Editorial rights purchased from iStock. Image by STILLFX.
Every time there’s another school shooting, we have the same conversation. But it’s never the one we need to have if we want to end the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence.
It doesn’t matter who got shot, killed, or wounded — the response is always the same. I’ve got to hand it to Joy Reid, of The Reidout, for reciting the names of various members of Congress who have taken money from gun lobbyists. At least she’s getting close to what matters. Or, part of what matters.
But for the most part, everybody else is just repeating the same nonsense. Fingers are pointed and platitudes abound. Democrats say Republicans care more about their precious Second Amendment than they do about the lives of children. Republicans say Democrats will use any excuse, even the deaths of children, to promote their liberal agenda — an agenda that will eat away at our inalienable rights and destroy life as we know it.
The truth is, this isn’t about the Second Amendment or a liberal agenda. It’s about money. In America, it’s always about money.
If we want Congress to pass laws that keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill, unstable, crazy people, then we need to stop the National Rifle Association from paying them not to pass laws that keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill, unstable, crazy people.
So, why don’t we? I can give you 51, maybe 52 reasons: 50 Senate Republicans and Joe Manchin/ Kyrsten Sinema.
The entire Biden presidency has been handicapped for the same 51/52 reasons. Senate Republicans made a pact not to support any of President Biden’s agenda. With a 50/50 split, every single Democrat (including Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) must support legislation for it to pass the Senate, since no Republicans will support any of it.
This is a beautiful thing for the Republicans. Manchin and Sinema are the obvious scapegoats, pitting Democrats against each other, which further divides the Democratic party. It also makes it easier for Republicans to blame Democrats for the failure to deliver on the Biden agenda. Hell, it makes it easier for Democrats to blame Democrats for failing to deliver on the Biden agenda.
Why vote for a party that gets nothing done? You might as well vote for a party that doesn’t want to govern. See how that works? It’s a win/win for Republicans and a lose/lose for Democrats.
It’s too bad that Republicans can only succeed at manipulating perception — and are not nearly as skilled at legislating. It’s equally sad that Democrats are so good at governing and so poor at communicating their accomplishments.
As hard as it is, in these painful times, we need to start focusing on what works — not how we feel about everything. We’re never going to have the same sentiments as the “other” party. But we can look at practical solutions. That’s why we need to look at the money.
In capitalism, it’s always about following the money.
The gun lobby is only the most obvious problem, however. We can’t ignore the commercial glorification of violence promoted by the TV and film industries whose massive incomes would decrease significantly if they stopped catering to the masses and their lust for violent content. But I’ll save that for another day.
The political issue — and yes, it is political — lies in the fact that Republican politicians are using this as a culture war issue to win political points. As long as they believe their constituents will fall in line with the idea that liberal Democrats want to take away their Second Amendment rights, they will use this argument to win votes.
It’s not that the politicians care about our Second Amendment rights — they don’t. They care about being re-elected.
The emotional pull of the Second Amendment debate is a winner for the right-wing political cynic who cares about winning and doesn’t care how it’s done. This is yet another example of how Republicans love to apply the old adage “the end justifies the means.” It sounds benign — especially when you say it over and over to like-minded people — but it isn’t.
Think about what that saying means. It means that whatever end we desire can justify whatever method we use to get it. Literally, whatever. No bounds, no rules, no morality. In other words, nothing matters. Nothing is sacrosanct. Anything goes.
Well, we’ve seen how well that works, haven’t we? That gave us Trump — a man with no morals, conscience, or empathy but one who willingly worked to take away the rights of women across America by focusing his SCOTUS picks on three of the most hardened conservative Christians he could find.
When the means involve lies designed to fool people into voting against their best interests, and the end is simply another Republican victory, the winner here is the politician, not the public.
As for Second Amendment rights, do you think if Trump were re-elected, and decided to force another hostile take-over of our government, liberal Democrats would be allowed to take up arms? Don’t kid yourself. This is all about power and money.
The one thing I can’t figure out is why Republican voters are not smart enough to see through this.
John Heilman had an interesting theory on MSNBC’s Deadline Whitehouse. He believes the “single-issue voter” is a big contributing factor. This is the voter who doesn’t care about any other issue. In this example, if he thinks his Second Amendment rights are being threatened, he’ll vote Republican to protect those rights — no matter what else that entails.
This voter is a guaranteed vote for Republican candidates promoting Second Amendment protections in their campaign speeches. That’s all Republicans have to do for this single-issue voter to vote for a Republican. They don’t have to create anything, pass any law, or make any kind of difference in the lives of anyone — they just have to tell that voter that if a Democrat gets in power, it will threaten their Second Amendment rights. That’s it.
I don’t know how many of these voters exist, but Heilman thinks it’s a significant number, and he ought to know.
But even this seems a weak argument for voting against reasonable laws to promote gun safety. I guess the problem is that if we try to implement stronger background checks, for example, mentally unstable people would be weeded out and too many in this select voting group might be among them. I think that must be it. You’d have to be a little odd to be worried about our government coming to take away your guns if you are just hanging out at home, waiting to defend the old homestead.
When was the last time anyone from our government showed up at any of these people’s homes and threatened their way of life? Exactly why do these people believe so strongly that our government is a threat to them? Why is this “well-regulated militia” referenced in the Second Amendment so important to these people, when there is no evidence to suggest that any of them have any reason to feel threatened by our government?
The only threat I see is the threat of Republican politicians who willingly lie to their constituents in order to get re-elected.
It’s these same Republicans who refuse to consider laws to protect children from school shootings. It’s these same Republicans who choose to make every issue political so they can use it to promote their political careers. It’s these same Republicans who pretend that this issue — which cannot be resolved without legislation, which is the sole function of a politician — is not a political issue. Are they kidding? It’s purely political given that only politicians can solve it. Yet, Republicans constantly rail against Democrats for trying to address it as such.
I don’t know how to reach the people currently being manipulated by the Republican leadership in this country. I don’t know how to convince them to stop voting against their self-interests. I don’t know how to remove enough Republicans from Congress to make meaningful legislation possible.
But when I hear Republicans say, “Now is not the time,” to every suggestion that we need to act now to pass gun safety legislation — the same thing they say every time another group of kids gets murdered at school — I know this much: I know they are wrong.
Addendum: Seconds ago, Ted Cruz was on the news saying that if they’d just had one door for everybody to go in and out, not multiple entrances and exits, this could have been prevented. Right — that’s the answer.
So what do you do when there’s a fire, Ted?