As most people know, the principle of gun control (or lack thereof) began with the passing of the Bill of Rights, which occurred in 1791.  Specifically, the second amendment to the United States constitution reads “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.”  The language of this amendment asserts that unrestricted gun possession is a fundamental right of American citizens, and it is still the primary argument employed by opponents of any sort of gun control measure.

Few notable milestones in the debate over gun laws occurred until the twentieth century, which saw the advent of objectively more dangerous and accessible mass-produced automatic weapons.  One of the most important pieces of legislation passed was 1939’s federal ban of sawed-off shotguns–officially short-barreled shotguns that are easier to conceal and may offer a slightly wider spread when fired.  This ruling, which allowed the government to outlaw the possession of certain guns, set a powerful precedent for the future of United States gun control.  Essentially, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the second amendment did not necessarily protect the right to own any type of firearm, but rather just those that could be considered “militia” weapons.

Another major moment in America’s history of gun control took place in 1968, when congress passed the Gun Control Act.  This act attempted to ensure more effective monitoring of interstate gun transportation.  Its passage was driven by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy at the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald, who acquired his weapon through the mail.  A quarter-century later in 1993, congress also passed the Brady Handgun Violence Act, which initiated the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that is supposed to be used by all gun retailers.  This act shares its name with former Press Secretary James Brady, the man killed during the 1981 assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan.

These two pieces of legislation, both passed relatively recently in the grand scheme of American politics, share one frightening characteristic: they each came into existence only after instances of gun violence targeted powerful members of the United States government.  First of all, the idea that only the most paramount of national tragedies can start a productive dialogue on preventing gun violence bodes poorly for the future of American politics.  If a president is shot with an illegally obtained firearm, is it not, in a sense, too late to pass legislation that shores up restrictions on gun sales?  Instead, politicians should consider gun control measures with eyes to the future and the intention of preventing these destabilizing tragedies from happening in the first place.  Such action would require facing the human cost of gun violence and temporarily forgetting about party loyalties, gun lobby funds, and appeals to certain constituents.  Unfortunately, given the partisan nature of American politics and the extreme influence of pro-gun organizations like the National Rifle Association, the current norm of political stalemate seems destined to continue.

As a final note, none of the gun control measures being pursued presently by the Obama administration are without precedent in these existing pieces of legislation.  For example, expanding background checks of consumers would simply improve the Brady Handgun Violence Act, and enacting slightly tighter restrictions for online gun retailers and gun shows would simply extend the Gun Control Act.  Not only are these “common sense” measures, but they also aim only to accomplish what existing laws are already supposed to.  Each one is merely a helpful addition to the current system.  Nobody is proposing that the government seize all guns or even prevent sane, law-abiding citizens from obtaining them; however, these decidedly rational intentions are too often distorted and sensationalized beyond recognition by the inflammatory rhetoric of fear-mongering politicians and media outlets.  To generate agreement among both politicians and the general public, attitudes toward the issue of gun control must change significantly.  Hopefully this change can occur before another high profile assassination attempt takes place, because presidents aren’t the only ones who die from bullet wounds.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91942478