Maybe, maybe, maybe this time
“Do something!”
That's what grieving residents of Uvalde, Texas, shouted at President Biden, who had come to console them after 19 schoolchildren and two teachers were slaughtered by an 18-year-old gunman wielding an assault rifle. “We will,” Biden replied. But while his confident words are welcome, they have been spoken many times before, after many other tragedies, and the end result has generally been the same. The hurt fades. The outrage dims. And the gun lobby eventually kills off even the smallest attempts to keep guns out of the hands of future assassins.
Still, maybe is better than never. And a bipartisan group of senators seems serious about negotiating a compromise that could include tighter background checks for gun buyers and stronger redflag laws that could thwart mentally unstable individuals from acquiring weapons.
The big change is that Mitch McConnell, the Senate's chief Republican, has blessed the effort and delegated a close ally, John Cornyn of Texas, to shepherd the talks. “Hopefully, we can get an outcome that can actually pass and become law,” McConnell told CNN.
The reforms on the table are very modest. They don't include what really needs to be done: the sort of total ban on assault rifles that existed for 10 years but lapsed in 2004. But in today's polarized and paralyzed capital, progress of any kind is worth pursuing — not just on this subject, but as a template for future deals.
Maybe. Might. It's all still a long shot. Gun owners insist that the Second Amendment, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” precludes any restraints on their personal firepower. But that's wrong. Even the most fundamental rights have limits. As Biden told reporters, “The Second Amendment was never absolute. You couldn't buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn't go out and buy a lot of weapons.”
The general public agrees, and overwhelmingly supports sensible restrictions on gun ownership. In a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll, almost 9 out of 10 supported “Requiring background checks on all gun sales.” More than 80% agreed with tighter red-flag laws and longer waiting periods.
Intensity matters in politics, however. For hardcore gun owners, this is their most important issue. It affects them personally. It directly shapes their voting behavior. And they are willing to pay dues to organizations that then use that money to reward their friends and punish their enemies.
Sure, gun control advocates care deeply about the issue, but it seldom intrudes on their daily lives. They genuinely grieve for the victims of gun violence, but they seldom know them.
The empty chair is usually not at their kitchen table.
Moreover, voters who support controls also tend to care about a lot of other liberal causes, from combatting climate change to defending racial equality and reproductive rights. Guns are important — but guns don't decide their votes.
Gun control forces need to make the issue more personal. They have to reach more people like Richard Small, a selfdescribed “devout NRA Republican” who lives 90 minutes away from Uvalde. After the shooting there, reports the Washington Post, “the 68-year-old retired high school history teacher saw a photo of one of the young victims … `He looked like my grandson. I mean, they could have been twins. They have the same face,' Small said, his voice shaky with emotion. `It just stirred something in me.'”
Then, writes the Post, Small “did what he acknowledges would have been unthinkable days earlier.” He took his AR15 out of his gun cabinet and turned it over to the local police. “I'm a gun advocate,” he explained. “I believe in the Second Amendment. But this AR, after what I saw in Uvalde, I'm done with it. … I'm sick over it.”