Posted on 01/22/2013 9:44:25 AM PST by Kaslin
Leave it to Barack Obama to come into his inaugural weekend with a bang, and not just on guns. He’s made it clear that he intends more spending, more regulation, more radical appointees and less national defense in his second term.
Since he just fired a load of executive orders on gun control like shotgun pellets at a duck hunt, I think it’s time to ask a few questions about this part of his agenda. The first one’s for the president.
Why did you have children prominently displayed at your press conference? Were you implying that anyone who opposes your policies wants to see children shot? I think you were.
Second, did you really justify your assault on the Second Amendment partly by equating safe shopping with the “right of assembly?” Finally, in citing the “right to life,” did you see any irony in being the most pro-abortion president in history? You support even partial-birth abortion, and when you were a state senator, you killed legislation that would have required doctors to treat children who survive abortions.
Now here’s a more general question: What exactly are executive orders?
You won’t find them in the Constitution. They’re derived from Article II, which confers executive power on the president to “take care that all laws be faithfully executed.” Executive orders are work orders from the president to employees of federal agencies. They do not apply to state or local governments. They direct the implementation of statutes that Congress enacts and which are signed by the president into law. If they go beyond this, they are unconstitutional.
A look at some of the 23 gun control executive orders that Barack Obama issued on January 16 leaves one wondering whether the president, as Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry would say, is “a man who knows his limitations.” If a Republican president issued 23 executive orders on a single subject, the media would pronounce him “obsessed.”
One of the orders calls for “incentives for states to share information with the background check system.” Funny, Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to want to apply this principle to voter registration in order to curtail vote fraud.
Mr. Obama also wants “federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.” Since most criminal enforcement occurs at the local and state levels, this would seem to give the feds carte blanche to insert themselves into every crime scene that involves a recovered firearm. Maybe they already do that. I hope not.
Two more executive orders are for the feds to “provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers,” and to “develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.” Those poor local school officials, clergy and college deans must never have thought of re-tooling, say, fire drills, for other emergencies, even after Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now, Sandy Hook Elementary.
One of the scarier orders directs “the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.” It wasn’t long ago that Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security issued a report tagging pro-lifers, war veterans and opponents of illegal immigration as potential terrorists.
Then there’s the “doc snitch.” Federal officials are to clarify that the Obamacare law doesn’t prohibit doctors from asking about guns in patients’ homes. We have to wonder what the physicians are supposed to do with that information— it’s a short step to requiring them to ask.
We need to keep in mind that gun ownership is not merely a Second Amendment issue. “Guns are property,” says Constitutional attorney Leah Farish. “Infringement of Second Amendment rights should also be subjected to due process scrutiny under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. I do not think that executive orders amount to sufficient due process in this context.”
Attorney General Edwin Meese III said last week that impeachment could be a proper remedy if President Obama uses an executive order “to try to override the Second Amendment …. Now there are some things he can probably do in regard to the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or some other governmental agency in its operations…,” Mr. Meese told Newsmax. “But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization.”
That’s why Mr. Obama is urging Congress to enact a flurry of gun restrictions, from banning so-called “assault weapons,” prohibiting people from buying guns from private sellers without undergoing background checks, outlawing high-capacity magazine clips and a few other things that the anti-gun lobby wants.
All of this adds up to a mega-increase in federal law enforcement power and will require billions of dollars and thousands of new bureaucrats. Will it make us safer? Don’t bet on it.
The strategy is not that hard to discern: Shoot the Second Amendment to pieces with high-velocity magazines full of executive orders and questionable legislation. And while you’re at it, use some kids as political human shields in order to demonize your opponents.
“A look at some of the 23 gun control executive orders that Barack Obama issued on January 16”
Most are “memoranda” not EOs.
Everyone who stayed home or voted 3P — Thanks.
Next year, when obozo’s handlers target the 1A and specifically target FR (”hate speech” doncha know), I will thank you again in the last free post on the Internet.
I think 1934 might have been the time to start down that road. Every infringement has been an impeachable offense. We've had lots of infringements, but none have led to impeachments.
An executive order? It's flimsy way to get further infringements, but it is neither more nor less unConstitutional than an act of Congress which infringes our Second Amendment rights.
