What do US Democrats want to do about guns?

For the first time innearly two decades, Democratic presidential candidates are talking seriouslyabout new federal gun control regulations. But is it a passing moment spurredby recent tragedy or the sign of shifting political ground?

Thisweekend, the Democratic presidential hopefuls who have been criss-crossing Iowawere supposed to be celebrating the state's, well, Iowa-ness. Nearly everycandidate in the 24-person field had scheduled an appearance at the state fair- an event that draws millions to capital city Des Moines - to sample pork on astick, view the life-sized cow sculpture made of butter and stand on hay balesto give their stump speech to sometimes curious and often bemused onlookers.

Alsoon the schedule was the annual "Wing Ding Dinner" in the northerntown of Clear Lake - another of the state's quirky must-attend functions, wherehundreds of party faithful pack a steamy old ballroom to listen to presidentialhopefuls make their five-minute pitches to voters.

Thenthe mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton happened, claiming the lives of 31Americans - and adding to the list of roughly 40,000 in the nation killedannually by gun violence.

Ina flash, the aperture of the Democratic race narrowed, and instead of a genericweekend of campaigning, the focus over the past few days here in Iowa has beenon gun violence and what these two dozen presidential aspirants think they cando about it.

Before theWing Ding dinner, eight candidates and their supporters joined a crowd outsidefor a moment of silence in remembrance of the victims of El Paso and Dayton.

The gathering was organised by campaign staff of former El PasoCongressman Beto O'Rourke, who cancelled his Iowa visit to help his home townmourn.

In Clear Lake, Cory Booker praised O'Rourke's decision and saidhe scrapped his planned speech that night to talk about gun violence andAmerican values.

"This is one of those moral moments in our nation that'sgoing to define the character of our country," he said. "And this is aweek where I will not let the slaughter of our fellow citizens just disappearwithin the next media cycle."

Dustin Menke, who lives in nearby Manly, said he was impressedby Booker's speech. He used to oppose gun bans, he said, but now he's torn onthe issue.

"We've got to do something about the gun violence in thiscountry," he said. "That's just the bottom line. Not taking anyaction? There are consequences."

A day spent calling for action

The day after the Wing Ding Dinner, 16 candidates shoehornedinto their schedules an appearance at a hastily put-together "PresidentialGun Sense Forum," held in downtown Des Moines by Everytown for Gun SafetyAction Fund - a group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

A few shared stories about how their lives had been touched bygun violence. Montana Governor Steve Bullock's voice cracked has he recountedhow an 11-year-old nephew had been killed at school by a 10-year-old with a gunin 1994.

"At the time that was the youngest school shooting,"he said. "Now it wouldn't even make national news."

Candidate after candidate spoke about the need for urgentaction. They mentioned red-flag laws to prevent those who could be harmful tothemselves or others from accessing firearms and universal background checksfor gun purchases - even private transactions. Many supported reinstating thefederal ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines that was inforce from 1994 to 2004.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and former Vice PresidentJoe Biden urged the repeal of the federal law granting gun manufacturersimmunity from liability lawsuits over the criminal use of their products.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who voted for the liabilityprotections in 2005, said he now views it as a situation similar to theresponsibilities of drug manufacturers for the opioid addiction crisis.

"The world has changed," Sanders said, "andresponsibilities have changed."

Several candidates, including former Colorado Governor JohnHickenlooper, called for a federal gun-licensing law. Former Housing SecretaryJulian Castro spoke about a seven-day gun purchase waiting period and a 20% taxon all firearm and ammunition purchases.

All of these proposals received an enthusiastic reception fromthe crowd of activists, many of whom shared stories of how gun violence hadaffected their lives or the lives of loved ones.

Every proposal put forward, however, could hit up against thehard reality of opposition in Congress. While Democrats control the House ofRepresentatives, which passed a universal background check bill earlier thisyear, the Senate is still in Republican hands - and Republicans, many backed bythe National Rifle Association, have been an intractable obstacle to newfederal gun regulation.

Even if one of these Democratic presidential candidates winsnext November and has enough coattails to tip the balance in the Senate toDemocrats as well, it is all but certain that they won't pick up the 13 seatsnecessary to prevent a Republican minority from blocking significantgun-control legislation using a parliamentary maneuvre know as the filibuster.

At a time when all the Democrats are voicing similar opinions ongun control, what to do about the filibuster has become a visible dividingline.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee was the first candidate to callfor the end to the legislative filibuster, back in March. Elizabeth Warren -who received an enthusiastic welcome in Des Moines - is among the handful whohave now joined him.

"The Republicans are not going to allow progressivemeasures through the US Senate as long as the filibuster exists," Insleesaid.

Others, like Biden and Sanders, have been more reluctant.

"Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous move," theformer vice-president told reporters in Iowa last week.

After his remarks in Des Moines on Saturday, Biden told the BBCthat gun control laws were approved in the past despite the filibuster - andthere were legislative ways get measures passed by a simple majority.

