Watters: Gun control simply not issue this election
October 24, 2012
The American people seem to have an inability to embrace modernity. Particularly glaring is our inaction with regards to strict gun control legislation. The three presidential debates have come and gone and still nothing substantial on gun control has been proposed. This should be a bigger issue than it is.
I understand that President Barack Obama faced a major obstacle these past four years. Our president faced a Republican majority in the House, which basically means his appeals would have fallen on deaf ears. I concede it would have been very difficult for President Obama to pass anything that declared war on the Second Amendment. Both he and Mitt Romney have stated their support for the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, the Second Amendment was written when militia ran rampant and the most fearsome firearm was a manually loaded musket. Our country is moving forward, and the Second Amendment is an anachronistic piece of the Constitution that’s tying us down. Americans obviously don’t have the discretion or judgment to figure out when they should and shouldn't fire high powered assault weapons. I don't think equality has any place in gun ownership. The bottom line should be about safety, and as long as anyone who wants to is able to hold a weapon, we simply aren’t safe.
Given Romney’s penchant for flip-flopping, I expected no less, but from Obama I’m disappointed. As a president who has been in office for some of the most violent public shootings in the history of our country, he has done a disgustingly little amount to remedy the problem. Instead, in 2010, Obama overturned 94 years of National Park Service policy that prevented visitors from carrying concealed weapons and overturned a 10-year precedent that prevented Amtrak passengers from carrying concealed weapons in their checked baggage. Obama isn’t sanctioning automatic assault weapons or endorsing the National Rifle Association, but he isn’t doing anything in the opposite direction either. I expected more.
Sure, during the Hofstra debate , Obama stated that he supported a ban on automatic assault weapons. I truly hoped that he would favor this ban, seeing how, in 1999, in an interview with the Chicago Independent Bulletin, President Obama gave the impression that he had a hard line stance on gun control. Before the millennium, Barack Obama was inexperienced and relatively unknown, and he didn’t need to worry about appeasing voters. President Obama simply wanted to rid the streets of Chicago and wider America of a problem that was taking far too many lives. This Obama prescribed an increase of federal taxes on the sale of firearms, restriction of purchasing abilities, increased funding for school anger management programs and a ban at firearms sales at gun shows. As Obama rose in political stature and visibility, his policy on gun control became more and more diluted. Nevertheless, by the time he was running for president in 2008, Obama was still running as a supporter of gun control.
However, despite seeming to support a national policy, as soon as President Obama took office, all precedence of making a change for stronger gun control went out the window. I can easily remember in 2011, after the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., how slighted I felt when President Obama gave his State of the Union Address with absolutely no inclination that a firmer policy on gun control would be created. In fact, the issue wasn’t even addressed beyond a brief condolence for the victims and their families. I hate that I have the sinking feeling that despite the violence that has continued this summer, the Obama administration will do next to nothing in enacting legislation to turn things around. I understand that even an assault rifle ban might not be able to prevent the horrific violence that we saw in Aurora this summer, but at least it sends a message: The American government does not tolerate this kind of violence. I’m not asking for strict gun control because I know it's not realistic; all I’m asking is for the Obama administration to at least try.
Arabella Watters is a Medill sophomore. She can be reached at arabellawatters@yahoo.com. If you would like to respond publicly to this column, email a Letter to the Editor to forum@dailynorthwestern.com.
Loading ...
Correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't Chicago have one of the strictest gun control ordinances in the country ? Yet - the streets are full of guns. There are neighborhoods I can't walk through.
[Reply]
Watters - did anyone ever tell you that you a complete idiot - insulting every self-respecting idiot on the planet.
[Reply]
Ms. Watters: When the Second Amendment nuts descend on the reader comments section to your article, you'll be able to figure out why politicians don't touch the gun issue.
Obama (wisely) said little about gun control in his 2008 campaign, and look what happened: Thousands of gun lovers went on a buying spree shortly after his election in fear that he would ban them.
[Reply]
Ms. Watters fails to remember that in his first two years, President Obama faced no obstacles at all in the Congress as Democrats controlled both chambers and held 60 votes in the Senate, so Republican filibusters were not possible. In spite of this, even if they had passed laws restricting guns, they would have been found unconstitutional. The Constitution is pretty clear and the Supreme Court has established the necessary precedent. If Mr Obama and other supporters want to restrict guns, they must amend the Constitution.
[Reply]
This is a very good article; that is, if you look at it as someone who knows absolutely nothing about guns. As someone who does know something about guns, let me explain why gun control is stupid. One sentence: guns don't kill people. People kill people. You can remove the second amendment, and people will still kill people. Just like when alcohol was outlawed, people could still buy alcohol. And now that drugs are outlawed, people can still buy drugs. Not only will they still available, but that will start a horrible and dangerous black market. Perhaps we should outlaw cars too? If guns kill people, so do cars, so I guess we'd better outlaw those too. Same logic.
There are millions and millions of Americans who have guns and use them responsibly. Why should they be punished because of few nuts? And it's not likely anyone can just go and buy a gun. You have to take a class and pass a test. And automatic weapons are in a class of their own, requiring a special license.
Perhaps you should visit a place where people use guns and own them and believe in the second amendment. You might learn something.
[Reply]
Really Tom People kill people flawd logic.
do you really think having assault weapons over the counter is a good idea.
Miss Watters clearly does understand the idea of people owning weapons but
there needs to be a better system in place .
[Reply]
I'm a 21-year-old female living off campus by myself. I take the L to work downtown at all hours of the night as I work in healthcare. Let me tell you something, Ms. Watters, Chicago's gun control laws are strict. You can conceal and carry, but the firearm and the ammunition cartridge must be separate from each other. Not the most practical in terms of self-defense if you have to rifle through your things to load your gun. On top of that, it is illegal to own a taser in Chicago. Yes, a taser. You also aren't really supposd to carry pepper spray either; it is technically illegal to spray it indoors. Anyway, my point is, if Chicago's gun control, taser, and pepper spray laws were any more strict, I would feel extremely unsafe. And rightfully so. I have a right to live alone. I have a right to go out by myself at night. And I have a right to protect myself and my property. A criminal's number one fear is that his target is armed. The city of Chicago and people like you are seeking to eliminate that fear with your ignorance.
[Reply]
When someone kills somebody with a knife - it's hard to blame the knife. Maybe we should outlaw knives - that would solve the knife deaths now, wouldn't it ?/
[Reply]