“We know we can’t stop every act of violence. Every act of evil in the world.” President Obama’s emotional announcement of his Executive Order, or should I say, Executive Nudge–Executive Suggestion perhaps–perfectly exemplifies how the American political system has become hesitant and far too weary of opposition to create new policy.  It’s necessary pessimism, and cautious optimism that our country lacks.  Gun control.  Control.  Why does it have a negative connotation? In every form of this word, there is purpose.  There is no putting things off, no driving down the middle road, no playing both sides.  In the right amount, with the right intentions, control facilitates safety and promotes awareness.  

At what point should the government draw the line between accepting the interests of the majority and overriding the rights of the minority?  In the case of Obama’s Executive Order, the gun owners belong in the minority.  There is no denying that most of the people in this country who own guns don’t have bad intentions.  But at the same time, there is no way to guarantee that this gun owner or that gun owner won’t take his weapon to the nearest mall or most populated playground he sees to wreak havoc.  It’s safety–prevention of tragedy–that comes with gun control, which is why the President’s Executive Order regarding gun control is not enough.  

Granted, President Obama was right about violence.  There is no way to stop it completely.  Doing so would mean the government taking control of things that they constitutionally cannot, more than likely doing more harm than good.  The Second Amendment asserts the right to bear arms.  However, I personally believe that this right was included in the Bill of Rights out of fear of a necessary revolution to overthrow a government that has become corrupt, tyrannical, and abusive. Have you read the wording of the 2nd Amendment? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Americans were given this right so that in the case that it becomes necessary, we, as citizens, may raise a militia in order to protect our government from corruption.  I do not believe that this right was intended to fulfill the wishes of every person who wants to own a gun for his or her own personal purposes.  Who can be sure what those purposes may be?

With this Executive Order, Obama intends to limit the ability of buyers trying to get their hands on weapons by expanding background checks on buyers, and requiring sellers to register as licensed gun dealers.  The President claims that even though we can’t guarantee an end to every act of violence, “maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.”  In response to this statement, I’ll ask a question:  President Obama, don’t you think that if a person were crazy enough to kill another human, he or she would find a way–legal or not–to possess a firearm?  I sure think so.  

Though it’s a morbid thought, there are ways to get around this law.  As Mrs. Lively pointed out just the other day in her AP Government class, the Executive Order cannot apply to those who have already purchased a gun from a seller who may or may not have the necessary qualifications.  The Constitution assures the principle of ex post facto laws, meaning a person cannot be accused of violating the law if the act was committed before the law was passed.  Thus, those who bought guns a day before the law requiring sellers to obtain a license do not have to return their weapons.  

“People can still give gifts,” Mrs. Lively says. If I was a crazy person and decided I wanted to go kill a bunch of people with a gun, I could ask my perfectly “sane” friend (someone who can pass a “tighter” background check) to buy me a gun and gift it to me, every act, up until I pull the trigger, is legal.  How does that help solve the problem?  The bottom line is, if someone wants to cause a violent scene with a gun, he or she will find a way to get hands on a weapon that will get the job done.  There is very little arguing that.

Am I being mainstream by writing about gun control? How many times have we heard on the news that a few more victims have fallen dead in a shooting? Too many.  If the answer was: one story, too many would still be the answer.  Just in the last few months in our own community, we’ve witnessed the kind of tragedies happening around the country.  Colorado Springs was shocked when Robert Lewis Dear gunned down civilians and police officers at the Planned Parenthood in November, and again when there was a drive-by shooting at the Citadel mall last week.  Though many are happy to see some action being taken by the government to “prevent” more shootings, the Executive Order is not enough.  If we want to keep our public places safe, those in Washington D.C. need to stop playing the political game of compromise.  It’s time for more action, and more control.