This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/barack-obama-gun-control-no-we-cant

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Obama and gun control: no, we can't Obama and gun control: no, we can't
(5 months later)
One tragedy is still fresh in the minds of Americans, but another, the killings at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, only four months ago, is not. At least not in the minds of the senators who are supposed to represent them. The loss and suffering of bereaved parents, common sense, a bill crafted to do little more than close most of the loopholes on background checks that allow criminals and the dangerously insane to buy guns – all this hit a stone wall in the Senate.One tragedy is still fresh in the minds of Americans, but another, the killings at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, only four months ago, is not. At least not in the minds of the senators who are supposed to represent them. The loss and suffering of bereaved parents, common sense, a bill crafted to do little more than close most of the loopholes on background checks that allow criminals and the dangerously insane to buy guns – all this hit a stone wall in the Senate.
Calling it a shameful day for Washington, a visibly angered Barack Obama said there were no coherent arguments for the fall of one proposal after another, from banning assault rifles to limiting the size of ammunition clips. It was just politics, he said. Yes, but whose politics? Will there be a backlash at the polls against the 41 Republicans and four Democrats who killed the bill to expand background checks for gun buyers? In the president's dreams. The tone of the Senate's "victory" was set by the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who put up on his website a picture of himself making a zero sign with the caption: "You can have this much gun control." It is tempting, and easy, to portray this as an argument between public opinion (90% of which supports expanded background checks) and a gutless gaggle of politicians in hock to a well-funded gun lobby. The National Rifle Association spent $500,000 on Wednesday alone on an advertising campaign misrepresenting the bills as "Obama's gun ban". Money and re-election are part of the picture, but not all of it.Calling it a shameful day for Washington, a visibly angered Barack Obama said there were no coherent arguments for the fall of one proposal after another, from banning assault rifles to limiting the size of ammunition clips. It was just politics, he said. Yes, but whose politics? Will there be a backlash at the polls against the 41 Republicans and four Democrats who killed the bill to expand background checks for gun buyers? In the president's dreams. The tone of the Senate's "victory" was set by the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who put up on his website a picture of himself making a zero sign with the caption: "You can have this much gun control." It is tempting, and easy, to portray this as an argument between public opinion (90% of which supports expanded background checks) and a gutless gaggle of politicians in hock to a well-funded gun lobby. The National Rifle Association spent $500,000 on Wednesday alone on an advertising campaign misrepresenting the bills as "Obama's gun ban". Money and re-election are part of the picture, but not all of it.
America's pathological relationship with guns, and the reluctance to consider them as anything other than part of a way of life, goes deeper. In some places, its about race, about a white minority thinking they have lost a land they used to lord over. For others it's about a form of social Darwinism: violence can only be addressed with more violence, good guys shooting the bad guys (the statistics say more people kill and maim themselves than are murdered). For others it's the idea that federal government may at some point turn against them, so it's best to be prepared. Whatever the reason, Mr Obama hit a political fact on Wednesday: that change he believes in may not change anything at all.America's pathological relationship with guns, and the reluctance to consider them as anything other than part of a way of life, goes deeper. In some places, its about race, about a white minority thinking they have lost a land they used to lord over. For others it's about a form of social Darwinism: violence can only be addressed with more violence, good guys shooting the bad guys (the statistics say more people kill and maim themselves than are murdered). For others it's the idea that federal government may at some point turn against them, so it's best to be prepared. Whatever the reason, Mr Obama hit a political fact on Wednesday: that change he believes in may not change anything at all.
He also must have had a good dose of deja vu. The Republican party that each day berates itself on how out of touch it has become with public opinion, is behaving in the same way it did before suffering electoral defeat last year. The minority in the Senate is helped on its obstructionist course by voting rules which force Mr Obama to find 60 votes for anything he wants to do. The fact that at some point in the future the same abuse of the filibuster can be used against a Republican president does not seem to concern them. All that mattered in the first Obama term, and all that matters as the clock starts to tick on the second term, is to prevent a twice-elected president from fulfilling his mandate. Gun control only became part of it after the horror of Newtown, but if ever Mr Obama must be tempted to bypass Capitol Hill and rule by executive order, it must be now. Used with this frequency, the filibuster devalues democracy and undermines governance.He also must have had a good dose of deja vu. The Republican party that each day berates itself on how out of touch it has become with public opinion, is behaving in the same way it did before suffering electoral defeat last year. The minority in the Senate is helped on its obstructionist course by voting rules which force Mr Obama to find 60 votes for anything he wants to do. The fact that at some point in the future the same abuse of the filibuster can be used against a Republican president does not seem to concern them. All that mattered in the first Obama term, and all that matters as the clock starts to tick on the second term, is to prevent a twice-elected president from fulfilling his mandate. Gun control only became part of it after the horror of Newtown, but if ever Mr Obama must be tempted to bypass Capitol Hill and rule by executive order, it must be now. Used with this frequency, the filibuster devalues democracy and undermines governance.
Failure to do the right thing was bipartisan. Four Republicans, including one of the backers, Pat Toomey, voted for the background checks but an equal number of Democrats, from states that Mr Obama lost last autumn, voted against. Voters should punish the lot of them in 2014. But, more likely, it will take another massacre in a school, before this will happen. No one in Europe, each with our own tragedies caused by deranged gunmen, should crow at Washington's dysfunction. None of the measures that were voted down in the Senate would have prevented such mass shootings. But, as Mr Toomey modestly said, it would have made them that bit more difficult to enact. "It's just common sense," the senator said, over and over again. One day he might be heard, but it may not be any time soon.Failure to do the right thing was bipartisan. Four Republicans, including one of the backers, Pat Toomey, voted for the background checks but an equal number of Democrats, from states that Mr Obama lost last autumn, voted against. Voters should punish the lot of them in 2014. But, more likely, it will take another massacre in a school, before this will happen. No one in Europe, each with our own tragedies caused by deranged gunmen, should crow at Washington's dysfunction. None of the measures that were voted down in the Senate would have prevented such mass shootings. But, as Mr Toomey modestly said, it would have made them that bit more difficult to enact. "It's just common sense," the senator said, over and over again. One day he might be heard, but it may not be any time soon.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.