The Colors That Run

Well, we’re seeing the true colors of our Congress, and guess what? It’s not red or blue, but green. The green that lives in your wallet, not on the trees.

The polls all say the same thing—somewhere around 80 to 90% of the American people favor background checks for anyone buying a gun. So naturally, Congress is going to have to act, to get right up there at the head of the parade, to wave that flag around and pass that legislation that is more popular than motherhood, right?

Lawrence Lessig, the guy in the clip below, might say no. Or he might say that the answer is very simple: look at the money the NRA spends on Congress versus the money the gun-control groups spend.

Well, I know the answer to that one—and here it is, courtesy of the Washington Post. 

Congressmen and women spend up to fifty percent of their time on the first priority of any politician: getting reelected. And all too often that means money, preferably big money, because look, are you going to spend hours trying to get a 10-buck donation? Remember Mitt Romney and the famous 47% remark? He made it in a room full of people spending 50,000 bucks a head. That’s 100,000$ a couple, plus parking and the babysitter.

Well, we certainly saw Mitt in his element, but the bad news? That’s every politician’s element. But until we all get together and force change on Congress, we’ll keep getting what we’re currently stuck with: the best Congress money can buy.

Consider this fact from POLITICO.com: “the top 0.07 percent of donors are more valuable than the bottom 86 percent.”

Well, I’m sure at this point you must be scratching your head and saying, “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions!” And I’m happy to say that Lessig argues that there are solutions out there—varying proposals to empower the small donors and lessen the power of super donors. I’m all for it, as well as for bringing back the hand-counted, paper ballot.

Question is—which to do first?

Big Guns and Big Money

Suppose there were a disease that killed 30,000 people plus a year. And suppose Congress put it into the spending laws: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cannot study it.

Would you be mad?

I would. Or rather, am. Because there is a disease, and Congress indeed did stipulate it—it’s off limits to the CDC.

Death by gunshot.

It seems the NRA has some—sorry—pretty heavy guns. All research has been halted for the last 15 years. So we don’t know the epidemiology of a disease that’s killed 360,000 people in that period.

Bad science, says the NRA. Actually, they claim that it’s not science at all, but politics.

Yeah?

I’d say that any activity that ends in death—whether it’s smoking, drunk driving, or gun ownership is fair game for the CDC. Here’s NBC on the story:

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)

Well, it seems the money is gonna start flowing again. Obama directed the CDC to start studies again, and has apparently put up the funds. Republicans are predictably furious.

I didn’t realize what this was all about until I saw the clip below. And then it became clear.

The NRA, says Debra Maggart, a conservative pro-gun NRA member, is cynically creating false issues and lousy legislation. When any bill meets opposition, the NRA goes into action, whipping up hysteria in its members. And what do they do?

Write a check.

It’s as cynical as it is evil. And the effect has been to create a mentality of paranoia and intransigence that precludes any reasonable debate.

No, that’s not what I say—it’s what Maggart says. The NRA kicked in $150,000 just to defeat her. Oh, and that’s a state representative. Wanna bet how much they’d be willing to spend on a US Senator?

“Did they bully you?” asks the moderator.

“That’s exactly what they did,” Maggart replies.

Well, at least she got a congratulatory “certificate” from the group after she was defeated. She was still a member, you see.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I know people who have guns. My father had a gun. I’m not intrinsically antigun.

I am, however, very much against any group that values the almighty dollar more than the lives of men, women, and children.

In Latin, it’s ne fas. A violation of divine law. It gets pretty directly into Spanish as nefasto. Less obvious in English as nefarious.

That’s not enough?

How about despicable and heinous?

When the 87% Don't Matter

For reasons that should puzzle no one, I’ve been worrying my head about gun control.

It seems most people favor it. The Brady Campaign—right, of course I’m choosing my preferred choir to sing to me—comes up with a figure of 87%. Well, that seemed abnormally high, so I decided to check it out.

Apparently, we can agree on some stuff. “71% of Americans believe that stopping gun violence is ‘a very important’ goal,” says the study, done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Tarrance Group in 2008 for the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Right—did they ask about motherhood and apple pie?

Things get a little trickier the more specific you become. Almost 60% of Americans favor stricter laws. 87%—probably where the Brady bunch came up with the number—favor background checks on guns bought at gun shows. Oh, and 89% believe that we should prohibit gun ownership to people on the terrorist watch list (really would like to talk with that 11% who think that suspected terrorists should have guns…or maybe not…).

Here’s the conclusion of the report:

This survey shows that many Americans overwhelmingly favor common sense measures to cut down on the prevalence of illegal guns in the country. While most Americans support gun rights, people view their support as compatible with targeting illegal guns and fighting gun violence. 

Hey, great! We’re all pretty much on the same page. We can clear up a few loopholes—c’mon, guys, you gotta do a background check in a shop but not in a show???!—maybe have a little pitched battle about assault weapons, pass a nice little bill and still get home for lunch.

Wonderful!

What’s the problem?

Not the opinion of the American people. Two days ago I signed a generic petition appealing for gun control. I was somewhere in the 58,000 area. Goal was 100,000. And last time I checked, it was going strong with a new goal of 350,000.

So what’s missing?

Sorry—just couldn’t help it.

And neither can the congressmen, either—who are sucking, most of them, from a very full teat called the National Rifle Association. Which is spending five to ten times more money than the gun control groups.

So with so many Ben Franklins on or under the table, who is gonna vote for banning assault weapons? Remember, a politician’s first job is to get reelected.

So the click of a mouse on an Internet petition may not be enough. Readers of this blog, stay tuned. My next project?

whoownsyourcongressperson.com