies.
Nevertheless, Obama and Vice President Biden have already expressed support for many of these measures. However, it is still not clear what kind of weapon policy the Congress will ultimately propose.
The CAP recommendations are extensive and present an 11-page report, specifically conveyed last week by The Washington Post. In fact, they represent the policy orientation of Obama and his team, set by the demands of those people who urge him to take some decisive step after the slaughter in elementary school in Newtown.
Nira Tanden, President of CAP, said:
“There (in the document. - O. Ch.) There is nothing that violates the right of people to have a weapon for self-defense. But every day our weapons fall into the wrong hands, and that’s why we consider it important that the president approves this act. ”
The main recommendation of CAP is to require verification of personal data for all sales of weapons. It represents the closure of loopholes that today allow you to buy a face weapon without any questions. This is about 40 percent of all arms sales in America.
The organization would also like to create special lists that would include people previously convicted, persons suspected of terrorism, as well as those who are already prohibited from acquiring firearms.
CAP also calls on the Obama administration to accept Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposal to ban sales of “assault weapons”. Here we are talking not only about trade. Proposals include a ban on sales, transfer, import and manufacture of military-style military weapons and stores designed for more than 10 cartridges.
Fighters for "disarmament" also believe that firearm dealers must submit to the federal government a list of individuals who have acquired several semi-automatic rifles within five days.
CAP also wants the presidential administration, with the help of health research institutions, including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to study injuries and deaths caused by armed violence. Over the years, legislators committed to lobbyists from the National Shooting Association of the United States have blocked spending on bills that restrict these and other institutions from conducting similar research.
* * *
For alarmists as well as southern supporters of independence, it doesn’t matter what Barack Obama says or does, Mr. Biden or Senator Dianne Feinstein. Any initiative of theirs - whether it is a reform of health insurance, complication of procedures for the sale of weapons or a "reset" with Russia - will be met by those who believe that any step of the presidential administration or democratic senators is an anti-constitutional inclination. It is difficult to judge how these protesters behaved, be elected to the presidency of Mitt Romney. Although it is known that the Misters from Infowars.com spoke against Romney in the same way as they did against Obama. They talked about these competitors like this: one is worse than the other.
But if, gentlemen alarmists, America in the difficult days of the crisis cannot put forward a real leader, would you like to think about whether you have a leader at all? If these two nominees - Romney and Obama - are disgusting to you, what can you say about the genius of the war, recognized by a psychiatrist as not quite normal, who ruled the White House before Obama for two consecutive terms? About the man who was not at all against the weapon and who, while still a governor, enjoyed the death penalty, personally attending many? Maybe it is for you a sample of courage, freedom and independence?
Take it easy. The American Civil War does not shine. For a civil war to start in the United States, there must be a civil society divided into two camps. And what is not - that is not. If alarmists are in favor of “muskets” and against the proposals of the CAP and Senator Feinstein, some southerners (from the strength of them will be two thousand two hundred - two hundred fifty), starting with Texans rich in oil, have long been talking about separation from the United States. Will they unite on this controversial basis with alarmists who stand in solidarity with them on the issue of weapons, but are in favor of united America? It's funny and thinking. Rather, the Department of Homeland Security, with the participation of the FBI, the army, and the police, will either send those in small quantities to plastic coffins or to a freshly built GULAG. This is at the worst alarmist scenario.
In America, there is no civil society, but there are only power-separated individuals who are worried about giving Texas too much to America, getting too little in return, and who will not be able to buy a new AR-15 rifle. Third individuals, sucking from a jar of coca-cola, are concentrating on Jennifer Lopez or Tom Cruise.
For example, such a diverse collection of private interests is considered a civil society. Suppose that the US Constitution, pasted over from head to toe, should be maintained forever like the tablets with which the biblical comrade Moses dealt with. After all, this is what other members of the “civil society” who are nostalgic for 1791 want. But is it then necessary to be surprised that the ridiculous example of American democracy, no matter how Washington imposes it, does not take root anywhere? Nowhere, even in the USSR, when under Gorbachev the striped flag pants were in fashion; nowhere, even in America itself, about which the clever psychologist Frankl (a former prisoner of a fascist concentration camp) wrote forty years ago that young people there end up with the loss of the meaning of life.
Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru