The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 13
Bumping into Republican cowardice on guns
One small island of sanity in the generally insane ocean of American gun culture is the near-complete federal ban on civilian possession of fully automatic weapons - machine guns.
The nation got a bitter taste last year of what we’d be facing on a regular basis without that ban. On a Las Vegas night in October, 64-year-old businessman Stephen Paddock sprayed a music festival with more than 1,100 rounds in just 10 minutes from high in a nearby hotel, killing 58 people and wounding a surreal 851. No, he didn’t have a machine gun, but he had the next worst thing: a “bump stock,” a simple accessory that effectively turned his semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic ones.
Ten months later, this darkly ingenious device - whose only purpose is to circumvent a machine gun restriction so obviously necessary that even the National Rifle Association gets it - is still legal in most of the U.S. It’s past time that changed.
With a semi-automatic weapon, pulling the trigger once shoots one round; with a fully automatic weapon, holding the trigger in shoots round after round, rapidly, for as long as the ammunition holds out and the weapon doesn’t overheat. It’s technically possible for civilians to legally obtain fully automatic weapons, but the federal restrictions are so strong and the market so expensive that, for most people, they are effectively banned.
But someone discovered that the recoil of a more easily accessible semi-automatic rifle could be harnessed. Thus the bump stock, a sleeve that fits over the rifle’s stock. When the rifle recoils against the bump stock, it bounces forward to reset the trigger, then recoils back again, allowing the rapid-fire effect of a machine gun.
Both parties and President Donald Trump generally agreed on the need to ban bump stocks. Against the carnage in Las Vegas, it looked like a no-brainer. Whatever the Second Amendment was meant to do - and that remains a worthwhile debate - precious few believe it was meant to protect a hunk of plastic.
Congressional Republicans, paralyzed as always on guns, couldn’t get themselves to act decisively. At the NRA’s urging, they turned it over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which now is poised to ban bump stocks by rule. That’s not the same as passing a law. A rule can be undone, and it doesn’t make the unified statement from our elected leaders that the moment called for.
But at least it will get these deadly devices off the street. Democrats still are pushing for a legislative ban, but it’s going nowhere. Letting the bureaucrats do what politicians won’t is the latest testament to GOP cowardice on this issue. Like bump stocks themselves, congressional Republicans are looking more and more like a mere firearms accessory.
_____
The Kansas City Star, Aug. 13
A Claire McCaskill-Josh Hawley flatbed-truck debate? We’d be so lucky
In 2016, Missouri was home to one of the most-watched Senate races in the country between Roy Blunt and Jason Kander.
And yet, for all the interest in that contest, the two appeared in only one debate. Even then, the two shared the stage with a trio of third-party candidates. Voter enlightenment resulting from that debate was sharply limited.
That’s why we’re so heartened by the early tit for tat between Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill and Republican Josh Hawley over debates for another premier Senate race this year. To their credit, both candidates appear genuinely interested in joint appearances. McCaskill, who has scored lots of points for her dauntless willingness to meet with Missourians of all stripes at town halls, is proposing four forums hosted by Missouri media outlets.
“Missourians deserve the same chance to ask you questions and hear your answers as they have consistently had with me,” McCaskill wrote to Hawley.
Hawley, the state attorney general, has countered with something a little unconventional. He’s proposing as many debates as McCaskill will do from the back of a flatbed truck. (We’re not going to dwell on Hawley’s apparent confusion about the difference between a flatbed truck and a trailer.)
“No stifling rules. No buzzers or bells. No pundits or moderators,” Hawley said.
Just pure debate.
“You relish in telling the press how much time you have spent in our state’s smaller communities, like the one I grew up in, so let’s go debate there, in front of county courthouses, over and over.”
Now there’s an offer. This editorial board has called endlessly for campaigns to focus on issues. A series of legitimate debates spread across the state would draw monumental media attention. The format and the huge crowds these forums would draw would surely discourage candidates from pointless personal attacks.
As a bonus, we expect that both candidates would be skilled and compelling debaters. Hawley is a Stanford and Yale grad who’s exceptionally articulate. And McCaskill? Here’s what Hawley wrote in his letter to her:
“Over a decades-long career in politics, your prowess as a debater is unquestioned in Missouri. From the courtroom to the Statehouse to the U.S. Senate, you have shown that you were willing to engage in open and free debate.” He’s right.
It’s no surprise that Hawley has something to gain here. By standing side-by-side with the two-term U.S. senator, Hawley would boost his name ID and his stature.
But McCaskill has something to gain, too. As a Democrat, she needs to win 40 percent or so of the state’s rural vote. This is a way for her to seal the deal with legions of farmers and ranchers who lean Republican.
Frankly, the “debate over debates” tends to bore us. It’s become a tired exercise in every major race. And, truth be told, we aren’t holding our collective breath that these debates will actually happen. Every consultant in the world is urging candidates to speak less, not more, these days.
But in a 50-50 race, which this one is, the chances are better than usual. Just think about it: two major-party candidates debating from Maryville to Manchester to Moberly. If it’s ever going to happen, this is the year. What a spectacle it would be. What a terrific way for the state to decide who should represent it in the halls of our nation’s Capitol.
_____
The Joplin Globe, Aug. 9
Give right to work a rest
Even before final votes were counted Tuesday night, the cry went up to return to the battlefield on right to work.
Maybe it’s time to give it a rest.
Missourians have spoken. Nearly seven of every 10 rejected the right-to-work law. Whether we like the decision or not, it has been made.
Time to move on.
Yet even before 10 p.m. on election night, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry vowed to continue its campaign to make Missouri a right-to-work state.
“With the future of our state’s economy on the line, we cannot concede hope that Missouri will soon join most other states and pass freedom to work protections,” the group said in a statement.
Thirty minutes later, Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity declared its plan “to support a renewed effort in the next legislative (session) to pass right-to-work.”
Bill White, meanwhile, who won a state senate race Tuesday night, also promised to make right to work a priority. Voters in the Joplin area supported right to work.
But what happens if lawmakers pass another right-to-work measure when they meet this spring, and then Republican Gov. Mike Parson signs it? Will it end there? Hardly. Unions will take it right back to the voters for another statewide referendum. Given the number of Missourians who signed the petitions to put it on the ballot, and given the turnout Tuesday, we’d expect another repeat.
We’ll end up right back where we are now.
There are better things lawmakers can do going forward to make Missouri competitive: Improve roads and bridges and get behind the transportation sales tax on the November ballot. Commit to finding funding for education from early childhood through college.
But let’s give right to work a rest so we can get to work on those and other issues.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.