PerryScope
By Perry Diaz
The deadly massacre that claimed the lives of 12 Americans and left 59 others wounded was one of the worst mass murders in U.S. history. The horrible – and despicable — act of suspected mass murderer James Eagan Holmes has made a lot of Americans wonder: What’s going on with our society?
Indeed, the United States of America — or simply “America,” as we fondly call the land of milk and honey – has gone wild and out of control. Too many Americans are dying unnecessarily and vainly in the bloody hands of people who have easy access to weapons of destruction, all under the constitutional guarantee of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
Sad to say, the suspected gunman used his Second Amendment rights to gain ownership of the firearms – all purchased and licensed legally – that he used to spray bullets in a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado during the premiere showing of the Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises.”
According to police investigation, the suspected gunman had planned the attack with “calculation and deliberation” by spacing out the deliveries of ammunition and other ordnance in months to avoid any suspicion of what he was going to do. And before he went on the rampage, he rigged his apartment with “jars of liquid, explosives and chemicals that were booby trapped to kill whoever entered it.” Fortunately, the Aurora police were able to defuse the explosives and bombs without any incident.
But 71 victims were 71 human beings too many to sacrifice to satisfy those who live their lives using the rights given to them by the Second Amendment. And as always, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has a boilerplate defense of the Second Amendment regardless of the circumstance, to wit: “People kill, not guns.” NRA advocates consistently say that killings happen, with or without guns. True. But with guns – especially assault rifles – it is easier to kill, and could kill more than any other killing instrument available to man since Cain killed his brother, Abel.
Armed to the teeth
Indeed, it was so easy for Holmes to buy an AR-15 military style semi-automatic assault rifle, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun, and two .40-caliber Glock automatic handguns. It didn’t raise any suspicion when he purchased in the Internet 6,000 rounds of ammunition in two separate orders. He didn’t have any problem buying a military drum-style 100-round ammunition clip that he attached to the AR-15. And it only took him two minutes to kill or injure 71 innocent people and inflict emotional scars on the lives of hundreds of their relatives and friends. Yes, such was the speed for which a psychopath with easy access to deadly weapons could do.
But the nagging question is: For what purpose do Americans have the right to bear arms? This is the gist of the debate on gun control that has evaded serious consideration only because of the powerful pro-gun advocates and their allies in the U.S. Congress who are unbending in their stand against anyone who would challenge the sanctity of gun ownership.
The Second Amendment
On December 15, 1791, the Second Amendment — along with the rest of the Bill of Rights — was adopted and incorporated into the United States Constitution. It proclaims, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
It is interesting to note that at that time the U.S. didn’t have a standing army to defend the young nation. In lieu of a professional army, the fledgling government of George Washington created a “well-regulated militia,” which consisted of every able-bodied man in the country, to defend the new republic.
One can then infer that the right to bear arms was a right granted to the integral components of a “well-regulated militia.” In other words, only those who were part of the “well-regulated militia” were given the right to bear arms. But now that the days of the “well-regulated militia” are over, does that mean that the Second Amendment is no longer in effect? One can argue, however, that the U.S. Armed Forces today has taken the place of the “well-regulated militia” or “citizen militia” of old.
And this was probably what led the U.S. Supreme Court to decide what the Second Amendment really means in its ruling on the U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In this case, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question were those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia. In effect, the Court merely translated the original language of the Second Amendment to keep up with the evolution of the “well-regulated militia” from the republic’s early days to the “citizen militia” of the 20th century, which are known today as the “national guard.”
But the pro-gun advocates interpret the Second Amendment differently, to wit: “The individual right to bear arms is a basic right just like the right to free speech.”
And this is where the Supreme Court is divided. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court had never reached a consensus on the Second Amendment because of the disagreement among the justices on whether the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right to bear arms as an “individual right” or as a component of the “well-regulated militia,” “citizen militia” or “national guard.”
