Covert Mission
New member
June 22, 1999
Albert Get Your Gun
After the House killed a gun regulation bill last Friday, Democratic
leader Dick Gephardt shook the hand of fellow Democrat John Dingell
and said, "Thank you." That's all you need to know about the sincerity of
the gun-control debate now "raging" in Washington.
A Madonna video has more authenticity. Mr. Dingell, you see, had earlier
sponsored a regulation-weakening amendment to the gun bill that gave
political cover to 44 fellow Democrats in rural and pro-gun parts of the
country. But then he turned around and joined 197 Democrats (and 82
Republicans) to kill the overall bill! No fool, Mr. Dingell knew that the
National Rifle Association was "scoring" how Members voted on his
amendment but not the final bill for election purposes.
Thus did the ranking Democrat in the House take supposed GOP
mastermind Tom DeLay to the political cleaners. Mr. Dingell also kept
the issue alive for Al Gore and quaking suburban Democrats for the
2000 election. No wonder Mr. Gephardt thanked the old baron for
improving his chances of becoming Speaker.
We rehearse this inside baseball not merely because the rest of the
press corps ignored it, but because it shows that all of the shooting and
shouting you've been seeing the past several days over guns is
pointless even by Washington standards. If Democrats really thought
gun control mattered, they wouldn't have killed a bill that still
tightened regulations on sales at gun shows and mandated safety locks.
This skirmish is more about controlling Congress in 2000 than it is
controlling anyone's guns.
In fact, it put on display the purely symbolic emotional politics typical
of the Clinton Age. A couple of teenagers, seized by evil, shoot up a
suburban Colorado high school. This understandably unsettles most
Americans, especially parents who want to think of suburbs as
sanctuaries for their children. So the response of the political and
media elites is to play on this suburban angst by raising a frenzy about
guns and the NRA. The hope is that soccer moms will then vote for
Democrats, especially Al Gore.
Why else would Democrats take up the chant, "six seats, six seats" --
the GOP's current House margin -- during the gun vote? Why else would
President Clinton respond by attacking "the House leadership" who
"gutted this bill in the dark of night," although a Democrat (Mr. Dingell)
sponsored the gutting amendment and 197 Democrats then walked away
from the bill?
Keep in mind the "substance" here. There are already 200 million guns
in America, and unless Mr. Clinton wants to round them all up some will
get in the wrong hands. There are also about 20,000 gun laws currently
on the books. Federal gun laws alone already run to nearly 90,000
words. Children can't buy guns legally anywhere today (even though Mr.
Gore, in his own, increasingly familiar political frenzy, mistakenly said
they could last week).
The gun-show "loophole" that Democrats claim they want to close isn't
the reason those kids had guns. The Colorado killers got their guns
illegally, the way most criminals do. Even if everything that Mr. Clinton
wants managed to pass Congress, none of it would have prevented those
Littleton killings or any similar murders in the future.
We have never been second-amendment absolutists, but it seems to us
that regulations ought to bear some relevance to the problem they
purport to solve. Or perhaps that's too much to ask in this era of
synthetic political sentiment. For what it's worth, our advice to our
readers is that whenever you hear the phrase "gun control" in the next
few months, turn the channel. For all you'll be hearing is spin.
©Dow Jones Interactive, 1999
Albert Get Your Gun
After the House killed a gun regulation bill last Friday, Democratic
leader Dick Gephardt shook the hand of fellow Democrat John Dingell
and said, "Thank you." That's all you need to know about the sincerity of
the gun-control debate now "raging" in Washington.
A Madonna video has more authenticity. Mr. Dingell, you see, had earlier
sponsored a regulation-weakening amendment to the gun bill that gave
political cover to 44 fellow Democrats in rural and pro-gun parts of the
country. But then he turned around and joined 197 Democrats (and 82
Republicans) to kill the overall bill! No fool, Mr. Dingell knew that the
National Rifle Association was "scoring" how Members voted on his
amendment but not the final bill for election purposes.
Thus did the ranking Democrat in the House take supposed GOP
mastermind Tom DeLay to the political cleaners. Mr. Dingell also kept
the issue alive for Al Gore and quaking suburban Democrats for the
2000 election. No wonder Mr. Gephardt thanked the old baron for
improving his chances of becoming Speaker.
We rehearse this inside baseball not merely because the rest of the
press corps ignored it, but because it shows that all of the shooting and
shouting you've been seeing the past several days over guns is
pointless even by Washington standards. If Democrats really thought
gun control mattered, they wouldn't have killed a bill that still
tightened regulations on sales at gun shows and mandated safety locks.
This skirmish is more about controlling Congress in 2000 than it is
controlling anyone's guns.
In fact, it put on display the purely symbolic emotional politics typical
of the Clinton Age. A couple of teenagers, seized by evil, shoot up a
suburban Colorado high school. This understandably unsettles most
Americans, especially parents who want to think of suburbs as
sanctuaries for their children. So the response of the political and
media elites is to play on this suburban angst by raising a frenzy about
guns and the NRA. The hope is that soccer moms will then vote for
Democrats, especially Al Gore.
Why else would Democrats take up the chant, "six seats, six seats" --
the GOP's current House margin -- during the gun vote? Why else would
President Clinton respond by attacking "the House leadership" who
"gutted this bill in the dark of night," although a Democrat (Mr. Dingell)
sponsored the gutting amendment and 197 Democrats then walked away
from the bill?
Keep in mind the "substance" here. There are already 200 million guns
in America, and unless Mr. Clinton wants to round them all up some will
get in the wrong hands. There are also about 20,000 gun laws currently
on the books. Federal gun laws alone already run to nearly 90,000
words. Children can't buy guns legally anywhere today (even though Mr.
Gore, in his own, increasingly familiar political frenzy, mistakenly said
they could last week).
The gun-show "loophole" that Democrats claim they want to close isn't
the reason those kids had guns. The Colorado killers got their guns
illegally, the way most criminals do. Even if everything that Mr. Clinton
wants managed to pass Congress, none of it would have prevented those
Littleton killings or any similar murders in the future.
We have never been second-amendment absolutists, but it seems to us
that regulations ought to bear some relevance to the problem they
purport to solve. Or perhaps that's too much to ask in this era of
synthetic political sentiment. For what it's worth, our advice to our
readers is that whenever you hear the phrase "gun control" in the next
few months, turn the channel. For all you'll be hearing is spin.
©Dow Jones Interactive, 1999