John Cornyn Takes Center Stage During Gun Control Talks

The Texas Republican was chosen by Mitch McConnell to lead bipartisan negotiations on gun control legislation.

By
31

It’s a frequent occurrence in Washington, with few exceptions: When tragedy strikes, so does partisan finger-pointing. The name of the game this week is gun control.

“I support the bipartisan efforts that include a small group of Democrats and Republican senators trying to find a way,” President Joe Biden said in a sobering address to the American people last week in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. “But my God, the fact that the majority of the Senate Republicans don’t want any of these proposals even to be debated or come up for a vote, I find unconscionable.”

“We can’t fail the American people again,” he added in a fiery speech that also called for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, among other progressive gun control measures.

Tensions are still high amid a flurry of activity in Washington this week after the pair of mass shootings rocked the nation. But despite partisan rhetoric, Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas thinks pragmatism is the only pathway forward for gun control legislation, and that Democrats must be willing to compromise if they hope to win over support from Republicans in the 50-50 Senate. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
31
By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    <<<<"Mitch McConnell to spearhead the bipartisan talks, told the New York Times last week. “The president is not necessarily a unifying figure in today’s politics.”>>>>

    How does he not just burst into flames when says that BS?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I sincerely hope they’re actually able to pass something. But I won’t hold my breath.

    Collapse
  3. mws

    Thoughts? I am planning to send to my representatives. Shout out to David French for pointing me to the Rand study (no I did not read the whole thing).

    Recently, my son returned home from high school angry and frustrated over our collective inaction in the wake of the Uvalde shooting. I reinforced his frustration with an offhand comment that we cannot do anything. Upon further reflection, I can do something. It is my duty as a citizen to write and inform you of my frustration with the continued lack of instituting and promoting pragmatic gun control.

    None of the solutions listed below are any guarantee to ending mass shootings, gun-related homicides, or gun-related suicides however doing nothing is not a solution. Complete or partial bans of guns in the United States is impractical and unconstitutional. I strongly recommend that some if not all of the following policy suggestions, which are pragmatic and largely consistent with a recent Rand study “The Science of Gun Policy”, be implemented.

    Strong evidence to reduce gun violence:
    1) Child-Access Prevention Laws / Safe storage laws
    2) Repeal of stand your ground laws
    Moderate evidence to reduce gun violence:
    1) Firearm prohibitions for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders
    2) Universal Background checks including mental health history
    3) Waiting Periods

    The remaining gun controls laws that were reviewed in the Rand study are sited as having limited or inconclusive evidence, meaning that the number of available studies without methodological problem were very low or did not exist. Therefore, I propose the following with my associated rationale:
    1) Increased federal funding on gun-related violence, mortality and policy in an effort to provide evidence supporting future policy
    2) Increase the minimum age for firearm purchase as there is significant evidence that the brain does not fully mature until after age 18.
    3) Extreme risk protection or red-flag laws should be implemented and publicized. Also these laws need to be structured with care to both protect our citizens from harm but also protect the rights of the individual. Several states have existing red-flag laws and issue hundreds of orders annually. Given the lack of study it is challenging to prove their efficacy however at-risk individuals should not be allowed to harm others using a firearm but be given the option to defend their right to own or retain firearms.
    4) Block grants for gun buy-back programs – this is a “no-harm” policy as it will remove unwanted guns from circulation.

    Again, I will state that doing nothing is not a solution I support. As my representative, I expect you to follow though with policy that will ensure an individual’s right to life over an individual’s right to own a gun.

    Sincerely,

    Ref: “The Science of Gun Policy” url: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088-1.html

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      I think the raising from 18 to 21 to match handguns is a positive idea that might make a difference. For one, it's a new idea I hadn't heard much about and given the recent relative increase in school shootings in high schools, I think a logical argument can be made that firearms just are better off staying out of the hands of people who haven't yet graduated High School. Or maybe have some compromise where kids of high school age can own and shoot a firearm but only at a range and it would have to be secured there. I understand guns are different than cars, cigarettes, etc. but car regulation of new drivers nowadays I think has made a difference and that there is a way to restrict AR-15 purchases for young people without taking a step toward confiscation or real trampling on second amendment rights.