However, in 2008, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court ruled: “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The decision seems like a Solomonic compromise that satisfied the pro-gun advocates and the proponents of gun-control. But was it enough to deal with the collateral issues surrounding the Second Amendment such as gun control?
Makes one wonder if the founding fathers thought that more than 200 years after the era of the militia men — who used single-firing muskets as weapons — the country would be flooded with all kinds of sophisticated weaponry, some of which could fire 500 rounds per minute? Had they anticipated that it would have come to this, would they have inserted a “rider” to the Second Amendment that would have mandated gun control to insure the safety of the citizens?
Wake-up call
Perhaps the issue of gun control should be brought to the front burner of national debate. Americans can no longer seek sanctuary anywhere from the danger of too many guns in the wrong hands.
America is at risk of colossal decline and moral decadence if nothing were done to stop the proliferation of firearms in the country. Indeed, the bloody massacre in Aurora, Colorado is an eerie wake-up call.
I hope that in the aftermath of this dark episode, a shining dawn – splendorem aurora – would finally break in America.
Dearest friend,
You are DEAD WRONG on this one!
Do you not see and read about this sicko? It’s PEOPLE that kill people, NOT the guns. Take away our guns and you have an America that is defenseless against enemies, foreign AND domestic.
It sounds great and makes YOU feel better to say “Gun Control NOW!”, but when We The People are standing up against your and my enemies one day you will thank the Lord that I for one still have my guns.
Regards,
Tim Bell
(Sent by email)
I agree, the Fore Fathers thought about it really well. The well regulated militia was placed there during times of war. Imagine if the poeple did not have arms for themselves & relied on the National Guard to defend the nation. If the National Guard was left to defend the Nation w/o help from its citizens , what then? The coma was placed to make it a point for also the citizenry to bear arms because the Fore Fathers new that a defense- less citizen under oppression from a govn’t is sheep to the slaughter. There are many examples already ie: Syria, its populace is fighting back from government oppression, what if they did not have any weapons, sheep to the slaughter. And they do not even have a 2nd Amendment to use in defense, they are just armed. after the coma, the right of the people to bear arms was placed to insure the government will think twice to oppress its citizens. For the author, if you get in a situation that your home is being invaded by armed perps, I hope that 911 call is fast enough & the police get there to your house before one of your family members have been harmed. As for the shooter, may he get the death sentence as a criminal should deserve. A short trial will save the people the grief he placed on all. That is why I carry a gun at all times. Times are very different now. I have to protect myself and my family at all times. There will always be crooks,laws that are written will always be broken by the perps that wants to do harm to anyone. A piece of paper, a sign doesn’t stop a criminal, only the law abiding will follow. Penalties be harsh & punishment harsher. No more pandering to the criminals.
Hi Perry, as usual a well-written article, but not really the answer to preventing the recurrence of that horrible and despicable act of a psychopath. Truth to tell, there is really nothing anyone can do to prevent a deranged person from causing havoc, not only with high powered firearms but with practically anything that crazed indivudual can get his or her hands on—a car, machete, chainsaw, acid, baseball bat or some kind of poison gas to name only few. It cannot be denied, however, that if anyone of his intended victims had a gun his rampage would be short lived. That could have happened in Aurora but it was illegal to carry a gun in that city while in a public place like a movie and the result of such restriction was horrible indeed. There were at least three military personnel in that crowd, even if just one among them had a handgun, that lunatic could have been stopped. While I agree with you that assault weapons with high capacity magazines should not be made readily available to civilians, again, a determined killer will find a way to obtain them. Are there no massacres occurring in countries with strict gun control laws? In the Philippines, one has to be very rich or must have many properties or a business to protect to qualify as a gun owner. Such restrictions or qualifications do not apply to hoodlums, of course, but they are all well-armed in that country, as you and I well know. After the Ampatuan massacre of innocent civilians, to include a good number of journalists, police authorities discovered a cache of firearms, ammunition and explosives enough to arm a battalion of troops, stashed in a warehouse of the Ampatuans, all of them illegally acquired. Would taking away Americans’ right to bear arms prevent another Aurora or Columbine? Let’s not kid ourselves! Oh, by the way, George Washingtonndid not organize the militia. Militias were long in existence before the American Revolution. In fact, the Minuteman who fired that shot heard ’round the world was a member of the Concord militia. Also the U.S. Army did not replace the militia. They evolved into what is now known as the National Guard and they are used primarily for state protection in case of civil strife and as augmentation forces to the regular U.S. military in time of war. Finally, the oft repeated “guns do not kill people, people kill people” may be a cliche but unfortunately also reality. All the best, old friend!
