On the same day President Obama was proposing a package of measures to limit gun violence, Democratic U.S. Sen. Al Franken stated his support for limiting high-capacity ammunition clips and expanding background checks.

But he omitted any reference to a ban on milit ary-style weapons.

When a reporter asked a Franken spokesman what gun restrictions the senator might support, the aide said “I guess I don’t have an answer for you.”

Franken, who faces re-election in 2014, later said he wants to see the specifics in any legislation but supports a ban “on principle.”

And there’s the rub on how any of these initiatives will fare going forward.

On some issues, Americans are somewhat in agreement. Even the president of the National Rifle Association said the group was generally supportive of strong background checks on firearm purchases. A Pew Research survey found the majority of people — gun owners and non-gun-owners — favored such checks, including ensuring that people with mental illness cannot purchase weapons. And there is some support for putting more law enforcement in our schools.

But overall, we are a divided nation, with roughly half believing in more controls on gun ownership and the other half wanting greater protection on gun ownership.

In determining how we should advance we found little concern — and some encouragement — in the 23 executive orders issued by the president.

Sadly, what was omitted in the directives is any study or review on the effects of violent movies or computer games that may be contributing to the violent nature of our young society. This has been cited by many but is a woefully understudied aspect in the debate.

The challenge has been thrown down by the president to our legislators to develop the proper measures needed to curb gun violence.

There are many who will argue banning certain weapons or ammunition is merely punishing those who had nothing to do with gun violence while ignoring measures that clearly prevent criminal actions.

And on the flip side, there are credible arguments that restrictions on certain weapons is no more onerous on the Second Amendment than preventing people from falsely shouting “Fire!” in crowded theater impinges on the First Amendment. We just need to define more carefully what those acceptable restrictions are in today’s society.

As to those who believe the general populace needs to be just as well armed as the military or law enforcement in case of a needed insurrection — if this is truly what you believe, then we have a far greater problem. We do not believe our servicemen and women and law enforcement officers are any less lovers or freedom than ourselves. And such arguments are not worthy of debate.

But debate we must, for in our representative form of government, the U.S. Senate should begin this debate using the directives of those they represent to fashion such laws that make up the kind of society in which we want to live.

Citizens should add their voice to this debate. It’s not an easy one and will require the Senate to listen to reasonable, rational citizens — not lobbyists — to fashion an acceptable answer.

— The Free Press of Mankato (Minn.)