A week ago I predicted that the Senate would do nothing on gun regulation. But over the weekend negotiators announced they'd reached a deal. So was I too cynical?
Maybe! But keep two things in mind:
- Nothing has passed yet. There's plenty of time for things to fall apart.
- Even if it passes, the "framework" announced on Sunday contains only two (2) provisions that actually regulate guns. One would slightly strengthen background checks for gun buyers under 21. The other would prevent domestic violence offenders from owning a gun even if they aren't married to their victim (the so-called "boyfriend loophole").
The rest of the Senate agreement deals with mental health, red flag laws, and so forth. So count me as still cynical. This bit of legislative trivia will probably get watered down even further and, even then, may well not pass. The conservative noise machine has plenty of time to convince their followers that no true friend of liberty would restrict the Second Amendment rights of unmarried domestic abusers.
POSTSCRIPT: Is the success of "framework" negotiations a historic win just for showing that Republicans are finally open to gun regulation, even if things are starting off small? A lot of pundits seem to think so, but I'd say this is wishful thinking on a grand scale. Republicans are just playing for time, not showing any real interest in stopping gun massacres.
I support virtually all gun control measures. However, to anything meaningful, given that the US has 300 million plus guns and hand guns represent 80% of gun violence, requires dramatic actions: for example Australian style gun confiscation. Politically, and at least with our current Supreme Court, nothing dramatic is possible on the gun front.
Therefore, we will nibble on the edges and, if we are lucky, reduce our gun deaths by a couple percentage points...
Tax the living shit out of bullets and bullet making equipment. No bullets, no bang. Just an expensive and flimsy club.
At times, you vacillate between criticism of the perfect being the enemy of the good and minimizing the actions of good.
Don't let your cynicism drive a counterproductive narrative.
Chris Murphy has said he feels like Charlie Brown...
RIght. That's exactly what happened after Sandy Hook. Dragging on for months. News that Manchin and Toomey had figured something out which Republicans could agree to. Then all of that falling apart and nothing passing at all.
This is simple - nothing will pass that restricts the sale of guns and the profits of the gun industry.
Lots of people are saying these things and I understand why. But what I want to know is what would be the logic of signing onto something i.e. putting your name on the dotted line publicly and then reniging so quickly knowing full well the pressures coming your way over the next few weeks if not months?
I'd guess the logic would be that they've calculated that is the most likely path toward reelection. Maybe by saying they'll agree to certain minimal restrictions they can come off as relatively reasonable, but in the end they can make up some sort of BS reason about the original agreement changing, Democrats acting in bad faith, or whatever else and not have to actually do anything.
Basically trying to play both sides. It will piss off all the people who weren't going to vote for them regardless, keep the 100% pro-gun crowd on their side, and maybe convince some amount of the very small slice in the middle that they aren't a total gun nut.
Bingo! They can run on the "We really wanted to do something, but those dishonest Dems betrayed us." platform. The press, of course, will both sides the crap out of this.
The press is only interest in talking points. So if it’s not being promoted by someone, it doesn’t exit for the press. There won’t be Democrats aggressively talking about this (or gun control generally) during the election so if you’re a Republican, you get the best of both words; you can fool voters who care about it into thinking you voted for it but the extremists on the “squad” killed the deal. But hardcore Republican Party supporters know you were just trolling the stupid, weak Democrats.
This is the problem with one of the party's being timid and “nonpartisan”. There are, for example, Republicans running on having “brought home the bacon” from the highway bill even though they voted against it. An occasional snippy but inside baseball comment from Chuck and Nancy but so far no scorched earth campaign burning these Republicans as lying hypocrites.
Nothing that’s going on now is going to help with things like school shootings, domestic violence, or gun violence generally. So far, the bulk of the money (and the only new initiatives, really) is going to fortifying schools, to strutting police who will preen themselves but like kids and teachers to be slaughtered.
But this farce will help achieve a key Democratic objective, namely, taking the heat of of Republicans and helping to build an even stronger Republican Party. Which, as I say, is inexplicably a critical priority for the Democrats.
While this gun owner is already trying to disarm himself.https://www.mlive.com/news/2022/06/michigan-man-loses-both-arms-after-bomb-explodes-in-his-garage.html
I kind of want some trollishly-inclined Democrat to sponsor a bill denying gun ownership to pedophiles.
I know nobody with a changeable mind cares, we can play for chaos, too.
After years of absolutely zero movement towards any kind of gun control, this should be taken as a significant step.
It's a thousand times better than nothing, given the historical intransigence of the Republicans.
The reported agreement is a tacit admission that the gun lobby has always proposed the best solutions to mass shootings and Democrats like Beto O'Rourke have been wrong. It's about the worst political decision Democrats have taken in 18 months of Congressional blunders. It will do virtually nothing to reduce gun violence. But it does acknowledge that the way forward is to concentrate on "defending targets", make armed guards ubiquitous, and lock up crazy people. It's another step in the militarization of American society. Republicans, if they have any brains, will go to the mid-terms boasting that Democrats have finally come around to seeing the problem of mass shootings correctly, but are too in thrall to teachers' unions to take the obvious next step of arming school staff.
Frankly, I'm almost beyond hoping on this issue. Apparently Sinema Verite is one of the sponsors (!!!), which is odd, but suggests the possibility she'll vote for it. But that frees up Joe Manchin to get offended by some little thing, like maybe his name not being the top headline yet this week or something.
Republicans are defusing an issue in an election year. Nothing more.
Pundits, of course, are eager to help.