Obama Going After Guns Without Congress
Progressive wishes he would just ban them all outright.
The Associated Press is reporting that advisers to President Obama, including Valerie Jarrett, are “finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.”
After the October shooting at the Oregon community college, Obama demanded “in short order” a proposal from his team for his review. It is reported that the president “was looking for ways to tighten gun laws without a vote in Congress.” This would included ways to close the “gun show loophole,” which is the left’s go-to gun control topic. These proposals are nearly ready for Obama’s perusal.
In related news, and showing the extremes some on the left are willing to go, certain Obama voters want the president to go all the way — not stopping at “reasonable regulation” — but a complete and total ban of every gun in America.
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police… Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
The writer of that gem is Pheobe Maltz Bovy for New Republic. Why? She explains:
Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill.
Calling for “reasonable regulation,” as most gun control advocates do, is “too tentative,” Bovy states. She continues:
Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.
Bavy declares an all-out war on the Second Amendment (an unarmed war, of course):
I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.
It doesn’t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it’s right there in the First Amendment that we don’t have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.
For this literally gun-hating American writer living in Canada, Bavy’s conclusion is this: “Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.”
As far as that “gun show loophole” the rest of the left is worried about, this MRC TV video helps to dispel that myth:
Also this one: