Readdressing the Gun Question
Published in Polityka
(Poland) on 24 July 2012
by Adam Szostkiewicz (link to original)
(Poland) on 24 July 2012
by Adam Szostkiewicz (link to original)
Translated from
by Peter Robbins.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
The debate on a citizen’s right to bear arms began with the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in the 18th century and is still going on today. Its history is as striking as it is depressing.
Ultimately, the bottom line is that the Second Amendment, which grants Americans this right, is still intact. And yet, they are no longer threatened by the English, French, Indians or Wild West bandits. In other words, it is the Americans themselves that have chosen this fate. They are prisoners of the Second Amendment.
The majority of Americans are still in favor of it. According to studies conducted by the Pew Research Center in April, 49 percent of Americans surveyed believe that preserving the right to bear arms is more important than controlling who is allowed to do so (45 percent were in favor of this option). Clear support for the right to possess firearms came from supporters of the right-wing Republicans (72 percent) and men (60 percent). U.S. society is thus split down the middle by the gun question.
In the face of such deep-rooted division, politicians need to tread carefully. Those on the right have it easier, as they enjoy public support. And this is the problem facing Mitt Romney in the run-up to the election. When he was governor, he supported restrictions on the purchase of semi-automatic weapons. Now, as a presidential candidate, he is fighting tooth and nail to protect the Second Amendment. Members of Obama’s staff may well point out this U-turn.
However, even Obama is as American as Romney when it comes to guns. For him too, the Second Amendment is not up for discussion, only moves to tighten up the process of buying firearms and sparking a response from society. Some voices are also calling for restraint: Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, for instance, called on both candidates to take a clear stance on action against gun violence, while Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, following the massacre in Colorado, again called for restrictions on the trade in high-capacity magazines.
However, it is the lobbyists that will have the last word. At the forefront is the powerful National Rifle Association, which is campaigning to keep the Second Amendment under the banner of civilian self-defense. Typically, it supports right-wing candidates; Republican presidents prefer to keep the status quo when it comes to the gun question. In addition, members and supporters of the NRA may also pump extra dollars into a presidential candidate’s campaign fund — so far, they have donated $126,000 to Romney, compared to just over $2,000 to Obama. If the elections this fall were to be decided solely by the defenders of the Second Amendment, then Obama should already be packing his bags.
Ultimately, the bottom line is that the Second Amendment, which grants Americans this right, is still intact. And yet, they are no longer threatened by the English, French, Indians or Wild West bandits. In other words, it is the Americans themselves that have chosen this fate. They are prisoners of the Second Amendment.
The majority of Americans are still in favor of it. According to studies conducted by the Pew Research Center in April, 49 percent of Americans surveyed believe that preserving the right to bear arms is more important than controlling who is allowed to do so (45 percent were in favor of this option). Clear support for the right to possess firearms came from supporters of the right-wing Republicans (72 percent) and men (60 percent). U.S. society is thus split down the middle by the gun question.
In the face of such deep-rooted division, politicians need to tread carefully. Those on the right have it easier, as they enjoy public support. And this is the problem facing Mitt Romney in the run-up to the election. When he was governor, he supported restrictions on the purchase of semi-automatic weapons. Now, as a presidential candidate, he is fighting tooth and nail to protect the Second Amendment. Members of Obama’s staff may well point out this U-turn.
However, even Obama is as American as Romney when it comes to guns. For him too, the Second Amendment is not up for discussion, only moves to tighten up the process of buying firearms and sparking a response from society. Some voices are also calling for restraint: Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, for instance, called on both candidates to take a clear stance on action against gun violence, while Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, following the massacre in Colorado, again called for restrictions on the trade in high-capacity magazines.
However, it is the lobbyists that will have the last word. At the forefront is the powerful National Rifle Association, which is campaigning to keep the Second Amendment under the banner of civilian self-defense. Typically, it supports right-wing candidates; Republican presidents prefer to keep the status quo when it comes to the gun question. In addition, members and supporters of the NRA may also pump extra dollars into a presidential candidate’s campaign fund — so far, they have donated $126,000 to Romney, compared to just over $2,000 to Obama. If the elections this fall were to be decided solely by the defenders of the Second Amendment, then Obama should already be packing his bags.