By Gene Owens
Some day some historical and linguistic genius may be able to tell us what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, tying the need for a well-regulated militia to the right to keep and bear arms.
My guess - and it's only a guess - is that the amendment was an answer to the need for a well-armed populace able to rally immediately to defend the community against hostile Indians, British, French or Spanish camped at their borders.
I don't think it envisioned a theater packed with pistol-packing patrons armed against possible intrusions by heavily armed psychopaths clad in body armor.
Inevitably, in the wake of the barbaric incident in the theater at Aurora, Colo., the Second Amendment becomes the subject of second-guessing. Among the nonsense circulating on the Internet is a picture of somebody with a semi-automatic pistol tucked inside the belt and the assertion that had just one person been so armed, lives would have been saved. This gives rise to the belief - too popular, I'm afraid - that the solution to such multiple killings is to arm every God-fearing American with, at minimum, a 9mm Glock, as protection against random assaults by psychopaths.
The problem comes when you try to distinguish God-fearing Americans from crazy Americans who want to use their guns to kill innocent people. Maybe we should require all psychopaths to wear a scarlet "P" on their T-shirts. But then I doubt that most crazies would voluntarily comply with that law.
I can imagine few scenarios scarier than a dark theater packed with strangers armed with semi-automatic weapons. Such an assemblage could in no way be compared to "a well-regulated militia," and I can't imagine their being effective against a determined intruder wielding an assault rifle, shotgun and semi-automatic pistol, any of them capable of wiping out multiple lives within seconds.
I can imagine a wild shootout, with panicky shots being launched against anyone whose head rose above the seats; at any flash that might indicate a gunshot being fired.
Now, imagine that kind of crowd roaming freely through shopping malls, rock concerts, political rallies, public parades - any locale in which masses of people would be within easy shot of anybody armed with an assault gun.
What you'd have is a powder keg in which the smallest argument could trigger a tragic explosion.
Anger management is a much-neglected part of our education these days, and in too many instances, hot-heads packing heat would be inclined to settle differences with bullets instead of logic.
Second-Amendment devotees - and there are millions of honest and good people among them - like to think that a gun-toting citizenry is an effective safeguard against tyranny.
That, too, is nonsense. Adolf Hitler did not come to power by disarming Germans. He entrenched his power by arming them. He rode to power on a tide of resentment against the excesses of the Treaty of Versailles and a frenzy of ethnic hatred, which he skillfully whipped up with his gift for rhetoric. The German people were seduced by treachery into welcoming Hitler. The Wehrmacht was heavily armed, and had it opposed Hitler's rule, it could have deposed him. I don't think a well-armed but disorganized German citizenry could have stood up against the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo or the SS.
It's hard to imagine any would-be tyrant disarming individual Americans. This still is a nation of laws - of laws enacted by elected representatives who at any time are no more than two years away from answering to the voters. The National Rifle Association has an uncommon ability to defend the right to keep and bear arms against all attacks by political force or by logic. You haven't heard either of the presidential candidates speak out against the Second Amendment, have you? They know better.
Because of the Second Amendment, James Holmes was able to purchase his assault rifle, his double-barreled shotgun and 6,000 rounds of ammunition without breaking the law or calling undue attention to himself.
The people in the theater were legally free to do the same thing had they believed it necessary to protect themselves.
Repeal of the Second Amendment probably would have had little effect on what happened there. Without the Second Amendment, Congress and state legislatures would still be free to write statutory law accomplishing the same thing: guaranteeing the right of individuals to own firearms, whether for sporting purposes or for self-defense. Given the pervasive influence of the gun lobby, it's hard to imagine any popularly elected government passing laws utterly outlawing guns. Many of them undoubtedly would have outlawed assault weapons such as Holmes' AR-15 rifle, but in this nation of 50 separate state jurisdictions, the shooter could easily have bought the gun in a state where the weapon was permitted.
The advantage of repealing the Second Amendment would be that Congress and legislatures could more easily tailor gun laws to the needs of the 21st century instead of the 18th. The disadvantage would be that the Bill of Rights has stood as a valuable protector of individual rights, and tampering with one of those 10 amendments would set a dangerous precedent for tampering with others.
In this age of swift travel and pervasive communication, we are all vulnerable to the James Holmeses. In a culture that turns violence into living-room entertainment, we should not be surprised to see it occasionally burst into reality.
Fortunately, we're statistically unlikely to encounter a James Homes in our local theaters. Arming every patron who enters such a theater would statistically multiply the chances the on-screen mayhem would be replicated off-screen.
Gene Owens is a retired newspaper editor and columnist who graduated from Graniteville High School and now lives in Anderson.