Hi Romy,
Gun control is an complex issue in a complex society of freedom-loving citizens. It seems that the more freedom people have, the more likely that incidents like this could happen. So, where is the trade to achieve a balanced society where citizens have freedom and yet peace and order is maintained.
I don’t advocate banning citizens to own firearms. But we should have laws that regulate ownership of firearms. I have a registered .45 Colt Gold Cup competition gun and I keep it at home to protect my family. However, I don’t bring it outside my home unless I’m going to the shooting range.
Best,
Perry
Hello Perry, I think there are several gun laws already in existence, adding another one in my opinion will not deter anyone from getting their hands on weapons like the ones used by this lunatic. The root of the problem may lay solely on the people who sells these weapons. Perhaps the government should pay more attention to those gun dealers and determine if they are doing enough to prevent crazy people from getting their hands on deadly weapons. I mean, this guy purchased 6k rounds of ammunition through the internet and it did’nt ring a bell? And when he bought several guns in a matter of weeks, that also should have ring a bell. But when you have businesses whose main objective is to make money and not worry about the consequences, I guess that says it all.
Hi Noah,
The guns laws in existence aren’t enough to prevent this psycho from buying four firearms, 6,000 rounds of ammo, and other military ordnance within a short period of time. They should pass stricter gun control laws and put more teeth in the law to punish violators.
You just described the circumstances that led to the mass murder. If there were stricter laws, the massacre wouldn’t have happened with that high number of casualty.
By the way, I’m not for banning firearms; however, I believe that there should be stringent gun control laws.
Perry
Romy, you are exactly right. Whenever a deadly incident like this happened people become reactionary, immediately. Passing another gun law is not the solution, it’s not going to stop individuals like this nut from getting their hands on these kind of weapons, as long as there are people out there who are more than willing to provide these weapons for a price, it will continue. And like you said, these lunatics will always find a way to destroy life, innocent or otherwise. Guns don’t go off on their own, someone has to pull the trigger to make that happen.
Correction: “old friend” not “mold friend”. Typing on an iPad is truly a drag. You may be old like me, but certainly not moldy. LOL!
No problem, Romy. It’s corrected, my old friend.
Perry
Hey Perry,
Another gun nut went nuts, ha?
I totally agree with you. Guns, especially military-style weapons, should be banned from getting sold and owned by civilians. If these gun nuts have these kind of eagerness and innate and suicidal urge to fire their weapons, they should volunteer to go to America’s war zones and kill America’s enemies there.
I think these gun nuts are a bunch of cowards, and owning guns is their way of hiding their cowardice. Mga duwag! That’s how I see these kind of people, who like to own guns. I think NRA should be defined as National Retard Association, for I see the members of this group as a bunch of retards.
