Break up the band

One war at at time, senators

THE STORY goes that, as the country began breaking apart in 1861, the new secretary of state, Bill Seward, approached the new president, named Lincoln, with a unique idea: Instead of watching the nation disintegrate, as the last president did, or watching the states come to blows in a civil war, why not declare war on Britain or France? Maybe a patriotic spirit would sweep across the South, and the states will stop the proceedings to leave the Union.

“One war at a time, Mr. Seward,” President Lincoln answered. “One war at a time.”

A reporter for this paper stationed in Washington D.C., the talented and diligent Ryan Tarinelli, tracked down John Boozman the other day, and asked the senior senator from Arkansas whether he agreed with the new gun law being hammered out by his colleagues in the Senate.

To which Senator Boozman answered . . . well, to quote Mark Twain: I am happy and gratified to be able to answer that question. I don’t know.

Senator Boozman said he was open to considering the bipartisan agreement on guns, but he wanted to see the legislation first. That is, evidence first, verdict after. After all, this isn’t Alice in Wonderland, and the gentleman from Arkansas isn’t the Red Queen.

We imagine Senator Boozman is right, as would be any other senator or U.S. representative who wants to see the details first. You-know-who lives among those details. He often tries to lead the rest of us astray. (And is often successful.)

The press is calling the legislation-in-progress a “framework” and a “bipartisan composition” on gun regulation. We call it a dog’s breakfast.

The legislation is said to touch on a half-dozen topics. From red-flag laws to background checks to school security to mental-health services. That isn’t all. It would seem that any U.S. representative or senator who had real trouble with one of these proposals might vote against the whole deal, just because of something he or she considered a bad pill.

There are pols in Washington who have concerns about red-flag laws and due process. We don’t share those concerns, given that 19 states have red-flag laws on the books already, which implies (or do we infer?) that due process in those laws has satisfied a number of judges.

But a senator who might, say, be perfectly willing to raise the age for buying long rifles to 21 might not be satisfied with the due process in this federal law for red-flag rules. Why force him to vote on everything at once?

Break up the band. Let’s take all of these proposals one at a time. And give them all a better chance to stand on their own, instead of sinking together.

Have members vote on raising the age to 21 for gun purchases. And get everybody on record one way or t’ other.

Then have another bill put together just for the “boyfriend loophole” and have members vote on whether to add domestic abusers to the FBI background checks, even though the couples may not necessarily be married.

Then have another bill to spend more money on mental-health services. And then school security. And then a complete ban on AR-15s.

Some of these will pass with ease. Some won’t make it through a filibuster. But it seems that getting something through the Congress—something that will help reduce or even prevent some mass shootings—should be the top priority. Not mixing them all up in one bucket.

A dog’s breakfast might be heaven to a dog, but we’ve never seen one that looked appetizing.

Let’s take on one war at a time, Mr. Seward. One war at a time.