"There are a lot of things you can do without giving awaywhat, ultimately, is a protection for the minorities," he said.

Aside from the filibuster, however, Democrats have shown rareagreement on gun-control issues - coming just a week after the party'ssometimes sharp divides on health-care and immigration were on display at thesecond round of nationally televised candidate debates in Detroit.

A change of course

The fact that the gun issue is coming up much at all is a realdeparture from past presidential campaigns - and even this one.

Gun control wasn't mentioned in the most recent Democraticpresidential debate. The one candidate who made gun control the central focusof his campaign, California Congressman Eric Swalwell, was the first to dropout.

Conventional wisdom was that gun control was a harmful issue forDemocrats. Many analysts and party insiders viewed it as the reason Democratslost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years inthe 1994 mid-term elections and why Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000. It wassomething that motivated conservative gun rights activists much more than itdid gun-control advocates on the left.

Governor Inslee, who was a member of the US House ofRepresentatives in 1994, voted for the first assault weapon ban - and lost hisseat in that mid-term wave. He says he knew the vote was politically risky, butthat it was the right vote to make.

"I represented an area that was a very rural area; it was aRepublican area," he told the BBC. "I knew it was a very contentiousissue."

By the time Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006,gun-control legislation was practically a non-existent priority.

"I think there's a number of areas where Democrats ... gotweak-kneed, got scared of their shadow, didn't act in accordance with theirvalues, and they've been paying for it over and over again," New YorkMayor Bill de Blasio said after his appearance in Des Moines. "I think welost the faith of people."

In 2013, after the Newtown school shooting, an assault weaponsban similar to the one passed in 1994 received only 40 votes out of 100 in theUS Senate.

In his DesMoines speech, Governor Hickenlooper recounted the battle he faced in Coloradoas he tried to pass universal background checks, magazine capacity limits and ared-flag law in his state after the 2012 mass shooting at a theatre in Aurora.

The NRA, he said, would not budge or negotiate. What's more, thegroup told Republican legislators that if they voted for any of the measures,they would face an NRA-funded opponent in their next primary.

"It was so frustrating," he said.

'Toxic brew'

In 2018, however, things seemed change. Gun control candidateslike Lucy McBath of Georgia won in contested House races, despite vigorousopposition by the NRA. That group's once prodigious fund-raising operation wasstruggling, and the organisation itself was beset by scandal.

The Parkland school shooting, and the grass-roots youth movementthat arose from it, are part of the reason why.

According to South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the riseof white nationalism - emboldened, he says, by Donald Trump - has becomeanother clarifying moment.

"We are living with a toxic brew of two different things,each of which is claiming lives and each of which represents a nationalsecurity emergency in this country" he said. "One of them is theready availability of guns and the way they can fall into the wrong hands. Theother is the rise of hate. And when they come into contact with each other, itis deadly."

Senator Kamala Harris of California was, if anything, even moreblunt about the president's rhetoric.

"He didn't pull the trigger," she said, "but he'scertainly been tweeting out the ammunition."

Shifting ground

Whether or not Trump bears some culpability, his reaction tothese most recent shootings are further evidence of shifting ground on the gundebate.

Back in 2016, then-candidate Trump campaigned by fully embracingthe NRA and its aggressive gun-rights agenda. He said he was a firm believer ina broad interpretation of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and jokedthat gun owners might take matters into their own hands if Democrats likeHillary Clinton tried to infringe on their rights.

Now the president has explicitly endorsed state-level red-flaglaws. He's also expressed interest in expanding background checks of firearmpurchasers - something Republicans in Congress have previously fought against.

Massachusetts Senator Warren told reporters on Saturday that shewasn't convinced, however.

"Did he say that just before or just after he then bowed tothe NRA and said but of course he would do what the NRA wanted?" Warrenasked. "As long as the NRA is calling the shots, there's not going to bemeaningful change in this country."

She added that meaningful change only comes with fundamentaldemocratic reform.

If Trump does follow through and fully support backgroundchecks, Democrats here will welcome the development - but what was once all butthe best that a Democratic presidential candidate could ask, or hope, for isnow just the starting point.

One week is a blink of an eye in US politics, of course. ByFebruary, when Democratic voters head to the polls in Iowa and start thenominee selection process, the gun issue could once again be on the backburner. Candidates could again spend most of their time talking abouthealthcare or income inequality or education.

That is without a doubt what the NRA and gun-rights advocatesare counting on

This weekend in Iowa, however, Democrat after Democrat insistedthat, at last, things are changing.

"People are tired of the BS," said Minnesota SenatorAmy Klobuchar.

Klobuchar told the crowd that "the heat is on like neverbefore".

Time will tell if that's the case. But at least in Des Moines,the gun safety forum attendees believed that real change is finally in reach.

"People have had enough," said Jerry Jones, aninsurance worker who drove to Iowa from Kansas City for the event. "We'renot giving up anymore. We're not going away to our own little corners. We'rebeginning to organize, and we're coming together."

棒棒棒！