Pareng Jesse, again, I have to disagree with you on this one. The weapons that this lunatic used are semi-automatic, they are not fully automatic, so even if he had a full clip of ammo, he had to pull the trigger constantly to fire each round. Anyone can purchase assault weapons like AR-15 or AK-47, the only exception I think is that gun stores don’t sell them in fully automatic mode. You know, we can discuss this issue of gun ownership until we are all blue in the face but just like everything else it’s a matter of choice. I don’t know what your hobbies are but there are millions of people out there who happen to love guns, as a hobby, but does that make them cowards? Come on Jesse, I am sure there is something that you are very passionate about, and no matter how odd or eerie it is, I will not brand you a weirdo. I own a gun and it stays in a safe with a gun lock, I bought it for protection because the neighborhood that I’m living in right now is getting darker, I’m not going to elaborate, but I have had some terrible experience with their kind. Just keep an open mind, Pare.
Katotong Noah,
I own a gun, too, a Smith @ Wesson revolver, which was my service revolver when I was Deputy Sheriff in Martin County, Florida. While Romy Monteyro, the Brave, was marching in EDSA with flowers in his hands, to depose Marcos, I was chasing dangerous criminals with that revolver in my hand. I’ve been shot at and I’ve shot people. Shootintg at people, even though they’re criminals, was NOT a nice feeling for me. It gives you a high for a while, then you feel like shit afterwards. Like inhaling one of those recreational drugs. I don’t think I should go on talking about this any more. I’ve said my piece about it. I am not a nut as Romy Monteyro accused me of. It seems that this guy has the hots for me. He keeps calling me names. Expressing an angry and different opinion on an issue is NOT nutty.
He’s the nut, for going nuts on me, that’s for sure! He’s probably a gun nut, too, ha? I hope that guy is not a suicidal nut, like many gun nuts in this world.
Perry, do me a favor and tell this guy jesse jose to be more civil with his words. Calling all gun owners cowards is totally out of line which makes him the nut and not people he brazenly disrespect. No one can call a coward someone who dared to depose the once very powerful dictator Ferdinand Marcos. I wonder if this nut was even at EDSA during those 3 fateful days in February 1986. Thanks and all the best, old friend.
Hi Romy,
Jesse is expressing his views on a hot issue. Twelve people were murdered and 59 were injured. Let Jesse vent his anger. It’s not directed at any reader so let him blow his top. He’s not physically hurting anybody.
Perry
It’s true that Jesse is venting his anger but he is directing his wrath at the wrong people. Name calling has no place in a civil and intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions. We still live in a polite society and we should always behave properly. Rudeness and boorishness have no place in any conversation. Such behavior is abominable and prevalent only in the skid rows of Chicago, LA, NY or New Orleans. I say let it stay in those equally abominable places.
Did Timothy McVeigh use guns to kill in Oklahama? He used materials that are readily available from hardware stores to make the powerful homemade bombs…should these materials also be included in your wish list to be controlled or banned?
Hi, Jo.
Yes, whenever possible.
Perry
Jo Pistolero, unusual signs are sometimes easily recognizable. A guy walks in to place that sells fertilizer and wants to buy two tons of ammonium nitrate then claimed he was going to use to fertilize his crops and he is not even a farmer, if I was the seller I would probably be a little curious. Like the shooter in Colorado, he purchased 6000 rounds of ammo through the internet and no one from that company even bother to check or notified the authority. One hundred rounds may not be an indicator that the guy buying it may be up to no good, but 6000 rounds? I think I would at least ask the guy in a funny way what’s he going to do with all those ammo and just kind of feel what his reaction would be.
Hi, Perry! You might have browsed this at my FB last July 23/M but I decided to copy and paste to represent the women in these exchanges:
The media have been swamped with James Eagan Holmes who allegedly made a calculated and deliberate planning of the Aurora, CO mass shooting as well as his booby-trapped apartment. Spiritually, only his non-connection with terrorist being non-Muslim has been mentioned. Intellectually, he had finished the top of his training although not accepted for job applications so pursued PhD in neuroscience. Physically, he has been athletic having been with soccer and cross-country run. Emotionally, he has been described as a loner, weird, and sarcastic student and a son of a nurse and a software engineer. Financially, he was able to buy four different kinds of assault weapons, rounds of ammunitions, liquids, chemicals, solvents, and Joker-like costumes.
