background checks

by

Desperation: Not a Winning Strategy

When a teenager reacts to a new curfew accusing parents of being “Nazi dictators,” parents smile at the comparison. Sometimes kids have a hyperbolic way of arguing that reflects their desperation to have it their way. That same desperate voice comes from many gun rights activists. But on Wednesday the parents, uh rather the U.S. Senate, caved on the curfew, uh rather the background checks for gun buyers.

Every law passed in this land could be defeated if legislators listened to arguments about extreme outcomes, the so-called “slippery slope.”  Background checks lead to a gun registry. A gun registry leads to confiscation. Confiscation leads to law-abiding citizens being attacked in their own homes. Suddenly the mere screening of gun buyers has created a reign of terror in America, with innocent citizens threatened.  Why aren’t we smiling at these nightmare scenarios, instead of taking them seriously?

Somehow the scenario of millions of desperate gun owners sitting at home, ready to blow away anyone who touches their weapons scares me more than background checks.  Certainly there are plenty of gun owners who do not stay up at night worrying about someone coming to their house to take their weapons, and many of those pressed for background checks this past month. But there are apparently too many who live with their guns cocked and ready for action, those who shoot first and ask questions later.

In fact, background checks would probably allow most of the hair-trigger gun owners to keep their guns at the ready to defend their rights or perceived intrusion on their rights.  They will still have the power to intimidate anyone who suggests they are the least bit paranoid. They still have the right to threaten their elected representatives with loss of funding or support.  Background checks would not change any of that.

Extreme defensiveness and unwillingness to compromise are not the hallmarks of survival in this country. Notice the fate of Prohibition, which gripped our country for a less than a decade.  Learn a lesson from the labor movement, which became too greedy in the latter twentieth century.  Or watch what happens to politicians who have fought immigration reform in the twenty-first century. Those who “evolved” lived to fight another battle.  Those who made a Constitutional issue over the slightest gesture of reform have become irrelevant.

So today a desperate minority has been allowed to make the rules or rather, to dismiss the rules.  But adult restraint is coming, and those who shout for their rights, will soon be grounded or at least put on a curfew. Because shouting “Nazi dictator” does not make it so.

 

by

Politicians Behaving Well

The peril of the “Background Checks” gun bill is featured in the New York Times, today, April 15.  While the uncertain passage of the bill alarms reformers laying siege to the Capital, the “deep divisions” within both parties deserves an historical footnote in this debate.  U.S. Senators are planning to vote for a bill on its merits.

Probably it would be overstating to say that all  of the U.S. Senators are voting their convictions or even to fairly represent their constituents.  Many remain beholden or in craven fear of the National Rifle Association and will do what it takes to maintain their sacred NRA rating.  These are not the politicians behaving well.

But the mere evidence of shattered party loyalty proves that the ruthless anti-Obama coalition or even the Democratic majority are not dictating how Senators vote on this bill. We are witnessing a debate on the merits of gun control in this bill, a debate that reflects real divisions among regions and interests in the country.

Some Senators are responding to the groundswell of public opinion and the heart-rending stories of the Newton parents. Susan Collins and John McCain have already spoken in favor of the bill despite the strong opposition they face in their home states.  Both Senators are not known for slavish party loyalty, but both deserve credit for bucking a strong pro-gun voting bloc in their states.  Their early commitment to the bill could cost them their re-election.

Other Senators take their representation of a gun rights constituency seriously, such as Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieux.  She frankly admits her vote will be dictated by a strong majority in her state. Although voting your conscience has a little more glamor, the vote to represent those who elected you is a credible motive.  We like to think our representatives will express our values in Congress even to the subordination of their own.

Regardless of which side of the aisle you cross from, the crossing involves a moral choice, a choice dictated by conviction of the merits of the bill under consideration, not the pressure of lobbies or of party fidelity.  It is an inspiring trend, even if it is fleeting.

Regardless on which side of the issue you stand, you have to enjoy this moment, this historical interlude when Washington is bristling with real debate instead of horse-trading and political threats.  These are the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” moments we learned about in U.S. History, the struggle for consensus amid honest differences.

Eventually there will be arm-twisting and surreptitious trading of gun votes for immigration votes.  The old sausage grinder will turn out the final votes for passage or defeat.  The winners will crow and losers will carp and the parties will position themselves for the next vote.

Let’s not forget this fine moment when Senators behaved as our elected representatives and cracked the dubious coalitions forged by their parties.  Like a wayward child, the Senate should be praised for the moments it takes its responsibilities seriously and votes with conviction. What a country!