In the gun debate, bipartisan hypocrisy
Both Democrats, Republicans have their blind spots on issue
Rand Democrats don’t agree on much, but they agree that sometimes, individual freedom must yield to the imperatives of public safety. They also agree that sometimes, efforts to save lives come at too high a price in liberty. Trouble is, they can’t agree on when.
The aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre illustrates how either party employs a different calculus depending on the problem at hand. Each has blind spots that become apparent in moments of crisis.
Consider the GOP pronouncements after the 2015 San Bernardino shootings in which Islamic extremists killed 14 people. Nothing was going to get in the way of a ferocious assault on terrorists.
Chris Christie blamed Barack Obama for failing to grasp “that the most basic responsibility of an administration is to protect the safety and security of the American people.” Marco Rubio defended mass electronic surveillance, arguing that after the next attack, “the first thing people are going to want to know is, why didn’t we know about it and why didn’t we stop it?”
And the Las Vegas massacre? Christie said it “leaves us grasping for answers.” Rubio said he was praying for the victims. No one blamed the president. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said that people caught in such attacks should, “you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said, get small.”
After mass shootings, Democrats demand legislation to ban certain weapons or accessories and restrict access to guns. In these situations, unlike the case with terrorist incidents, Republicans put all their emphasis on personal rights.
Their attitude parallels the Democratic stance on other dangers. Democrats faulted Donald Trump’s travel order for stranding a lot of innocent travelers and refugees on the off chance of keeping out terrorists. Some praised Edward Snowden, even though the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said his leaks did “substantial damage to national security.”
On firearms, the two sides are far apart. Many Democrats have scant regard for the constitutional rights of gun owners. As mayor of Chicago, Democrat Richard Daley insisted on keeping the city’s ban on handguns even after the court made clear that it was unconstitutional. Republicans resist any restriction on firearms, no matter how modest.
Gun control supporters are fond of measures that are superficially appealing but practically irrelevant, while opponents treat any restriction as an intolerable violation of liberty.
The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled, protects an individual right to own guns for self-defense. But no constitutional right is exempt from regulation. I can say whatever I want, but I can’t do it on a bullhorn at 3 a.m.
The court has said that it’s fine with a host of existing gun restrictions, such as “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” If legislators could devise measures that could be effective without imposing onerous burdens, the court might well uphold them.
But many of the ideas heard this week would be irrelevant in practice. To demand a law against so-called assault weapons requires forgetting that the federal ban that existed from 1994 to 2004 had no discernible impact on gun violence.
Washington Post columnist Charles Lane, noting the Las Vegas killer’s huge arsenal, tweeted, “What legitimate interest possibly justifies individual possession of 42 repeat 42 firearms?” But only a few weapons are needed to carry out a mass murder. Any numerical limit would be arbitrary and either useless or unconstitutional.
Gun rights advocates, however, reject even the most logical changes if they would cause the slightest inconvenience to any gun owner.
The federal government requires licensed firearm dealers to perform a background check for each purchase. But no check is required on private transactions, which account for a large share of sales. When Obama proposed universal background checks in 2013 and again last year, Republicans mobilized to prevent them.
The federal government has no law making a crime of “straw purchasing” — where a legally qualified person buys a weapon for someone barred from owning guns. When the Senate considered a measure in 2013 to outlaw such commerce, the NRA helped to block it.
What the debate needs is a pitiless focus on options that meet two simple requirements: 1) They hold reasonable promise of being functionally useful, and 2) they don’t put an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners.
It’s not hard to find measures that meet these conditions. But first, both sides have to want to.
Steve Chapman blogs at http:// www.chicagotribune.com/news/ opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @Stevechapman13.
PRicans are Americans. However, a recent survey by The Morning Consult, a research company, found that only 54 percent of Americans know that people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens.
The island, a territory of the United States, may exist in people’s minds as not related to us because it’s not clear that it will ever pursue statehood despite years of nationwide referendums with varying outcomes. Until it does, Puerto Rico remains something of a distant cousin to the United States — one of those so-distant cousins that most people aren’t sure they’re actually related.
The myth that Puerto Rico is not part of America is so pervasive and ingrained in our society that even children internalize the misunderstanding.
At the beginning of the school year, I was observing a classroom in which high school seniors were learning how to form arguments to defend their opinions. The task was for small groups of students to decide on which flavor of ice cream was the best and then persuade the rest of the classroom toward consensus.
At this predominantly Hispanic — and overwhelmingly Mexican — school, the students nominated flavors ranging from ordinary, such as plain vanilla and chocolate, to decadent and tropical. One young woman wrote on her group’s poster: “The best flavor is coquito because it soothes my foreign soul.”
Coquito is a Puerto Rican treat — an eggnog-type of drink made with coconut cream, sweetened condensed milk and spices — and when I read the student’s comment, I nearly jumped out of my skin. Only respect for another teacher’s classroom kept me from calling a timeout to discuss this student’s egregious mistake.
When the bell rang, I ran to catch her and asked, “Are you Puerto Rican?” She shyly said, “Yes.” I told her, “Don’t ever call yourself a foreigner again — Puerto Ricans are American citizens. Your soul is not foreign here, it’s as beautiful and as part of America as everyone else’s.”
She broke into a big, wide grin and gave me a sheepish nod. It was a moment that struck me because we were standing less than three miles from Humboldt Park, the epicenter of the Puerto Rican community in Chicago and the only nationally recognized Puerto Rican neighborhood in the country.
Still, it wasn’t that surprising. As with all subjects that are taught in school — with the exception of writing and math — geography and civics are pretty watered down. In units about the geography of the United States, it’s rare for much time (if any) to be spent on Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands or other American territories.
As such, Puerto Ricans are not alone in these sorts of misunderstandings. My younger son’s best friend is from St. Croix, and he is forever forced to deliver his elevator speech about it being part of the
U.S. Virgin Islands and that he is a U.S. citizen. (And in stark contrast to the media’s albeit late reaction to the plight of Puerto Rico following recent hurricanes, few are talking about the devastation in the U.S. Virgin Islands.)
Repeat after me: Puerto Ricans are not immigrants or foreigners. If anything good can come out of the suffering and devastation our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico are experiencing, let it be that they can rebuild their community to be stronger than ever. And, maybe, their fellow citizens on the mainland can finally understand their status better.
It’s past time to do so. After all, Puerto Ricans are the second-largest Hispanic-origin group in the United States, there are more Puerto Ricans living on the mainland of the United States than on the Island, and the majority of them were born here. It shouldn’t have taken a weather tragedy to bring these facts to light.
Contact Esther Cepeda at estherjcepeda@washpost. com. Follow her on Twitter, @ estherjcepeda.