New York Post - 06.08.2019

New York Post, Tuesday, August 6, 2019

nypost.com

POSTOPINION

L

EADING Democrats re-

sponded to the weekend’s

shootings in El Paso, Texas,

and Dayton, Ohio, by

absurdly laying the blame on

President Trump.

But as furious as he might be

about the exploitation of these

horrible crimes for liberal parti-

san advantage, Trump should

rise above his enemies’ squalor,

resist the impulse to counterat-

tack and advance common-sense

gun reforms that are popular

with a national majority.

If only momentarily, Trump

did offer a glimpse of what he

was prepared to do about the

plague of mass shootings afflict-

ing the nation. Yes, his tweeted

offer of a grand bargain, trading

background checks for immigra-

tion reform, was likely a non-

starter. Horse-trading over an

issue like immigration while

Americans still reeled from the

two horrific massacres wasn’t a

good look.

Trump dropped the bargain

offer when he gave a 10-minute

speech about the shootings later

Monday that condemned the

“evil conta-

gion” of hate.

But while he

didn’t endorse

any specific

gun legislation

in his speech,

the earlier tweet did remind us

of something that the presi-

dent’s fans and detractors for-

get: Trump is no hard-line

opponent of gun legislation.

In the past, he has shown him-

self amenable to deviating from

the National Rifle Association’s

intractable stance — opposition

to just about any restriction imag-

inable on gun sales. Most GOP

lawmakers march in lockstep to

the NRA drumbeat, but not so

Trump, whose political mentality

was shaped in New York City —

not, say, the Mountain West.

In February 2018, in the wake

of the Parkland, Fla., high-

school shooting, Trump con-

vened a White House summit

during which he shocked some

on the right by saying that he

favored more extensive back-

ground checks and increasing

the power of the police to pre-

vent mentally disturbed people

from possessing weapons.

What’s more, he accused his

fellow Republicans of being so

“petrified” of the NRA that they

were afraid to do anything that

might offend the gun-rights

lobby. Unfortunately, Demo-

crats were then, as they are now,

too entrenched in their hate for

him to try to take advantage of

this opening.

Whatever his

other failings,

Trump showed

then, as he has

on other occa-

sions, that he

understands when the situation

calls for some flexibility.

And more ideological flexibil-

ity is exactly what he ought

again to be showing.

House Democrats passed two

bills this year that dealt with

guns. One extended background

checks to include gun pur-

chases made at gun shows and

on the Internet. The other

extended the waiting time for

those flagged by the national

check system to 10 days, from

the current three, giving the FBI

more time to research gun buy-

ers. Though neither under-

mined the Second Amendment,

both were dead on arrival in the

GOP-majority Senate after a

Trump veto threat.

Trump should publicly tell

Senate Majority Leader Mitch

McConnell that he wants the

bills enacted, while also stating

his support for some form of

red-flag legislation, aimed at

keeping guns away from the

mentally ill.

He might even consider some

modest restrictions on ammuni-

tion clips that make it all too

easy for monstrous killers to

mow down innocents.

Neither of the House bills, like

all proposed gun reforms, could

ensure that mass shootings

would cease altogether. But nei-

ther would they do the nation

or gun rights any real harm. Any

inconvenience to law-abiding

gun owners would be offset by

the benefit to the country of the

demonstration of unity of pur-

pose by both parties in the face

of national tragedy.

Right now, Democrats seem

determined to frame Trump as

an accessory to murder and, by

extension, applying the same

charge to those who support

him — thus repeating Hillary

Clinton’s error in labeling half

the country as “deplorables.” If

they are interested in compro-

mise, their rhetoric doesn’t

show it. That kind of language

only adds to the deep polariza-

tion and coarsening of public

discourse they claim incites the

racist murders.

But Trump should resist the

temptation to return the bile

that is flung at him. He should

show the country that he under-

stands how this is a moment to

reach across the aisle. It will

make for good policy — and

smart 2020 politics.

Jonathan Tobin is editor in

chief of JNS.org and a contribut-

ing writer for National Review.

