NRA

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!

 

by

The NRA: Defensive and Distraught

There’s something scary about armed citizens who will not negotiate.  Even armies occasionally meet in the middle of a battlefield to consider their losses and make treaties.  This has never been the NRA’s way. It has always been “Taking my gun from my cold dead hands,” as Charlton Heston famously declared.

Rhetorically struggling, the NRA continues to hold its ground in Washington.  Even the once-favored universal background check  is losing currency in Congress.  How is this possible, when NRA’s  public defense of Second Amendment rights has declined to an adolescent protest that we can’t enforce the gun control laws we want to pass?

Is this really a legitimate argument against passing a law: that crimes will still be committed and enforcement will be problematic?  Isn’t this an argument against laws enforcing seat belt use, or proscribing pornography or marijuana? You can’t control it, so why bother making laws against it?  It’s almost like wishing the offenders of the law “good luck,” because we don’t like the law either.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The NRA is losing the public battle against reasonable gun control legislation, so its Congressional attack dogs, like Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Oklahoma Senator Darrel Imhof labor over the enforcement issue. Criminals will continue to find guns. Straw purchases will continue.  God-fearing gun owners will face confiscation.  What proposed law would take guns from legitimate gun owners? It is not these laws, but any laws that the NRA resists.

This is why the NRA can not earn my respect. Every gun control law comes down to whether you can defend your home against lawlessness or government intrusion. Every gun control law trespasses on the Second Amendment.  Every law compromises your freedom.  In the realm of gun control, the NRA is no different than anarchists.

The NRA’s rhetorical stand against gun control legislation has lost its potency. Public polling continues to favor universal background checks and limits on gun magazines.  The proscription of certain assault weapons lag a little behind in the polling. But gun control advocates would still bring it all to a vote. Let’s see who will go on record against these measures.

Sunday night Sixty Minutes brought seven victimized families from Newtown, CT back into the public spotlight. They showed them passing out literature prior to the Connecticut’s passing of the country’s strictest gun control law. They documented the grim resolve of each family to make this cause a life commitment.  The victimized mothers and fathers argued persuasively that a smaller gun magazine would have saved some children’s lives on December 14, 2012.  None of them asserted radical positions on gun control. Some even defended the legality of some assault weapons.

That is the difference between the NRA and its opponents. The NRA does not know the meaning of “concession” or “compromise.”  It fights behind a battle front that never moves or regroups.

Eventually this rhetorical strategy will stumble, because the United States is not a “take-no-prisoners” society.  Battle fronts in Congress move every month on matters like immigration and education.  Gun control will be no different. The whimper and the bluster will eventually give way to reason, because we will not forget Rep. Gabby Giffords, Aurora or Newtown.  The rhetorical battle is already won, and the political battle is ripe for negotiation.

 

by

Broccoli Ad Absurdum

The claim that if government can require the purchase of health insurance it can therefore require the consumption of broccoli is one of those so-called “slippery slopes” that judges are always scrambling around.  Courts, politicians and lobbyists have found our legal system utterly eroded by slippery slopes, endangering us with every change in the law. If they identify a law that rankles, they will immediately excavate a slippery slope and then point to it with mounting panic.

Oh yes, health insurance today, but tomorrow . . . broccoli!

In the world of logic, this move is called “reductio ad absurdum” or “a reduction to an absurdity; the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating the inevitably absurd conclusion to which it would logically lead.”  Although logic has a strong reputation in our legal system, the “ad absurdum” part of this strategy should not be overlooked.

A delightful parody of the “reductio ad absurdum” is the current run of Directv commercials, such as “See what happens when you make bad decisions. Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch!” (http://bit.ly/ymT7PP).  In this instance, a cable television user becomes angry at being on hold with his cable provider, leading to several hazards, resulting in getting an eye-patch and finally getting mugged and left in a roadside ditch. Directv has run several commercials on the same silly premise, but no one is buying satellite television service because they are worried about ending up in a roadside ditch.  They laugh at the ridiculous outcome of a simple behavior, such as getting angry on the phone while being on hold.

However, when “reductio ad absurdum” is introduced into the courts or on the floor of the legislature, no one is laughing.  We are all sobered by the possibility we may be forced to eat broccoli in the future.  Why do we take these arguments seriously?

The National Rifle Association is a past master of “reductio ad absurdum.” Every restriction on the licensing of guns appears to them a violation of their right to bear arms.  Most recently they mounted a furious attack on the new technology, which would imprint an identification number on shell casings, so that police gathering them at the scene of a crime could trace them to their users– the criminals.   But if we can identify criminals, we can also identify innocent users of guns, and we wouldn’t want that– would we?  Why should we be allowed to know who fired a weapon and when they did it?  Won’t this mean that the government will come to our houses and seize our weapons without recourse? Ad absurdum!

Judicial decisions are particularly hazardous, because they are used as precedents, so there really is a slippery slope out there, not an imagined one.  The federal government has used its Constitutional power to regulate “interstate commerce” to intrude into affairs many would see best regulated by the state, such as education or care of the indigent. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the degree of federal control, so it should take these cases of federal power seriously.

But the judges of the high court should be more wary of the “ad absurdum” arguments or they may find themselves with a satellite dish on the roofs of their houses.  Seeing broccoli as the outcome of universal health care really stretches the legal imagination. Health insurance is a lot more like Social Security and Medicare than it is like broccoli. Is the Constitutionality of Social Security at stake here? Should citizens be required to save money for retirement or for hospitalization? You can spot slippery slopes running off to the right as well as to the left.

We have a compelling social interest in citizens having funds for retirement, in having access to catastrophic health care, and ultimately to the high level of medical care this country offers. In no way does broccoli rank among these interests, and I will defend every citizen’s right to leave it alone. Regardless of the outcome of the Affordable Health Care decision, I am confident that the Supreme Court will protect my sacred right to eschew broccoli.

And I mean no offense to the broccoli growers and producers of America.