Once again, politics have become passionate and reactionary. Class discussions are erupting. Political pundits are either screaming or lacing their words with sarcastic condescension. Friends are either carefully avoiding the subject or ardently standing by their necessarily simplified arguments. Ever since the tragedy at Sandy Hook in December, the issue of gun control has faced the nation squarely and unapologetically. Almost two months later, the question of what must be done has gone largely unanswered.
This fact, while unfortunate, is nevertheless understandable. If you have read any sort of periodical in the last two months, you know this is a divisive issue. The White House and Vice President Biden, who has acted as the President’s commissary on gun control since the beginning of the year, have stated that they will resort to executive orders if faced with an uncooperative Congress. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have pledged to block any such efforts, claiming that they would violate the Constitution (both in terms of the Second Amendment and the separation of powers). On the side of gun rights, the NRA has a history of punishing lawmakers who stray from its point of view. On the side of gun restriction, some marchers this week went so far as to call for a repeal of the Second Amendment. Even in such a polarized government, perhaps saying that this is a divisive issue is an understatement. Yes, President Obama has rolled out policy suggestions and the issue has been taken up in the Senate — but not in a way that promises to produce results. If anything, taking up the banner in such a reactionary way has only served to make the issue more divisive.
This division stems from many factors of modern politics, and some of that cannot be changed in the here-and-now issue of gun control — not the least of which are lobbyist and re-election concerns. But there is something that we can change, something that must change for the national discussion to be turned into national action.
That is, we must do away with the notion that gun control is a simple issue. Democrats and Republicans alike tend to hold to an approach that focuses on guns themselves rather than saving lives.
According to some, all weapons are allowed under the Second Amendment. According to others, only guns used for sport should be legal. Those who express sweeping statements such as, “You don’t need an assault rifle to hunt deer,” face off against others who utter inanities like, “The Constitution is the Constitution, and that’s that.” Despite this simplification in the public forum, the complexity of the issue is illustrated through a few pertinent observations:
A single comma and 200 years of judicial review stand in the way of understanding original intent in the Second Amendment. “Arms” (that is, weapons) meant something very different in the 18th century than in the 21st century. Self-defense, not only against persons but also against possible government intrusion, is a serious (and constitutional) concern of many United States citizens. Countries with drastically different gun control policies have fairly equal homicide rates.
The list could go on. What can be done in the face of such a complex and divisive issue? How do we ensure that this time next year, we will be implementing effective and agreed-upon policies instead of grappling over the same political innuendos? Honestly, I don’t know.
My aim here is not to espouse gun restrictions or rights, nor is it to hold democratic ideals over the realities of modern political mechanics.
Instead, I only want to emphasize that taking a stand one way or another on such a complex issue is not going to convince anyone and, unless it includes significant concessions on both sides, the up-and-coming bill is not going to solve anything. A term or two down the road, it will be revised, struck down or bypassed (as we saw with the ban on assault rifles in the 90s).
What we need now is a new approach altogether, one that addresses the constitutional concerns of the right, prioritizes the policies of the left and does not trivialize the violent realities this nation has faced in the past year. We may not be able to help the screaming of the pundits or the stalling of the politicians, but we can help our own approach.
Idealism aside, the temperance of our own passionate politics can effect change that lasts beyond the next election cycle.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Follow The Graphic on Twitter: @peppgraphic
