On April 17, the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment proposing the expansion of background checks for gun buyers. Despite overwhelming public support for such a provision, it seems as if the gun lobby and political interests have once again prevailed.

The Senate voted 54-46 on the amendment, written by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Sixty votes were needed to attach it to a more comprehensive gun control bill.

Beyond expanding background checks for gun buyers, the bipartisan proposal also sought to prevent the creation of a gun registry by guaranteeing anyone attempting to do so up to 15 years in federal prison. Conservatives have feared the creation of a registry.

Political concerns likely played a role in the decisions of the five Democrats who voted against the amendment. Four of these senators come from rural states like Montana and North Dakota — meaning voting for background checks could have cost them their seats.

But recent polling data shows that on the question of background checks, the electorate isn’t nearly as evenly divided as the Senate’s vote tally.

On April 4, Quinnipiac University released the results of a poll conducted on this issue. Of registered voters, 91 percent supported universal background checks for gun buyers. Among voters in households with guns, 88 percent supported such a requirement.

There is a clear national consensus when it comes to universal background checks. So why are so many senators opposed to such a proposal?

It’s likely that many of these politicians are buckling under pressure from the National Rifle Association and similar gun rights organizations, whose opposition to background checks is representative of less than 10 percent of registered voters.

As the debate concerning gun control has progressed since the Newtown shooting in December, the demise of the NRA — driven by Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre — from respectable interest group to fringe extremist organization has been almost comical.

Time and again, the NRA has fought every proposal that would make it even the tiniest bit more difficult to purchase firearms. Instead of offering comprehensive solutions to the gun violence problem, every idea touted by LaPierre has involved more guns, not less.

Requiring universal background checks for gun buyers is a necessary first step in the fight to reduce gun violence in America. Renewing the federal assault weapons ban and limiting the capacity of magazines are sensible policies that must be enacted in the future.

The conservative, literalist reading of the Second Amendment cannot possibly be legitimate justification for the push against gun control. In fact, the most basic interpretation of the text would grant much broader rights than those currently enjoyed by Americans.

Why aren’t ordinary citizens permitted to keep and bear nuclear arms and similar weapons? Because historically, society has recognized there is a limit on the kind of weaponry civilians should be allowed to keep.

Gun rights groups have not complained that their Second Amendment rights are being infringed because they aren’t allowed to own nuclear weapons. Culture and society have made it unacceptable to do so.

Gun ownership in America is a constitutional right, but not one that should be left unrestricted.

Culturally, firearms have been important to the hunting tradition and protecting individual homes. But public safety transcends unrestricted firearm ownership. If America is to truly cure its gun violence problem, sensible safeguards and restrictions must be implemented.

Universal background checks for gun buyers is a necessary first step —it’s disappointing the Senate failed to follow the tide of overwhelming public support and pass this legislation.

David Swenton is a junior political science and writing and rhetoric major. He can be reached at daswento@syr.edu or followed on Twitter at @DavidSwenton.

Published on April 18, 2013 at 2:50 am