If Republicans want to protect guns more than kids, make them say so

On Thursday, as families across the country gathered for Thanksgiving meals, there were 21 empty chairs at homes in Uvalde, Texas; six in Colorado Springs, Colo.; 10 in Buffalo, N.Y.; and dozens more across the United States — all lives lost to gun violence, and more specifically, Ar-15-style semiautomatic assault weapons.

In statements Thursday, President Joe Biden shared his feelings on the subject. He’s tired of calling grieving families and survivors to offer comfort in the aftermath of deadly and traumatizing mass shootings.

He called the idea of manufacturing and selling assault rifles “sick,” and said he would try to get rid of them before Republicans take control of Congress in January.

“I’m going to try. I’m going to try to get rid of assault weapons,” Biden said.

A ban on assault weapons already is sitting in the U.S. Senate. It passed the House of Representatives in June. Then it stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because Democrats know they don’t have the votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster.

The bill is straightforward. It bans the import, sale, manufacturing or transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons as defined in the bill. It includes exceptions for rifles that were already legally obtained, antique weapons, over 2,000 popular hunting and sporting rifles, and shotguns and weapons used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement.

Those exceptions mean that despite Republican rhetoric, no one who purchased a gun legally in the past is going to have it taken away or seized. No matter how many times the National Rifle Association lies to our faces, the most popular sporting rifles would be exempt from the ban. And retired military and law enforcement would continue to be able to access tools of their trade. Deranged mass murderers would not.

It’s an objectively well-written bill that addresses many of the concerns of gunrights advocates while acknowledging the basic facts sitting in front of our eyes: that weapons designed for use on the battlefield have no necessary civilian purpose other than mass murder.

Even with a well-written, commonsense bill that has practical exceptions, we know it’s unlikely that Republicans will support the legislation. But with only about a month remaining in the current legislative session, we’re also guessing Republicans don’t want to spend the season of family gatherings justifying why they think Uncle Bob’s right to possess an AR-15 is more important than little Timmy’s right to survive the first grade.

Which is exactly why Democrats should bring the bill to the Senate floor anyway, and force Republicans to filibuster it with an actual talking filibuster — you know, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” style. Force Republicans to stand on the Senate floor while families across the country are gathering for holiday celebrations and actively block this bill from receiving a vote.

While current Senate rules do not require a talking filibuster, a simple majority vote is all that is required to change the Senate rules. And other than meeting the requirements of the Constitution, the Senate can make any rules it sees fit — including changing filibuster rules for a single subject matter — just as Republicans under Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell of Kentucky changed them for the purpose of confirming Supreme Court confirmations.

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.VA., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-ariz., have opposed sweeping changes to the filibuster in the past, but may be open to a limited change for the purpose of gun control (as may a Republican or two), giving Democrats the majority they need.

Changing the rules to require a talking filibuster for this specific subject matter would also allow the American people and the Senate to see how appropriate talking filibusters would be for all bills — a change for which we have advocated in the past.

Most importantly, restoring the talking filibuster on an issue as visible and important as an assault weapons ban would return debate to the public arena and incentivize good-faith negotiation by both parties to avoid hours of lost time, laid bare for public viewing.

We know Democrats have a lot they’d like to get done before losing control of the House in January. And many of their goals, like raising the debt ceiling, are necessary and important. But in our opinion, few of them are as important as taking a stand on the epidemic of gun violence in the United States.

As we’ve written before, the data clearly shows that reasonable regulations on guns work to save lives and prevent mass shootings. Moreover, the majority of the country supports these types of regulations.

There is no reason for Democrats to cater to gun-rights extremists while sacrificing the needs and interests of the vast majority of Americans. But there is a need for Republicans to explain their opposition to the American people, on the floor of the Senate.

If they want to be the party of obstruction, the party that prevents government from fulfilling even its most basic obligations by filibustering a bill to save American lives, then let them hang themselves on their own words.

Voters narrowly rejected Republican extremism this month, and now Democrats have work to do on this issue that enjoys significant popular support in America. If 10 Republicans in the Senate care to join them in actually governing, then we can move forward, together, as United States — starting by protecting our schools and public spaces from gun violence.

Restoring the talking filibuster on an issue as visible and important as an assault weapons ban would return debate to the public arena and incentivize good-faith negotiation by both parties.