When doors are kicked in, and confiscations begin, there will be violence -- but until then, I do not expect much in terms of "congressional action" or "peaceful protests" in the town square.
Obama seems to constantly seek to be the poster child for the phrase “Judge a man by the enemies he makes.”
I think he sent you a message........
And you want to blame us?
Everyone who stayed home or voted 3P — Thanks.
That only counts in battleground states.
Also, I have virtually no doubt that this election was stolen through massive voter fraud and I think the R’s were in on it. The reason? They all knew the cities would burn and we really might fall into civil war had Obama lost.
The stakes were just too high.
One begins to wonder if perhaps His Execrable Majesty King Barackus has ‘short eyes’ ...
>>. He was a poor candidate who did not attract attention or votes. He lost.
And you want to blame us?<<
Agree 100% And he lost for not being Conservative enough! How sad that But for a few worm-eaters we would have obozocare repealed.
We need the BEST and MOST CONSERVATIVE candidates we can get (see my post about my guy Ted Cruz).
But I 100% guarantee NO ONE will meet the FR “R U CNRVTV ENUF” test. NO ONE!
So we need to understand that the Scott Browns are sometimes the best we can do (like my 1st HS g/f). If you can get and run a Ted Cruz, GREAT!! Do it!
If not, it is time to settle for the lesser of all evils: The lowest RINO is 1,000% better than the most moderate liberal.
“B-b-but, Romney is just as evil and would have done the same thing! All hail Ron Pual!!!”
>>One begins to wonder if perhaps His Execrable Majesty King Barackus has ‘short eyes’ ..<<
From the beginning of his public run everyone knew he had light loafers. Just like hillary had to close her eyes and pretend she was with a g/f (so did bill), likewise obozo had to pretend he was spooning some aide from his days as a “activist.” The difference is obozo was able to do it twice.
>>“B-b-but, Romney is just as evil and would have done the same thing! All hail Ron Pual!!!”<<
There is a lot going on in that one line post!
All of it smart! :)
I’m not nearly as worried about the feds as I am the state of MA. Noboby has covered Linsky’s gun control bill and it’s almost as bad if not worse than NY. If it passes I ‘m moving.
But a lot of people are like me. We vote for people who are not perfect. You know that a lot of people who voted for McCain were not voting for McCain -- they were voting for Sarah. The TV was filled with hate for Sarah. We were constantly told how flawed she was. Definitely not "perfect". But an awful lot of people rushed out on election day, eager to vote for her because, even with her flaws, she was the real deal.
The GOP has two paths:
1) Tell the voters to jump on the bandwagon and support anyone the Establishment picks for them.
2) Break away from the GOP-e mindset, find a candidate -- even if flawed -- who can excite the base.
We've been doing option #1 for a long, long time. And I'm tired of the voters taking in the shorts when it turns out that option #1 is a bad option. Maybe -- just maybe -- the GOP should develop a tolerance for Conservative candidates, even if those candidates have flaws. I mean -- Herman Cain? Do you realize was a small, petty, insignificant thing was used to get him out of the race?? The GOP does not stand up for anyone who isn't "perfect". Mitt Romney sure seemed "perfect". How did that work out?
My view is that the voters will embrace imperfection -- but the GOP will not. And that's the problem.
Why don’t you also blame the GOPe for running a centrist republican that couldn’t even win his home state?
Yes, there are a lot of “true believers” here on FR.
Obama’s goal is as clear as day... to separate the social/religious conservatives on the right from the fiscal/political/military/economic conservatives. If he succeeds, the liberals will be in power for a loooong time.
Reagan once said “never let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. If these two camps do not learn to compromise and get “half a loaf”, and GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE INTO POWER, we will keep losing.
If people want to “stand on principle” fine, but they will be standing alone in the wilderness. Get people who would be amenable to listening to you into power. If you do that you will have a shot at convincing them to go your way. Do you think Obama is going to listen to you?
The leftists have been patient enough to master the “long march through the institutions”. These institutions today are mainly the media and the universities and schools. If we don’t do that we will be (and are) in a lot of trouble.
“You want to blame us?”
Yep!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.