Twitter: @JonathanS_Tobin

Don’s Moment

Prez has never been a pro-gun hard-liner

Jonathan S.

tobin

Dangerous tools: A weapons store in Virginia displays rifles that in many

other nations would be available only to members of the armed forces.

Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA

From the right: Beware the Shootings Blame Game

Democrats were quick to blame President Trump for the weekend’s

massacres in El Paso and Dayton, with Beto O’Rourke skewering “a presi-

dent who’s called Mexicans rapists and criminals.” But, points out John

Merline at Issues & Insights, the facts don’t shake down so neatly. Yes, the

El Paso shooter ranted about a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” But his man-

ifesto also showed him to be an “anti-corporatist environmentalist and

backer of universal health care.” In other words, he “happens to share

many policy positions with Democrats,” yet mainstream reporters aren’t

seizing those similarities to blame leading liberals for his actions. And the

Dayton shooter is even more problematic: He reportedly tweeted out his

support for Sen. Liz Warren, writing, “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait

for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.” So, asks Merline: If

Trump is to blame for El Paso, “is Warren to blame for [Dayton]?”

Culture critic: The Malaise Behind the Massacres

At The American Spectator, Melissa Mackenzie dreams of a “better

world,” where mass killers get no “notoriety” to inspire copycats and

online chat rooms don’t glorify “invective against women” or “a certain

race.” In reality, people, including politicians, use the “deaths of innocent

people for political gain.” Fact is, the “common thread” among the mass

shooters isn’t “politics,” but that “we’ve brought up a generation of peo-

ple who have everything and feel empty at the same time.” Alas, solutions

to such cultural crises don’t come easy. “Maybe that’s why people blame

politics. It’s easier.”

From the left: Dems Are Pruning the Field Too Soon

The Democratic National Committee’s rules for who will make it into

the debates aren’t serving the party well, argues Walter Shapiro at The

New Republic. With a major culling to come this month, most candidates

at last week’s debate were “petrified” that the night “would be their swan

song as legitimate candidates.” That brought “a ferocity more common

on the eve of the Iowa caucuses than during early encounters, when can-

didates normally would be introducing themselves and ballyhooing their

accomplishments,” and made the whole party seem “fractured by deep

ideological fissures over health care, immigration and criminal justice.”

Worst, it appears DNC chief Tom Perez pushed the winnowing “to pro-

vide the TV networks with the dramatically smaller debate stages they

crave for ratings.”

Foreign desk: Putin’s Home-Front Headache

Protesters poured into the streets of Moscow over the weekend to

demand free and fair elections, and Vladimir Putin responded with bru-

tality and mass arrests. Yet the Russian strongman

“isn’t flexing his strength so much as betraying

weakness,” argues The Wall Street Journal edito-

rial board. Discontent is growing as the Kremlin

squeezes the opposition, most notably the anti-

graft campaigner Alexei Navalny, and the economy

deteriorates. “The risk now,” says the Journal, “is

that he picks a foreign fight — a new front in the

Baltics or perhaps an escalation in the Sea of Azov

— to distract from domestic troubles.” That’s all

the more reason for the West to “make clear that

any escalation abroad would be resisted and lead

to more biting economic sanctions.”

Free-speech watch: Don’t Ban Killers’ Manifestos

The Drudge Report and other outlets have come under fire for publish-

ing the El Paso killer’s 2,300-word manifesto. But John Fund in National

Review warns that we shouldn’t “make free speech another casualty of

these murders.” The document is full of paranoid talk of “race-mixing.”

Hideous stuff, yet there are important reasons not to suppress such mate-

rial. For starters, it helps us learn about “the twisted motivations of mass

killers.” Plus, citizens should have access, since “the media can’t always

be counted on to provide a full interpretation or context of their motiva-

tions.” Indeed, “even German authorities recently legalized the publica-

tion of ‘Mein Kampf,’ saying that people needed to understand the nature

of evil and how it expressed itself.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Vladimir Putin