PD Editorial: President Obama's action on gunsa wistful moment for many reasons

President Barack Obama came to tears as he announced a series of executive actions Tuesday to reduce gun violence in America. The emotion was understandable. At the time, he was making reference to the 20 children shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in 2012. The father of one of those victims was in the audience.

“First graders,” he said, pausing to compose himself. “Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.”

But there are other reasons to be somber about the actions taken by the president on Tuesday.

First, it’s lamentable that it has taken so long to take this step. Shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting, two senators, Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., came together on legislation to close a loophole in federal law that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks if they buy the weapon on the Internet or at a gun show. As Obama noted, it was a modest tightening of law that was supported by 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of congressional Democrats. But because it was opposed by the gun lobby and, therefore, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress, it died. Now, the president is seeking to make the change via executive order.

Second, it’s sad that this is all there is. Although Obama’s package contains 10 provisions, most of the changes are incremental. Obama’s actions have the benefit of keeping the issue at the forefront, assuring, if nothing else, that it will be a topic in the 2016 campaign. But even if his actions survive the legal challenges that are sure to come, none is likely to move the needle much in reducing gun violence. At best, they may keep the problem from getting worse, which should not be mistaken for progress.

Third, despite the modesty of these changes, it’s distressing how quickly critics, particularly GOP presidential contenders, jumped at the opportunity to stir fears that this is a slippery slope to much stronger Second Amendment constraints. “Pretty soon you won’t be able to get guns,” GOP front-runner Donald Trump said on CNN.

Fourth, it’s regrettable how often Obama and leaders such as Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena - a veteran and gun owner who authored legislation on background checks and wrote to the president last year recommending that he take this executive action - have to defend themselves as proponents of the Second Amendment. The public seems to accept without delirium that laws against crying “fire” in a crowded theater or openly threatening the life of the president do not constitute a threat to First Amendment protections. Why the hysteria about any mention of Second Amendment restrictions?

Fifth, it’s sad that critics, including the gun lobby, have no alternative solutions to stemming the tide of gun violence aside from suggestions that children and other victims should have been armed themselves. It’s sad that, as reported by the New York Times this week, gun sales in America have more than doubled in the past decade, from about seven million in 2002 to about 15 million in 2013. It’s sad that gun stocks rocketed higher on Tuesday, with Smith & Wesson share up more than 10 percent. And it’s particularly sad that following the death of the 26 people at Sandy Hook, including 20 children - and the more than 1,300 other people who have died in mass shootings since - nothing has changed. This modest improvement is the least that we, as a nation, can do.

Which means that, in the end, we are hoping to accomplish the very least. Given the rancor and rhetoric of critics, even that may prove to be too much. That should make us all sad - and angry.