I’m penning this post on Tuesday afternoon, having just watched Pres. Obama’s East Room announcement in regard to taking Executive Action on gun control. As soon as the President was done speaking, I turned off the television and shut down my server… no Facebook, no nothing. In other words, I write this having read nothing, seen nothing, nor heard anyone offer their two nor seventeen cents on the address. I have not been subjected to any analysis. In a contemporary news cycle that seems to create more news than it actually, factually reports, I didn’t want any blatant nor subtle subjectivity to permeate my opinion.
To be clear, it is important to wrestle with this topic well — fully acknowledging that gun control is a subject that sets many people off and often prompts blood pressure to immediately rise. I get that. It’s an understandable, emotional issue.
The most prominent measure announced seemed that Pres. Obama is issuing an Executive Order to expand the number of gun buyers subject to background checks; this will be done by increasing the number of sellers who are legally labeled as “dealers.” Dealers must be licensed and are required to conduct those checks on their customers.
Also, the President clearly articulated that he has no desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment and that this was not a first step in a “plot to confiscate guns.” His stated motivation is to reduce gun violence.
So let me offer my two — I mean seventeen — cents… (Please note that while my thoughts are untainted, they are by no means comprehensive. The two approaches should not be equated with one another; more thoughts may come at a later date.)
I appreciate the President’s stated motivation; I think it’s wise. I think we’d all like to see gun violence diminished. One of the blessings in the hollow heartbreak after each horrific incident is that as a nation — black, white, conservative, liberal, gay, straight, Jew, Christian, whatever — we are typically united in our tears. We’d like to see all violence diminished — gangs, terrorism, public protest destruction, etc.
I appreciate the President’s tears; the killing of innocent babes is unspeakably atrocious. It makes me cry, too.
I think, also, the stated idea of subjecting more buyers to background checks is wise. Americans have a right to bear arms, but a convicted felon, for example — who has already shown an intent and willingness to infringe upon the rights of another — should always be subject to a background check. In my opinion, he has sacrificed his 2nd Amendment right by his own, previous choice.
Hence, I don’t question the primary content of the President’s speech. Save for a few political jabs that it seems most of our leaders sadly can’t resist these days, I think the desire to curb the violence without caving to those who wish to repeal Americans’ rights makes sense. I do, however, have some valid questions in regard to the process.
While some previous presidents have utilized Executive Orders more frequently, the motive for utilization has varied. I struggle with the motive to bypass Congress because of an inability to pass desired policy initiatives. I have sincere concern about the expanding precedent of the Executive Branch becoming the crafter of law. What if, for example, the next president declares new law on abortion — making it significantly more or less restrictive, pending his or her political bent? What if the next president decides he/she can make more military decisions on his or her own? Even with all of its noted dysfunction, I appreciate the accountability within the combination of a Congress which makes the laws and a President who executes them. I don’t want single executives making the law on gun control or abortion. And I don’t want my opposition or support of this process to potentially hypocritically fluctuate with what the law is, who is the enactor, or how emotional I am.
I also question the legitimacy of the Executive Order being valid because “a majority of Americans” support it; what a majority of Americans desired in regard to ACA/Obamacare, for example, was considered irrelevant. It thus seems obvious to this semi-casual political deserver, that what the majority wants is only considered when the leader is in the majority. Where is the current national leader who has said, “A majority of Americans do not want this measure, so I have respectfully decided to refrain from its pursuit”? Note problem #1 with our democracy: what a party wants is prioritized over what the people want.
Yes, this subject is tough; it’s tough to navigate through respectfully; please know that is my desire. There is much I appreciated in this week’s gun control address; there is a significant some I did not; please remember, too, that my initial analysis is nowhere close to comprehensive, but it does help to edit out those who come from the standpoint of this President being the most awful or awesome man ever. I don’t feel their perspective is objective. Hence, the “untaintedness” helps with the blood pressure.
Respectfully…
AR