Making a killing

(With update below)

The killers are among us. In exurban Washington state, a man with a stormy marriage reacts to his wife leaving him by killing his five children — with multiple gunshots — and then killing himself. This came the same day as a nutjob in Pittsburgh escalated a fight with his mother over a dog peeing in the house into the murder of three police officers. Days before, a man burst into a center that helps immigrants in Binghampton, N.Y. and shot 13 to death before committing suicide. Last month it was eight shot to death in North Carolina, another 10 shot to death in Alabama, and four Oakland officers murdered after a routine traffic stop.

In many cases, the gunmen had recently lost jobs. There were histories of instability and alienation among the suspects (the Oakland case was simply a murderous ex-con). And what our age now calls "anger management problems." All this happened during the Great Depression, too. America had plenty of guns then, and not a few demagogues whipping up the gullible. But in my relatively extensive study of the era I can't find one example of these kinds of mass shootings of innocent people. (I know my literate readers will disabuse me of my ignorance here; but the shootings certainly were not widespread). When America faced mass slaughter, it was events such as the now all-but-forgotten natural gas explosion at a rural Texas school in 1937. It killed nearly 300 students. The outpouring of support and volunteers was immense. (Even Adolf Hitler is said to have sent a telegram of condolence).

But we were a different nation then.

On the Second Amendment ruling: unlock, unload

Forgive me if I take a holiday from some of the liberal and progressive hysteria over the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm. But, then, I am a Westerner and a gun owner.

The Bill of Rights is all about restraining government and specifying some of the rights of individuals (indeed, some of the Framers opposed the Bill of Rights because they feared individual rights would be seen as limited to those amendments). If the Framers intended to discuss state militias, the Bill of Rights seems an odd place to do it. It’s meaningful that the amendment is No. 2 behind that wellspring of recognizing individual rights, the First Amendment. One could see how the Framers said, the people have these rights, and here’s how will they be ensured of protecting them.

Remember, these men rebelled against the most powerful empire in the world, and many believed the people should always have the unalienable right to take up arms against a tyrannical government or leave a voluntary union of sovereign states. The Whiskey Rebellion and, most cataclysmically, the Civil War, settled some of those issues. Others were left to the courts.

Yet the ambiguity of the amendment has long been contested. And extreme measures on both sides brought matters to a head, and make the future even more contentious.