The politics of guns

By Max J. Castro
majcastro@gmail.com

Last month’s horrendous tragedy, where 20-year-old Adam Lanza burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, and murdered 20 small children and six adults before taking his own life, was made possible by the fact that the killer was armed with an arsenal far more lethal than U.S. soldiers carry into battle in Afghanistan.

We have witnessed similar madness in other schools, in movie theaters, at political rallies, in offices, at universities, in shopping malls. But this one, involving the mass murder of defenseless children, is so heinous it has shaken the national conscience like no other.

All these tragedies have at least two things in common unique to the United States.

One is that in this country virtually anyone, including homicidal maniacs, raving racists, even convicted killers have easy and legal access to weapons capable of producing terrifying carnage that have no legitimate use outside of the likes of SWAT and SEAL teams. But for such weapons, Lanza and the other lunatics would never have been able to perpetrate murder on nearly as large a scale.

Two is that in no other country does the cult of the gun have such strong institutional backing. This includes a Second Amendment to the Constitution that speaks of a right of the people to bear arms. The gun advocates’ position was further bolstered by our current right-leaning Supreme Court, which for the first time ruled that this right pertains to individuals and not just to members of the “well-ordered militia” referenced in the same amendment. Finally, no other nation has such a formidable gun lobby – or such a fervent troop of true believers. Indeed, the latter group’s core belief, that the right to bear arms is a right on the same plane as the right to free speech, is a concept alien to the rest of the world.

There are several reasons for this particular aspect of “American exceptionalism.” There is the conservative and federalist nature of the foundational text – the U.S. Constitution – that makes it extremely difficult to get rid of glaring anachronisms like the Electoral College and the Second Amendment.

Then there is the weight of history, the inescapable fact that most of the country was seized from the aboriginal people or from earlier European settlers at the point of a gun. Add to the reality and the myth of the frontier, and the legacy of slavery. Slave owners needed – and often used – firearms to keep the enslaved in line.

Most importantly, the way the U.S. political system works and the way campaigns are financed and conducted enables fervent, focused, well-funded but narrow interest groups that represent the views of only a fraction of the electorate, like the National Rifle Association (NRA), to determine policy on a given issue.

No doubt that those who profit from guns, the powerful companies that manufacture arms and the myriad smaller players who sell them, are the mainstay of the NRA. But the historical background, the national narrative, and the racial climate from slavery to today add to the political force field that paralyzes politicians even in the face of repeated tragedies, from the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999 to the outrage at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month.

Today, in the wake of Newtown, many people once again are calling for stricter gun control. Meanwhile, the principal advocates of “gun rights,” sensing the adverse mood of the country, at first sought to keep a low profile. Later the NRA came up with its solution: armed guards at every school! Those who cherish the First Amendment say the answer to obnoxious free speech is more free speech. Second Amendment stalwarts want to solve the problems caused by guns with more guns. The parallel couldn’t be more fallacious. Words don’t kill people but guns do.

But will the national sorrow and anger over the slaughter of the innocents at Sandy Hook generate a shock wave strong enough to reverse the winning streak the gun lobby has been on since the Bush administration allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 and the Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to bear arms in 2009?

The initial reaction from the Obama administration was extremely discouraging. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said "today is not the day" to engage in a policy debate over gun control. If this is not the right time, then when will be the right time?

Obama, in his subsequent and remarkably compassionate speech to the nation, did express the necessity of doing something about the violence “beyond the politics.” He did not say what that something should be.

In fact, the President is likely to give strong backing to bills that will be introduced in Congress this month to reinstate the assault weapons ban and to restrict the number of bullets in ammunition clips. But the President doesn’t have to worry about the wrath of the NRA or the gun nuts anymore. However, Democrats in Congress know that come the next election they are likely to face an onslaught of attack ads and well-funded pro-gun Republican opponents if they dare cross the NRA.

Thus there is no way to move beyond politics when it comes to guns. We will know soon if the horrid crime in Connecticut is the blow that finally breaks the stranglehold of the NRA and gives the nation’s leaders the political courage and will to say with their votes and voices: No More Columbines, No More Virginia Techs, No More Sandy Hooks.