But U.S. News & World Report's Robert Schlesinger writes that the victory may be a pyrrhic one for the NRA:
The NRA didn’t need to make this a fight. Given that the NRA used to support them, universal background checks can’t be that radical a threat to the Second Amendment. They could have read the polls and given a little ground. They could have accommodated the overwhelming will of the American people. Instead they chose the maximalist position and they scored a victory.
King Pyrrhus, who gave his name to the type of victory, is said to have commented after his signature event that “one other such would utterly undo him.” I somehow doubt NRA chief Wayne LaPierre made a similar comment yesterday, but time will remind him of King Pyrrhus’s lesson.
Allahpundit of Hot Air criticizes Obama for only politicizing the gun issue after his reelection, and said he can hardly blast senators for having an eye on their own political self-preservation:
Where was this supposedly righteous anger after Aurora? The victims in that case weren't small children, but that can't possibly explain O[bama]'s dramatically more subdued reaction after that shooting. They were innocent people too; many of them were young, if not kindergarteners. No angry Rose Garden press conferences freaking out about Senate inaction after Aurora, though. Any theories why? Anything, maybe, having to do with when that shooting happened vis-a-vis Newtown? Right: One of them came three months before a presidential election and the other came a month after. That's the difference. As you watch him point the finger here at supposedly gutless senators who care more about retaining public office than Doing Something, remember that there's hardly one among them who's as attuned to political self-preservation as O. He kept his mouth shut nice and tight about guns when it was his own ass on the line last year in purple states[.]
John Hayward of Red State says despite Obama's repeated resolve that gun control is not dead, the gun rights movement must continue to reject moves to tighten laws:
No matter the fate of Manchin-Toomey, or the final destination of the rickety Newtown Gun Control Express, this lesson can be remembered and applied to every expansion of the State. What government needs are openings, and they can be very small; it can squeeze vast amounts of its bulk through tiny cracks, with patient effort. Everything is always limited, controlled, and modest at first; each new power grab affects only a tiny handful of people. You can follow that trail of promises all the way back to the primordial days of the New Deal.
But once the initial concession is made, the next round of further concessions is demanded. The State demands everything plus the kitchen sink; "reasonable" people eager to "compromise" promptly rush forward with the kitchen sink in their hands, and congratulate themselves for driving a hard bargain. The answer must be a firm no, and it must not change the second, third, or fourth time the State and its worshipers repeat their demands. The only way to keep these "reasonable compromises" from quickly growing beyond the imagination of their supporters is to make them non-starters.
- Read Robert Schlesinger: Why Rand Paul Ignored the Southern Strategy at Howard University
- Read Lara Brown: Boston Bombings Reveal the Limits of Security
- Check out U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad