As Roy Wood Jr. learned this week, the gun rights divide runs so deep that even the removal of Apple’s pistol emoji raised a millennial activist’s hackles. Yet one thing a majority of Americans can agree on is that the laws governing the sales of actual guns should be stricter. So why is it that Congress seems unable to do anything about it? Let’s look at a few reasons.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CONFUSING
In-house constitutional expert Michelle Wolf raises the most basic of objections: As written, the Second Amendment is an impossibly worded commapalooza of a sentence. The founding fathers may have been political geniuses, but grammarians they were not.
SEMANTICS SEEM TO ACTUALLY MATTER
Desi Lydic was actually able to speak to some of the National Rifle Association’s most die-hard supporters about gun control. Were they for “gun control”? No. But were they for “universal background checks”? Of course. Why doesn’t anybody seem to think those two things can be synonymous? To quote political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
OUR INFORMATION IS WOEFULLY OUT OF DATE
Jordan Klepper made a sobering discovery. The 1996 Dickey Amendment, which severely limits the study of gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is opposed by none other than Jay Dickey (no relation). (Just kidding — of course there’s a relation. He’s the guy who wrote the f**king thing.) Even though Jay Dickey himself thinks that we should be researching gun violence, the amendment is still in effect, a fact that should make all of our heads explode.
(SHAKING FISTS AT THE AIR) PARTISANSHIIIIIPPPP!
Last January when President Obama teared up while discussing the first graders killed at Sandy Hook, conservative pundits doubted his emotional sincerity. And while that may seem heartless, it’s right in line with the gridlock that’s characterized the gun control debate so far.
One thing’s for sure: Under a Trump administration, this debate isn’t ending anytime soon.