Voghera, the Adriatici case shows that banning private individuals from arming themselves is typical of dictatorships – Libero Quotidiano

Voghera, the Adriatici case shows that banning private individuals from arming themselves is typical of dictatorships – Libero Quotidiano
Voghera, the Adriatici case shows that banning private individuals from arming themselves is typical of dictatorships – Libero Quotidiano

Giovanni Sallusti

July 23, 2021

The stupid progressive Italian has been enriched with a new chapter, the Boeotian slogan StopArmiPrivate. To support the catchphrase, vaguely jackal as it was set up on the case of the Northern League councilor of Voghera Massimo Adriatici who in a scuffle exploded a fatal blow against the irregular Moroccan Youns El Bossettaoui, also the commander in chief of the banally correct Democrat, Enrico Letta. Who in a tweet gave us the following meditation: «It is a sad day. Investigators and judicial authorities will decide. But one thing we must and can do: StopArmiPrivate. Only policemen and carabinieri around with weapons ». And of course the proposal is very popular with people who like it, starting with the very radical mayors of Milan and Florence, Beppe Sala and Dario Nardella.

But, for that matter, the dem secretary can boast much more prestigious climbing partners. Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un, for example, are the almost plenipotentiary leaders of Communist China and the dictator of North Korea, respectively. Or, if we want to make a historical exercise, two gentlemen not irrelevant for the convulsions of the twentieth century, such Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. It is not a provocation, but a theoretical and practical obviousness: the first concern of any totalitarianism is to prevent citizens (or rather, subjects) from defending themselves from the abuses and persecutions of the State / Party. It may be a coincidence, but the more restrictive laws on “private weapons” bear the following, enlightened signatures. Soviet Union, 1929: strict gun control. Germany, 1938: law against the free movement of arms. China, 1935, similar prohibition, still in force today, as indeed, as mentioned, in North Korea.

It will always be a coincidence, but what remains the largest liberal democracy in the world, the United States of America, on the contrary, does not think in the least, despite the periodic moralistic screams on this side of the Atlantic, to abolish the infamous Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to possess weapons. Indeed, in their culture it is the extreme guarantee, and therefore untouchable, against the possibility that power degenerates into tyranny (in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Which country can keep its freedom if its rulers are not reminded that the population retains its spirit of resistance?”).

Is it excess of laxity of a nation built on the Colt (and on the intangibility of the individual, en passant)? Could be. What is certain is the name of those countries that in history have prevented by law “guns to private individuals”, as the mourners of the Italian left shout: dictatorships.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

PREV Few people know that this annoying symptom could signal an excess of vitamin D
NEXT LIVE COVID-19 – The Lazio bulletin. F1, Raikkonen positive. The vaccine situation in Italy: overtaking France and Germany. Victims alert in the USA