Gun Shy

At a time when it appears, arguably, that something needs to be done in this country about gun rights, as ABC News points out, the Presidential candidates have remained largely silent. Both Obama and Clinton have avoided taking a direct stance on gun ownership laws, even in the aftermath of the four US school shootings that have taken place in the past week-- one at a junior-high school, one at a high school, and two on college campuses. Following the horrific violence that occurred last year at Virginia Tech, one might have assumed that gun rights would be an important issue in this year's Presidential campaign. It's a significant topic for many families of school-aged children in America, but it's not a topic that you'll hear being discussed by any of the leading Presidential contenders.

The reason? The NRA. After having witnessed the beating Al Gore took from the NRA in the 2000 campaign over his relatively tough position toward gun rights, both Obama and Clinton know that by taking a hard stance against lax gun laws, the National Rifle Association will come after you aggressively and try to portray you as an advocate of ending the Second Amendment- the right to bear arms. The NRA has proven itself to be a very powerful organization, and its political power is virtually unmatched by any other major lobbying body. The NRA has such tight control over politicians and has them in such a state of fear that, even in the immediate aftermath of the shootings at Virginia Tech, the idea of getting gun law reforms passed had been almost laughable. That's because every expert knows that politicians don't want to cross the NRA and face the wrath that would follow.

Looking at this issue, however, it seems clear to me that something needs to change. I may not be looking at this issue objectively, but I believe it's reasonable to think that a pattern of school shootings, like we've seen in recent days, is evidence enough that something about the gun culture in our society needs to be altered. At what point would Senators Obama or Clinton decide that it's time to stop being "afraid of getting the gun lobby upset" because the consequences of inaction are much more significant than the consequences of angering the NRA and the group of Americans that are loyal to their cause? The NRA may be what's holding these candidates back from taking a stronger position on gun rights, but, if that's the case, then what about this issue gives us, as citizens, any hope that the candidates won't bow to pressure from other interest groups once they are elected President? And if it takes silence on an issue as important as gun rights to get elected President or to stay in power in congress, then I'm not sure it's worth it.

It would be very refreshing to hear any of these candidates come out with direct proposals for how they would reform the process of gun ownership and gun safety in this country. Such bold moves would earn praise from family members affected by school violence as well as other concerned citizens in America who see that guns are too easily purchased from gun shows and gun dealers and too easily obtained by individuals who do not need to be anywhere near a weapon of any sort. While Obama and Clinton try to play it safe by pushing our government to "do a more effective job of enforcing our gun laws" and proclaiming their records of "protecting gun rights," in order to attract more conservative-leaning voters, they are not going far enough. They talk about regulation, but offer "no solutions or preventive measures," only their sympathies for those individuals affected by the recent shootings. Sympathies are not enough in this case, and they will not bring about the change we need to ensure that guns are used only by those people who deserve this privilege. Hillary likes to attack Barack for being all about words and promises, and not actions, but this is an instance where both candidates are noticeably silent and inactive, at just the wrong time.