Readers may write Gene Owens at 104 Belspring Lane, Anderson SC 29621, or email him at WadesDixieco@AOL.com.![]()
Some day some historical and linguistic genius may be able to tell us what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, tying the need for a well-regulated militia to the right to keep and bear arms.
My guess - and it's only a guess - is that the amendment was an answer to the need for a well-armed populace able to rally immediately to defend the community against hostile Indians, British, French or Spanish camped at their borders.
I don't think it envisioned a theater packed with pistol-packing patrons armed against possible intrusions by heavily armed psychopaths clad in body armor.
Inevitably, in the wake of the barbaric incident in the theater at Aurora, Colo., the Second Amendment becomes the subject of second-guessing. Among the nonsense circulating on the Internet is a picture of somebody with a semi-automatic pistol tucked inside the belt and the assertion that had just one person been so armed, lives would have been saved. This gives rise to the belief - too popular, I'm afraid - that the solution to such multiple killings is to arm every God-fearing American with, at minimum, a 9mm Glock, as protection against random assaults by psychopaths.
The problem comes when you try to distinguish God-fearing Americans from crazy Americans who want to use their guns to kill innocent people. Maybe we should require all psychopaths to wear a scarlet "P" on their T-shirts. But then I doubt that most crazies would voluntarily comply with that law.
I can imagine few scenarios scarier than a dark theater packed with strangers armed with semi-automatic weapons. Such an assemblage could in no way be compared to "a well-regulated militia," and I can't imagine their being effective against a determined intruder wielding an assault rifle, shotgun and semi-automatic pistol, any of them capable of wiping out multiple lives within seconds.
I can imagine a wild shootout, with panicky shots being launched against anyone whose head rose above the seats; at any flash that might indicate a gunshot being fired.
Now, imagine that kind of crowd roaming freely through shopping malls, rock concerts, political rallies, public parades - any locale in which masses of people would be within easy shot of anybody armed with an assault gun.
What you'd have is a powder keg in which the smallest argument could trigger a tragic explosion.
Anger management is a much-neglected part of our education these days, and in too many instances, hot-heads packing heat would be inclined to settle differences with bullets instead of logic.
Second-Amendment devotees - and there are millions of honest and good people among them - like to think that a gun-toting citizenry is an effective safeguard against tyranny.
That, too, is nonsense. Adolf Hitler did not come to power by disarming Germans. He entrenched his power by arming them. He rode to power on a tide of resentment against the excesses of the Treaty of Versailles and a frenzy of ethnic hatred, which he skillfully whipped up with his gift for rhetoric. The German people were seduced by treachery into welcoming Hitler. The Wehrmacht was heavily armed, and had it opposed Hitler's rule, it could have deposed him. I don't think a well-armed but disorganized German citizenry could have stood up against the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo or the SS.
It's hard to imagine any would-be tyrant disarming individual Americans. This still is a nation of laws - of laws enacted by elected representatives who at any time are no more than two years away from answering to the voters. The National Rifle Association has an uncommon ability to defend the right to keep and bear arms against all attacks by political force or by logic. You haven't heard either of the presidential candidates speak out against the Second Amendment, have you? They know better.
Because of the Second Amendment, James Holmes was able to purchase his assault rifle, his double-barreled shotgun and 6,000 rounds of ammunition without breaking the law or calling undue attention to himself.
The people in the theater were legally free to do the same thing had they believed it necessary to protect themselves.
Repeal of the Second Amendment probably would have had little effect on what happened there. Without the Second Amendment, Congress and state legislatures would still be free to write statutory law accomplishing the same thing: guaranteeing the right of individuals to own firearms, whether for sporting purposes or for self-defense. Given the pervasive influence of the gun lobby, it's hard to imagine any popularly elected government passing laws utterly outlawing guns. Many of them undoubtedly would have outlawed assault weapons such as Holmes' AR-15 rifle, but in this nation of 50 separate state jurisdictions, the shooter could easily have bought the gun in a state where the weapon was permitted.
The advantage of repealing the Second Amendment would be that Congress and legislatures could more easily tailor gun laws to the needs of the 21st century instead of the 18th. The disadvantage would be that the Bill of Rights has stood as a valuable protector of individual rights, and tampering with one of those 10 amendments would set a dangerous precedent for tampering with others.
In this age of swift travel and pervasive communication, we are all vulnerable to the James Holmeses. In a culture that turns violence into living-room entertainment, we should not be surprised to see it occasionally burst into reality.
Fortunately, we're statistically unlikely to encounter a James Homes in our local theaters. Arming every patron who enters such a theater would statistically multiply the chances the on-screen mayhem would be replicated off-screen.
Gene Owens is a retired newspaper editor and columnist who graduated from Graniteville High School and now lives in Anderson.
Readers may write Gene Owens at 104 Belspring Lane, Anderson SC 29621, or email him at WadesDixieco@AOL.com.