I simply do not buy the tears. And even if I thought they were real, I would see them as misguided, as a symbol of the emotional logic in play instead of a more rational approach, the sign of someone motivated to do something without thinking.
Let's be clear on this; nothing that your president did - using a decidedly undemocratic process (more on that later) - will make a difference to the incidence of "mass shootings". I have to believe that he knows this - that he is not so stupid (devious perhaps, but not stupid), not unfamiliar with the particulars of the cases about which he is crying and has read research and data reported by federal agencies that our tax dollars support. Given that belief, I can only assume that he is being devious, that he is nibbling away at this right with the intention to set the stage for his successor to further infringe on it.
1. "Gun show loophole". This is, at best, a misnomer and, at worst, a purposeful deception. This "loophole" does not exist. Private individuals, not in business (and there are regulations that define what "being in business" means in this case) can sell their legal and legally-held private property anywhere and at any time. Sometimes that private property includes potentially deadly products (e.g., cars or firearms). In the case of firearms, they do not need a gun show to do this, nor the internet. Having bought firearms at gun shows and over the internet, I can tell you that the vast (really vast) majority of sales at those venues involve dealers (people "in the business") with FFLs and purchasers completing NICS checks. I have always had to complete a background check. Data consistently show that a vast majority (over 99%) of firearms used in crimes are not obtained via gun shows, but are stolen or bought illegally on the street (as in from people who have them illegally themselves) - that is, obtained in a manner that is already illegal. Making law-abiding people jump through hoops to legally purchase legal products is not going to change the illegal commerce committed by criminals - it doesn't work with drugs and will not work with firearms. It is certain that your president knows this - if he is not that well-informed, then he is not qualified to lead.
2. "Increased investigation and prosecution of gun crime". This would be a welcome effort given that recent data indicate that such prosecution has declined over Obama's term. How many cases can we read in the media about straw purchasers who are not prosecuted - even (or especially) when the firearms were used to commit crime. How long did it take to charge Enrique Marquez with the straw purchase of the weapons used in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting? As has been noted many times, the crimes being committed by these killers are already illegal. The problem is that gun laws that are already on the books are not being enforced until tragedy ensues; the result is akin to the "Broken Windows" notion. If you show by your inaction that you do not care and will not enforce, then you implicitly condone lawlessness.
3. "Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system." As a mental health professional, I applaud this to some extent. However, just as with the "No-Fly list", one needs to be on-guard against misuse and abuse of such processes. Again, as a professional, I also know that there is a lot of judgement involved and, quite frankly, I would not want many of my own peers making such decisions, as they are like most liberals and consider wanting to own firearms as a disorder in and of itself.
4. "Smart Guns". I think most of us will believe that such a thing is feasible, really exists and is sufficiently reliable when we see such firearms used by Law Enforcement, Secret Service, and Military. Until you (and your president) think it is reliable enough that you are willing to bet your own personal safety and protection in it, then it is not enough for me to do so.
Lots more in there to parse, but as would be expected those whose philosophical positions are in line with the executive orders will find them reasonable while those who think they are over-reach and meaningless will not. What is clear is that they will not have any effect on crime and I think they are cynical in that they are not really intended to have an effect. They serve two purposes in the short and long term. In the short term, they are political statements and strategies, intended to gin up the liberal base; they are meaningless gestures, just like the tears, meant to have an emotional but not actual effect. Second, in the long term, their most sinister effect is to create an atmosphere that may ultimately lead to larger confiscation efforts - they, at least symbolically, put the government's toes over the line. I know - some who will read this consider it right-wing rhetoric. But I think it is true that your president knows that this will not work - that he is purposefully avoiding making or endorsing effective changes that he is philosophically opposed to (e.g., recognizing that lawful gun ownership decreases crime, that lawful carriers stop crimes every day) and instead making ineffective moves which, when ineffective, he can point to as evidence of the need for more draconian changes.
Lastly, all of this is more evidence of the short-sightedness of Americans. I noted to conservatives, years ago, when GWB and Cheney asserted the notion an imperial presidency, that supporters of this would rue that day when his liberal successors did the same. People always love over-assertion of presidential power when they agree with the president's goals, when they are philosophical sycophants. They always decry it as excessive when they do not.
So, as dangerous or useless as the content of these orders may be, the truth is they are more dangerous as a process. This move effectively violates the nature and structure of our government, the role of check and balances, how the party which is not in power, whoever they may be, is protected against a tyrannical executive. It is a dangerous precedent and those who would cheer it due to agreeing with its goals should consider whether they prefer a government where a president can exercise that kind of power when they do not share its goals. For instance, could similar executive orders be used to curtail and interfere with access to abortion? This is a symptom of a president out of control - has shades of Nixon noting "If the president does it, then it is legal". Applaud it now, but you may abhor it later.
No comments:
Post a Comment