Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 ways they compare on gun control

A spate of gun violence has beset the United States ahead of the November election – including shootings at New York's Empire State Building; an Aurora, Colo., theater; and an Oak Creek, Wis., Sikh temple – raising the perennial question about how effectively America regulates the 300 million-plus guns in its collective gun cabinet. Yet neither presidential candidate is likely to hoist his own complicated record on gun regulation as a rallying cry.

Here is how President Obama and Mitt Romney have addressed support for the Second Amendment and gun-control laws, as well as whether they own guns and how their vice presidential candidates stack up. 

1. Second Amendment

Steve Helber/AP/File
Gun enthusiast D.J. Dorer of Yorktown, Va., carries his AR15 pistol outside the state Capitol during a pro gun rally in Richmond, Va., on Jan. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/

Weighing the two candidates’ views on the Second Amendment, the tone that comes across is surprisingly similar – that while the “right to bear arms” is foundational, it is hardly absolute. 

Despite the perception is that Mr. Obama is anti-gun rights (gun shop owners say fear of his policies drives strong gun sales), he has repeatedly reaffirmed the right to bear arms. Indeed, the only gun-control laws he has signed as president have been to expand gun rights – allowing guns on national park lands and Amtrak trains. He also said this year that “hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.”

He does not, however, believe that gun rights should be unrestricted. “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals," Obama declared at the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

Former Massachusetts Governor Romney has taken the same line in the past, especially when he was the Republican executive of a Democratic state. “There’s no question I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban,” he said in 2007, referring to his signing of a Massachusetts assault-weapons ban in 2004.

But Romney has made more categorical statements in favor of gun rights in recent years. During the presidential campaign he has said he would sign no new gun control laws as president, out of respect for the Second Amendment.

“I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons,” he said at the 2008 presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla. “That’s the right that people have.”

Both candidates' stances seem to reflect political realism. A Pew poll in April found that 55 percent of independent voters believe “it is more important to protect gun ownership than to control guns.” Only 40 percent said passing new gun-control laws was more important. What’s more, some political analysts have said it amounts to political suicide to back gun control in key battleground states like Colorado.

1 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.