Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Americans want action on gun control, but the Senate can’t move forward

Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas

A Texas state trooper places flowers for the victims of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School, where 21 people were killed, including 19 children.

Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images

Yet another tragic school shooting has prompted renewed calls for changes to the nation’s federal gun laws. But with Senate Republicans able to block nearly any bill from being passed, even a proposal that has overwhelmingly popular support seems virtually assured of going nowhere.

An 18-year-old gunman killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday. According to media reports, the shooter, Salvador Ramos used two guns he purchased legally on his 18th birthday.

The House of Representatives has passed two bills enhancing background check requirements for gun sales, but the Democrats in charge of the Senate have delayed action in hopes of finding a way around Republicans’ parliamentary blockade.


In general, fewer people (but still a majority) have said they want stricter gun control laws in recent years. In 1990, 78 percent told Gallup the laws controlling the sale of firearms should be more strict. The number decreased over time, hitting a low of 44 percent in 2010. But after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, the numbers crept back up, peaking at 67 percent in 2018. This year, it was back down to 52 percent.

But when asked about specific proposals, the data can be quite different.

In March 2021, Politico and Morning Consult asked people for their opinions on two bills under consideration in Congress.

One would require background checks for all gun purchases. An overwhelming 84 percent said they support the proposal, including 77 percent of Republicans. That bill passed the House 227-203, with eight Republicans voting in favor and one Democrat in opposition.

The bill moved to the Senate 14 months ago, but it was never considered. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put it on the legislative calendar Tuesday, indicating it could get a vote at some point in the near future.

The same day the House passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, the chamber also passed a second background checks bill. Currently, a gun dealer may complete a transaction if the FBI hasn’t concluded the buyer’s background check within three days. This bill would make the seller wait 10 days.

Known as the “Charleston loophole,” the current policy allowed a white gunman to purchase a weapon and kill nine people at a historically Black church in South Carolina in 2015.

Americans of all political stripes are less supportive of that proposal, with just 56 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents and 35 percent of Republicans backing it. Nevertheless, Schumer is hoping for a vote on that bill as well.

But Schumer knows the Senate will not pass either bill as they currently stand, so rather than holding an “accountability” vote that would fail but might create material for the campaign season, Schumer says he wants to try to allow time for compromise.

“My Republican colleagues can work with us now. I know this is a slim prospect, very slim, all too slim — we’ve been burned so many times before — but this is so important,” he said Wednesday on the Senate floor.

Advocates for new gun laws are not happy.

While passage of legislation only requires a bare majority, chamber rules allow individual senators to prevent a vote from even happening by engaging in (or merely threatening to engage in) a filibuster. Stopping or preventing a filibuster requires 60 votes, an insurmountable barrier in an evenly divided Senate.

The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed with a simple majority vote. Increasingly, liberals have been demanding Democrats change the rules to push through legislation they favor. Last year, they wanted to change or eliminate the filibuster to enact voting rights legislation. This year, abortion and gun control have been the catalysts for renewed calls.

However, two moderate Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have repeatedly said they will oppose any changes to the rule.

As long as the filibuster remains intact, the minority will be able to control the legislative process.

Read More

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less
From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

U.S. Constitution

Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

Many Americans have lost faith in the basic principles and form of the Constitutional Republic, as set forth by the Founders. People are abandoning Democratic ideals to create systems that multiply offenses against Constitutional safeguards, materializing in book banning, speech-restricting, and recent attempts to enact gerrymandering that dilutes the votes of “political opponents.” This represents Democratic erosion and a trend that endangers Constitutional checks and representative governance.

First, the recent gerrymandering, legal precedent, and founding principles should be reexamined, specifically, around the idea that our Founders did not predict this type of partisan map-drawing.

Keep ReadingShow less