      Collapse
  4. Maddmac

    You lost me at quoting Ron Johnson in this article. (just teasing but couldn't resist this). Kidding aside, I remain optimistic!

    Collapse
  5. Jim S

    We all know Cronyn is there to bob and weave and distract until ultimately he drops out and claims that the Democrats were impossible to work with. Republicans have never shown any interest in stopping gun violence, why would anyone seriously believe this time is different?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    "The Texas Republican was chosen by Mitch McConnell to... delay things until the news cycle about the child killings died down....".

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      If I were running against anyone of them I'd run an add with his photo and a photo of the Uvalde school killer and the caption would be: Senator XXX believes this boy was old enough to buy the gun that killed 19 little kids in 4 min. Senator Xxx approves his right and right of other 18 year olds to buy assault rifles.

      Collapse
    2. Maddmac

      PatR, while I love your comments on TD, I will continue to be the cockeyed optimist despite the rampant cynicism everywhere!

      Collapse
    3. Jim S

      Bingo!

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    Schumer is as big a problem as the president in the failure of the democrats to build a governing coalition that can actually get things done

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      I think it says more about his position than the man himself. He used to be one of the best power brokers on issues that needed massive bipartisan support. Now as a majority leader he's just like the others thinking more in terms of winning and losing for the party as opposed to passing sweeping legislation.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Greg Williams

      Agreed. A good first step would be banning show votes. Elected officials should do political theater on their own time.

      Collapse
    3. Maddmac

      He's a problem and I wish the Dems would give the role to someone else, but he's pretty low on my list of problems.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I'm not a big Schumer fan, but Republicans have absolutely no incentive to work with the Democrats and every incentive to make sure they get nothing accomplished.

      There are 41+ GOP senators with absolutely safe, "can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue" seats who can block anything the Democrats propose without any political downsides. Mitch McConnell can martial this force to obliterate absolutely anything the Democrats propose no matter what sort of "compromise" it is.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Patrick

    Given where we’ve been, this article had some pretty encouraging quotes from both parties. At least they seem to be communicating honestly.

    *Any* bill passing would be a step in right direction. Baby steps.

    Collapse
    1. Maddmac

      I'm with ya...gotta stay optimistic otherwise what's the point?

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    Caption: Some super old guy walks through a *very* air-conditioned building while perky young ladies - one of them very ill - rudely wave cell phones in his face.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Logical

      I thought the lady in green is Kyrsten Sinema.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        Wrong hair.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Logical

          Confess. Not looking at hair.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Matt A

      Ha. It's one thing to slack on writing captions.... It's another to not even look at the photo!

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Andy Napoli

      Verrrrrry perky indeed!

      Collapse
    4. Marc Miller

      Senator Cornyn is 70 this year. Nowadays, that's not super old. Yeah, the building looks to be very well-refrigerated.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        Not anymore. I know a lot of people in their 70"s who work and are healthy and active.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        "Super old" is a product of which chronological age is only one of the factors. According to his Wikipedia bio, Sen. Cornyn has been in government since 1985, although he's been in the Senate "only" since 2002.

        Also according to his bio, he and I graduated from the same university. Who knew?

        Collapse
        1. Marc Miller

          I understand what you are saying, but at my age of 66 saying that 70 is "super old" makes my spider senses tingle. :) Maybe say "a 70 year-old with 37 years of government service?" Then you allow us oldsters to dwell in our safe space. :) I have a good friend who graduated from Trinity then did 30 years in the Army and Air Force. Retired with an Army Ranger Tab on his Air Force blue uniform. You don't see that very often. I went to that school in College Station that some used to call "Sing Sing on the Brazos."

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            CynthiaW

            I understand your perspective. I will belay "super old guy" in favor of "mature government careerist."

            I have visited that school in College Station a few times!

            Collapse