Well, the situation on Capitol Hill, it seems, is getting a bit heated. The Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to figure out what to do about a difficult question—should somebody with a criminal record or a history of mental illness including violence be allowed to buy a gun? Forty percent of guns sold in the US do NOT include a background check.
This is a difficult, difficult question for our senators, who perhaps see things in this question that we simpler souls do not. Because a large majority—is it 80%? 90%? Who cares…the numbers are ridiculous—a large majority of the American public, as I was saying, support universal background checks.
And according to the New York Times, tempers flared at a luncheon for Republican lawmakers last weekend. Senator Susan Collins was pissed—she’s getting attacked, she said, by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) which has deep ties to Rand Paul. Then Portman got into the fray, saying that he’s spending time raising funds for Collins, and she’s obliged to use it to defend herself, instead of getting her message out or attacking the opposition. Then Ted Cruz of Texas jumped in, and said he had nothing to do with it. (Cruz, apparently, is an ideological fan of Paul.) Then Paul, offended, left in a huff (OK, the New York Times actually said “stormed out of the room.”)
According to the NAGR, the National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t sufficiently vigilant or militant in protecting “gun rights.” Yes, you read that right—NAGR president Dudley Brown thinks that the NRA is “negotiating backroom deals with left-wing Republicans and Democrats for half a loaf of gun control.”
Some people feel differently, like former Colorado State Senator Jean White, who got shot down in the primaries, and then saw a Democratic opponent win the general election. She says the NAGR is a godsend for the Democrats; several others agree. In the meantime, the NAGR took in and spent 7 million bucks last year.
Collins is also upset because the ads—coming from out of state—suggest she doesn’t act or talk like a Mainer; she grew up in northern Maine, where everybody had guns. And the ads hit pretty low—her face doing a slow dissolve into the face of Obama. Oh, and they call her a “gun grabber.”
Guys, this is insane. And it’s a typical example of how, by trying to be reasonable with crazy people, you end up in the end in completely crazy positions.
What we should have said, those decades ago when we were worrying about “Saturday night specials” (remember those halcyon days?) was this:
1. The Second Amendment applies to the right of the citizenry to arm themselves and form militia. You have no individual right to own a gun.
2. OK—for historical reasons, you can own a rifle and engage in hunting.
3. The only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone. Sales of handguns are illegal, and illegal trafficking will be strictly punished.
4. No attack weapons, semi-automatic weapons, etc. Rifles, period.
5. As technology evolves, you will be required to upgrade your weapon, which means, yes, a national registry. We know that you have a car—why isn’t that a big deal? So you’ll be getting letters, periodically, saying that your gun has to have a Breathalyzer, a GPS chip, a PIN lock…whatever.
6. Duh, background checks…..
7. Sell guns through the mail, the Internet, gun shows? What, are you crazy? Guns are sold only through licensed shops, whose records are inspected annually.
We should have said it; we didn’t. So the gun people kept claiming more ground. Eventually, they got the Supreme Court to reverse two centuries plus of constitutional history and say that the Second Amendment allows individuals to own guns. More and more laws got passed protecting gun owners and gun “rights.” Gun makers got immunity from lawsuits; it became illegal to fund research on the effect of gun policy. As everyone went farther and farther into this crazy land, the NRA and the other gun “rights” groups had to whip up the masses more and more on progressively more crazy issues. Now, they are forced into attacking their friends—like Collins—by making up absurd claims. Oh, and also by lying.
And they have now, of course, put the Republican Party in a real jam. Because they are about to show their true colors to the American people. They’re about to tell 80% (or is it 90%) of the American people to go to hell, that they don’t care what they think or how many kids get killed, because nothing, in the end, is more important than the next election.
As deeply as I care about the issue, it may be time to focus on the way our campaigns are funded. Because now, we have a terrible example of how a single-issue constituency can completely subvert the democratic process by injecting twin amounts of money and lies into campaigns. Add to that the fact that corporations can now contribute freely and we have a looming disaster.
It may be time, it may be well past time, to do what Norway does. About 74% of campaigns are publically funded. Oh, and another wonderful piece of news: political ads are banned on television and radio.
I’d go further, of course. It seems crazy to me that a candidate can opt out of accepting campaign funds. Level the playing field—give everybody the same amount of dough, and let the best candidate win.
I mean we all do want an honest government, don’t we?
Didn’t hear the answer—don’t we?
Don’t we?
