“Even without Congress, Obama could act to restrict guns”
Or, “Introduction to tyranny, disguised as populism, and aided by state propaganda”. Reuters:
Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action to improve background checks on gun buyers, ban certain gun imports and bolster oversight of dealers.
Prospects for gun control legislation intensified in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, as more pro-gun rights lawmakers said on Monday they were open to the possibility while Obama and three cabinet members met at the White House to discuss the subject.
Having just won a second four-year term, Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights and he could press ahead without lawmakers on fronts where federal law enables executive action.
Speaking in Newtown, where a gunman on Friday killed 20 children and six adults in an elementary school, Obama vowed late on Sunday to “use whatever power this office holds” to try to prevent such massacres.
“Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine,” Obama said at Newtown High School.
His administration has the power to issue executive orders or new rules, options that Obama is likely to consider in combination with possible new laws.
Critics say the system has holes because it does not include all the data it should on those ineligible to buy guns. The FBI, which runs the system, could incorporate more data from within the federal government – using evidence of mental incompetence, for example.
There are privacy concerns, however, and the Justice Department is still studying which types of data it can legally use, Schroeder said.
“That kind of system works effectively only if all of the potentially disqualifying information that has been gathered by any federal, state or local authority is accessible to the database, and that’s not the case today,” he said.
It is not clear what changes to the background checks would have prevented the mass shooting in Newtown, because the killer appeared to have used weapons his mother bought legally.
The administration also has leeway to act in how it defines certain categories of people prohibited from buying a gun.
Federal law bars anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective,” but it does not specify whether that means only a court can disqualify someone, said Michael Volkov, a former Republican Justice Department official now at the law firm LeClairRyan.
[my emphases] Now, I know. I’m just part of the black helicopter crowd. But does it not worry the shit out of you that a leftwing authoritarian government, couching its agenda in the soothing label “progressive,” is now mulling over ways that the Executive branch can categorize us in order to maximize its political ability to determine which citizens are eligible for gun ownership and which are not — without any checks on its power?
This is positively Stalinesque — and yet here they are, scheming ways to take away individual rights considered sacrosanct by the founders and framers in order to exercise a more iron-fisted control over the masses.
After all, this is a President who has described political opponents enemies; the progressives routinely cite leftwing “studies” calling conservatism a mental illness; and even the contemporary Republican leadership is frustrated by the hidebound “ideologues” on the right who insist on “fetishizing” the Constitution.
Think this will end well? Yesterday, the President alluded to Americans carrying around “weapons of war.” This is demonstrably false, and yet because the President has said it and the media propagandists dutifully repeats it — both, by the way, knowing that no such thing is happening, and both pretending that no argument has been offered to give lie to the assertion — it’s becoming the found “truth,” and GOP leadership is once again prepared to cave to the pressure of a mist of lies it feels it isn’t in their interests, in terms of spending political capital, to dispute.
I won’t let my boys live as slaves to the State. Nor will I. I don’t grant temporary politicians the power to take away my natural rights simply because, following Woodrow Wilson, they don’t believe in such nonsense.
Many of us go about our day to day lives without seeing or understanding what is being done to deconstruct the Constitution and replace it with an amorphous web of progressive policy run through the administrative state, the courts, and now an imperial executive who has no fear of alienating voters.
And I fear that by the time they awake and look around to demand their liberty, only then will they notice that they surrendered it all a long time ago.