The most striking and appalling aspect of the response to the Aurora, Colorado shootings has been the deadly silence from our two presidential candidates about guns and violence -- and ultimately gun control -- in America. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clearly want to avoid the subject.
This is no surprise, of course. The National Rifle Association has a death grip on the national debate over guns, and by extension the larger subject of violence. Obama does not want to alienate conservative Democrats, certainly not in an election year, while Romney will not now question NRA orthodoxy.
Those Americans who would like an open debate on the subject, and a chance to develop reasonable and effective solutions to our gun violence problem, are in despair. Many feel the nation is at a political impasse.
History -- both recent and not so recent -- suggests a way out.
It was not too many years ago that the subject of same sex marriage was both unthinkable and even unmentionable in American politics. Yet, here we are today, with a sitting president endorsing same sex marriage, even though he is in the midst of a challenging reelection campaign. Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same sex marriage, and candidates for public office across the country endorse it.
How did this happen? How did we travel so far and so quickly on a once unmentionable subject?
The answer is that a grass roots movement built a constituency that has made it possible, and in many cases almost mandatory for some candidates to endorse same sex marriage. And therein lies a model for changing the national gun debate. It is indeed futile today to expect presidential candidates to take the lead on this issue. The long term solution lies in building a grass roots movement that future candidates will have to respond to.
This scenario has other important parallels from the past.
On February 8, 1964, when the House of Representatives debated adding sex discrimination to Title VII of the Civil Rights bill, the subject was greeted with derision from many House members. As is well known, the sex amendment was introduced by a conservative southerner as a scheme to derail the entire Civil Rights bill. Many liberals opposed it for that reason, but many others were not ready for women's equality. The liberal chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Emanuel Celler, worried about the "traditional family," and cited potential "problems" related to child custody, alimony, and standards for the crime of rape. Since that day, of course, the women's rights movement has made enormous strides on these and other issues. Presidents did not take the lead in the early critical years, however, and (Democrats, at least) did not take up women's rights until they were faced with a strong political constituency by the 1970s.
On January 2, 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency, and listed his agenda for getting America moving again. Civil rights was not on his list. And yet, events quickly made racial justice the central domestic policy issue in the country, forcing Kennedy as president to propose a federal civil rights bill in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963. Those "events," as we know, involved demonstrations in the streets, countless speeches, articles and books, and tireless lobbying, and other actions in support of racial justice.
Much earlier, when the ACLU held its initial meeting on January 19, 1920, in the wake of the notorious Palmer Raids, many thought protection of freedom of speech to be a hopeless cause. And yet, the United States today has the broadest protection of speech of any nation in the world. This also occurred with little meaningful public support from our presidents. "Events" made it happen -- demonstrations, speeches, and litigation that eventually reshaped the law and public opinion.
We can break the grip of the NRA and open the national debate on guns by bypassing presidential politics and building a grass roots movement that presidents and candidates will necessarily be forced to respond do. Let that work begin.
While the author does try to bring history into their plight, he fails to notice that gun rights are also civil rights and there in lies the problem with the gun control agenda. Until those that promote gun control recognize this basic fact they will no more get gun owners to give up their firearms than African Americans would give up the right to vote.
Since the Colorado shooting, the usual liberal suspects have tried to persuade us that more gun laws would prevent the next tragedy. Lautenberg’s attempt at banning high capacity magazines and ammunition purchases over 1,000 rounds or banning the misnamed “assault rifles” were, again, feel good only attempts to placate that small minority of liberals that feel “we must do something” even if it doesn’t work. And again, the gun control folks don’t get it. These feeble, misguided attempts to restrict firearms not only meet with heavy resistance, but they give life to the NRA message that liberals want to take everyone’s guns away. That just brings more support to gun rights organizations.
We had a national debate on guns. You lost. Deal with it.
Possible suspects are: Celexa, Cipramil, Cipram, Dalsan, Recital, Emocal, Sepram, Seropram, Citox, Cital, Lexapro, Cipralex, Seroplex, Esertia, Depex, Prozac, Fontex, Seromex, Seronil, Sarafem, Ladose, Motivest, Flutop, Luvox, Fevarin, Faverin, Dumyrox, Favoxil, Movox, Paxil, Seroxat, Sereupin, Aropax, Deroxat, Divarius, Rexetin, Xetanor, Paroxat, Loxamine, Deparo, Zoloft, Lustral, Serlain, and Asentra.
Let's come together and address violence, and leave all this hyper-culture war driven gun control alone. The debate is done. Now let's get something done.
I would greatly appreciate it if authors using the phrase "reasonable gun control" would offer some concrete examples of what that might be. All I hear are calls for a renewal of the assault weapons ban (it was ineffective according to FBI statistics) imposition of background checks on private sellers at gun shows (I've seen no data indicating that has been a significatn factor in violent incidents) banning high capacity magazines (really a non-issue if you understand how quickly an empty low capacity magazine can be exchanged for a full one) and the imposition of onerous licensing and registration schemes (which do not work where currently implemented).
Gun Free Zone - Washington, DC
How those working out for you? LOL The two most dangerous cities in this country. Washington is the murder capital of the USA. See a connection here?