Still, according to Caplan, the role entails significant influence over the lifestyle and behavioral decisions of the American public, while working within the limits of information validated by scientific research and scholarship.

“The office, in a strange way, is nothing more than a bully pulpit. It’s a very loud megaphone,” said Caplan. “You don’t make laws. What you’re trying to do is to get people to be healthier by being a conduit to the latest research and wisdom about what you can do to be healthy.”

Contrary to what one might expect, said Ruger, opposition to gun control has grown in recent years, despite the 2008 landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court upheld an individual’s right to possess a firearm, at least in federal enclaves such as the District of Columbia.

“What seems to have happened is that the voices against gun control have gotten even more extreme since Heller, and more aggressive since Sandy Hook, and opposing even very moderate gun control legislation that would have been widely agreed to a decade ago,” he said. “We can clearly say that it is politically and constitutionally more difficult than it has ever been to regulate guns in the United States.”

According to Caplan, however, the fierce opposition to gun control does not necessarily reflect the views of the broader American population.

“I think that the position of the NRA still remains ‘we can’t give an inch or the law will break and we will not be able to stop a cascade of restrictions on gun ownership and sales,’” he said. “But I think the opposite is true: Americans are very positive about guns, but they want to see them used safely and responsibly.”

—Staff writer Alexander H. Patel can be reached at alex.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on twitter @alexhpatel.