Yep, today was the day that Prohibition started.
-XC
To be fair, Prohibition has BEEN going on as long as the "war of drugs" has been going on. But I digress... I don't see how this is a "prohibition" on guns. It is a limitation on the sale of guns, and the government is trying to figure out what the highest-risk groups to sell them to is. I agree that a lot of the order is pretty fluffy and doesn't provide enough definite direction, but I do think that between this list and his statements during the speech, Obama reached out very well to people who care about their second amendment rights, while still making it known that there are situations where it is high-risk to allow people to keep a firearm in their home. All in all, it seems like a very moderate step, and not wholly prohibitory. Honestly, Obama did not add anything to the law in his orders. What he did do was apply everything he had to enforce rules and regulations which were often not, as well as authorize and encourage actions which were allowed but not acted on. This seems to be the role of the Executive branch - the executor of the law. I think the most important thing he did is encourage greater investigation into the matter of gun violence, whether by studying the effects of violent video games or by tracking and assessing mental illnesses that correlate to higher gun risks. Even if you don't agree that those are the causes (I don't think violent media is a causal factor, for example), I can entirely get behind his statement that "it cannot hurt to have the information". It is better to be aware and act on it, than purposely ignore it because we won't like what we find.
I said that it was on the anniversary of prohibition. Like having your swearing in on the anniversary of the GB address. Symbolism. Violence in America has been studied to death. Pun not strictly intended. But the volume of literature is amazing, all peer reviewed, and all startlingly complete. But, according to my Ph.D. wife, generally short of useful and actionable policy suggestions. I'm all for smarts, but remember when the CDC was going to study gun violence? I think there is a credibility gap in a lot of direct government research. _XC PS - People who are gun owners who care about the second amendment, I would venture to say, are generally perfectly terrified of big city liberal politicians as a class.
Regarding your PS: I would wager that big city liberal politicians as a class are similarly afraid of gun owners caring about the second amendment. Regarding the rest: I am ashamed of my not realizing today was the anniversary of prohibition, although I'm still not convinced the symbolic parallel is there. As far as researching violence in America, I would agree with you that there is a considerable amount of information out there which has not been acted on. But I think there's always more to know, and finding information that could be actionable policy suggestions would be worth the cost. It's better for everyone if the government can enact policies based on reason and science first, instead of an emotional knee-jerk reaction, as many people (admittedly, myself included) felt about impossibly tough, immediate gun control after Sandy Hook. Credibility may be an issue with government research but until we see more private organizations making an effort to research violence and its causes in an objective, peer-reviewed way, government efforts may be the best we have to work with. All research is, sadly, tainted by biased human hands. Personally, I think the CDC may be our most effective research body but I admit it can never be perfect.
I can promise you that, at this moment, there are hundreds of academic papers being written on violence. I'd be shocked if there were new insights. I'm sure that many politicians are afraid of the Bill of Rights. That's kind of the point of it, and why it wasn't in the original documentation. If you've never read the history of our founding documents, from the Articles to the Bill, the wikipedia entry is excellent. I can also recommend several good books that layer a lot of the politics of the time on them. -XC
Even if you were correct, the unlikelihood of new insights is hardly good reason to not keep investigating and searching for useful answers, especially at a time when we could really use them to help us act intelligently. I'd rather try and find out as much as possible, than be stuck at the mercy of the powerful emotions surrounding the issue of gun control. Obama's executive orders empower the medical, mental health, and law enforcement communities to find more answers through their efforts, and with luck could help us uncover more facts than we had known prior. I'm no more than an amateur at understanding US history, however I am aware that the Bill of Rights was created to empower Americans against the government, and not to give the government greater rights over citizens than needed to promote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, the Bill of Rights was also not enshrined as a dogma to not be questioned or changed as times called for them. What was written in the constitution was what, at the time, the United States needed to provide a country safe for democracy and liberty. Part of that was establishing a militia of armed citizens, due to the lack of a standing military force. This is no longer the case, to my knowledge. Whether or not gun ownership is inherently needed to promote the safety and freedom of American citizens is debatable. It has been a while since I've done any careful reading on the history around the Bill of Rights specifically, so perhaps I should be sure to brush up soon. If you have any good books, do share.
These are ridiculous things to put in an executive order. Think about it, none of it says anything. The whole politicians thing is really starting to get at me. This is dishonest pandering. By issuing an "executive order", the average person thinks that hey, we're getting something done! But no, it turns out that all it is is a bunch of vague phrases saying we should keep an eye out for crazy people. Sure we can waste a bunch of time and money on making sure gun registries are kept up-to-date and documented. Sure we can make sure people get background checks before getting guns. But what do the people who get rejected do? Say "Oh, I guess I'm not fit to buy a gun."? No, they don't. They go to the nearest guy who can get him one, and buy it there. It's nonsense to think that gun registries work, or background checks. They don't prevent people from getting guns. When has any politician said "lets get off our asses and find out what causes gun violence"? I've never seen it. It's all just fluff in the face of an actual serious problem. A problem that we are actually pretty concerned about. My opinion (and only take this as an opinion) is that we need to clarify what the second amendment means. I'm a little bit overly-emotional about this issue and I might sound a little bit crazy, so feel free to criticize. I'd like to have a reasonable opinion.13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
What does this possibly mean? That we assemble every single citizen to enforce gun laws? What does maximize even mean? And how do they "prevent" gun violence? I'm finding this entire list to be full of things that are completely meaningless. Laws need specifics, they can't just say "prevent gun violence". Have we not been trying to do so for a long time now?A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There are many questions. What is "well regulated", why is a militia necessary to the security of a free state, who regulates the militia? What are arms? Sure, there are some obvious answers, but this line is seriously outdated. What about tanks, are they arms?
The supreme court recently clarified what the second amendment meant, which is what everyone assumed it meant until the mid to late 20th century. It's no more confusing than the first or fourth. Unfortunately, like the 1st and 4th it is scary for politicians and functionaries so they try to make it complicated and limit it. As I am wont to say to people: there is no hate speech, just speech. -XC
I'm curious, which of these provisions irks you the most? Are there any of them that make sense to you?
Many are either fluff (national dialogue) or stupid. Stupid, for example: "5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun." It is darn near impossible to get your gun back from the cops once they have it. Plus they store them improperly so when you do get it back, if you do, it is ruined. I can't find the story but one guy did some research and found that a large % (not 50%, but like that) of very valuable non-crime seized guns are stolen in the lockup.
Yeah, I would agree that Fast and Furious is something that doesn't get enough "lip service" from the left. Um, lets just tuck this under the rug until 2016 and then we'll take a looksy
Yeah, there are often unintended consequences of knee-jerk legislation. I have a friend that will be on the sex-offender list if he's ticketed one more time for peeing outside at a tail-gate. -Dumb, yes. Worthy of the criminal sex offenders list, no.