Why was he able to buy those different guns, ammunitions, and gadgets for military and police officers in four different stores in Colorado at age 24? Could there be a way of high-tech monitoring of suspicious purchases from those with red signals or once-and-for-all a federal gun control which has been up in the air for so long despite a member of Congress, Gabrielle Gifford, having been a victim last January/2011? Should the president be the national consoler in chief and us offering prayers each occurrence?
Later, there was a note that the assault weapon JEH used even jammed and he had to resort to his other guns. He could have killed and injured a lot more!
A person who killed wants to die anyway, why it takes many years to process. Spend more time and money to placed him in prison while other copycat are planning another crime. Give all criminals a lesson that swift justice can be done. Life for life.
There you said it Roy. In addition to a sensible gun control law, the U.S. Criminal Justice system where offenders seem to have more protection than victims must be overhauled. You are right about not wasting tax payer money on violent criminals like Holmes who I ‘m sure has a death wish.
I am truly enjoying this intelligent conversation about trying to find a solution to the problem at hand. Both Pareng Noah and Dr. Del Mundo are right in asking why the purchase of excessive amount of ammunition didn’t make anyone suspicious and notified the authorities. Noah is also right about the existence of enough laws that regulate the purchase of guns. What is needed, and soon, is a law that would limit the type and number of firearms and ammunition a U.S. citizen can buy. It might help limiting the purchase of assault weapons and high capacity magazines to the military and police organizations only. Hunters do not need an AK47 or an M14 to enjoy that type of sport. Perhaps this new law should also limit ownership of firearms to one pistol and one sporting rifle or shotgun. That will satisfy the requirements of the Second Amendment because it allows qualified purchasers the right to bear arms, but not an arsenal. Sale of ammunition should also be limited and one who tries to buy ammo in excessive quantity should not only be refused but reported to the authorities. Sale through the internet or mail order must also be reviewed. There will be pros and cons for sure but I believe if common sense prevails over hype, a solution can be found. It won’t be fool proof naturally and could be helpful to a certain extent only, but it could prove effective. But back to why no bells rang in the case of Holmes could be explained by his really clean background. More than that he is not a Muslim. If he was it would have been another story altogether. I’m sorry if a Muslim reader later take offense with my assessment but that’s just the way it is after 9/11. Like you, Perry and Noah, target shooting is also one of my favorite sports. I own a semi-auto .40 cal pistol and a .22 rifle. If I want to shoot with higher caliber rifles they are always available for rent at gun clubs. Keeping a gun for protection whether at home or carried makes sense, especially in this very troubled times. No one should be defenseless against violent troublemakers or lunatics like Holmes.
Hey Romeo, aka, Romy Monteyro,
I think you’re a hoity-toity paranoid dickhead, who have no idea at all of what you’re talking about. Mayabang ka, pare. You called me a “nut,” badmouthed and insulted me. You keep on doing that. You should be the one who should watch your words. Now, you’re badmouthing and insinuating something deragatory about Muslims. You have a lot of prejudice in you and it shows in mnany of your comments.
You’re sorry allright, a sorry-assed …. (I don’t wanna repeat myself, so just connect the dots and read again my first sentence for the continuation of this sentence).
Okey ngarud, Romeo, have a nice day, my boy.
Jesse Jose
Seattle, WA
Perry,
I really enjoyed and was educated about guns through these comments from learned and knowledgeable gun owners – who may or may not have used their real names. But their getting hot under the collar because of personal attacks i the process were quite amusing too. Seriously, I do support arguments that could lead to more meaningful control of guns for the sake of peace in a democratic society.
Hi Tony,
There a lot that Congress could do vis-a-vis gun control without attacking the language of the Second Amendment. I’m sure that except for the purist pro-gun advocates, there is a middle ground for everybody to live with.
Perry