THE CITY that goes by the name of Washington, D.C., isn’t exactly known for politicians with an abundance of common sense. In fact, when common sense does appear there, it’s worthy of remark. As in, remarkable. Foolishness is the order of the day-indeed, most days, in the nation’s capital and Capitol. But sometimes the foolishness is so over-the-top there that even it is, well, remarkable.
For good, or rather bad, example, see what happened Wednesday, April 17, 2013.
Why would the United States Senate defeat a bill that would require background checks to buy guns at gun shows or online?
Is there a good reason?Can you find one in all the stories that have appeared in the paper over the last few days? Why would both of Arkansas’ two senators vote against requiring those checks? It baffles the mind. Or petrifies it. And all the while this needed and appropriate idea is being debated, argued, postponed, nit-picked and generally kicked around, more guns are making it into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.
One theory is that the NRA reduces politicians in these latitudes to jelly, and the votes this week of both John Boozman and Mark Pryor’s on what should have been a non-issue can be cited in support of that thesis.
The U.S. Senate wound up voting 54 to 46 to expand the background checks, but in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to move a bill like this forward. Sadly, both of Arkansas’ senators were among the 46.
What were they thinking? Or were they? Or were they just quaking?
The folks who update Senator Boozman’s website seem to be wooing the black-helicopter types. Here’s their lede in the release they wrote about his vote: “U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) today voted to protect the Second Amendment by opposing Majority-led efforts to erode the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”
Huh?
Law-abiding citizens can pass background checks. And shouldn’t mind submitting to them. Here’s a hint to Senator Boozman’s office staff: Try de-caf.
Even worse is the news release’s quote from the senator himself:
“The Senate does not have the legal authority to dismantle the Second Amendment,” he said. “The unnecessary burdens placed on law-abiding Americans through the background checks and reporting requirements that the [bill] would create are not consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Once again: Huh?
Somebody is going to have to explain this one. Everyone seems to agree that requiring a background check at Wal-Mart is an acceptable way to keep felons and people with mental problems from getting guns. But require the same check at a gun show is, ahem, an effort to erode constitutional rights? In what world does that make sense? Only in the world of Washington, D.C.
The state’s senior senator, Mark Pryor, D-Gun Lobby, also voted against the bill. But at least his website doesn’t brag about it. Maybe he’s still capable of shame. His PR folks seem to be more concerned with trumpeting his Spirit of Enterprise award from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and worrying about whether there’ll be cuts to rural post offices in Arkansas, than piddly matters like life and death and mass shootings.
When you’re a blue-dog senator coming up for re-election in a red state, it may not hurt your political chances to cast a vote the way the National Rifle Association tells you to. How much good his vote will do Senator Pryor in 2014 is anybody’s guess. He’ll have accomplished a major feat if he can just look himself in the mirror after Wednesday’s vote.
IT TOOK 46 to dance this tango. And some of those senators sounded as if they could be writing website updates for Senator Boozman. For example, there was Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who said the plan to require more background checks would lead to a federal registry of guns. Although the legislation specifically said it couldn’t. It also would have barred the federales from even keeping background-check records.
The NRA’s top lobbyist put out a statement saying, in part, that “expanding background checks at gun shows or elsewhere will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.”
Could we try it, please, before we give up on it? Even if it doesn’t help much, any help would be appreciated.
As it stands, somebody who’s not legally allowed to own a firearm can pay eight bucks to enter a gun show, hand over the price for a gun, and walk out with it. Legislation that would prevent that wouldn’t reduce violent crime? Mr. NRA must live on Planet Washington, too.
Polls shows that more than 90 percent of Americans support background checks before a person can buy a gun.When was the last time you heard of more than 90 percent of the American public supporting anything? Besides lower gasoline prices and more peanuts in the brittle? But the U.S. Senate-including your two senators, Mr. and Mrs. Arkansan-still refuses to close the gun show/online loophole.
Next time you see Sens. Pryor and Boozman, ask them why. See if they’ve come up with any better answers than the ones they’ve offered so far. Or at least better excuses. These wore thin some time ago.
Editorial, Pages 78 on 04/21/2013