Son of a gun

THOSE of us in Arkansas who appreciate a good duck hunt—and who doesn’t?—bow to nobody when it comes to our respect for the grand old Second Amendment and this country’s right to bear arms. But (and there’s always a but) most of us understand that there have to be some restrictions. No amendment in the Bill of Rights is absolute.

There used to be something everybody could agree on even in the contentious gun debate: There are some folks who shouldn’t be able to get guns. Felons, for example, or those with violent criminal records, for another. Or folks with certain mental illnesses. That used to be the case. We’re still trying to understand why so many United States senators voted last week to repeal the rule that blocked certain folks with mental illnesses from buying guns legally. Specifically those folks whose mental illness is such that Social Security has to give their benefits to a third party to manage.

Some on the right (the NRA) and some on the left (the ACLU) and those in-between (both Arkansas’ senators) didn’t like the rule. Why? Well, according to the only logical explanation we could find: Not all mental illnesses are alike. As Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) put it, eating disorders and sleep disorders can be classified as mental illnesses, too.

Yes, sure. But if somebody has a sleep disorder to the point that he can’t manage his own affairs, and is getting Social Security benefits because of it, and the Social Security folks think the disorder is so disabling that they have to call in a brother or parent to manage the person’s affairs . . . . Should that person be left off the government’s background check system when it comes to buying a gun?

The answer should be obvious to anybody with common sense. But we’re finding that common sense is anything but common these days.