NRA ad isn't about Obama's kids

Treason: Executive Order Proposed For Obama Gun Control Speech Called ‘Treasonous’

COMMENTARY | An executive order proposed for today’s Obama gun control speech has been called treasonous. Political experts suspect that President Obama will likely attempt to bypass Congress by issuing an executive order in relation to gun control laws. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, this executive order would limit access to so-called assault weapons, take away high-capacity ammo magazines, and strengthen background checks for potential gun buyers as part of 19 gun control measures espoused by Joe Biden.

According to The Washington Times, the idea that Obama might attempt to bypass Congress started with Mayor Michael Bloomberg openly extolling the idea to students from John Hopkins University:

“There are steps that President Obama can take without congressional approval at any time he chooses with just one stroke of the pen.”

The Washington Times points out that this “suggestion that the President stop obeying the will of the people as expressed in laws made by Congress borders on treason.” The Presidential executive branch of the US government is intended to enforce the law, not create or change the law, which is the job of Congress. Joe Biden was put in charge of a task force on the gun control issue, and he also claims that President Obama can move unilaterally on the issue of guns and is considering 19 different measures.

An action like this would likely spark many protests from those who believe the executive order to be treason. The conservative website Drudge Report compared executive action to dictators Hitler and Stalin. The reason they make these comparisons is because, before seizing power, dictators usually seek to disarm the public of their ability to fight back before making their move. While it’s doubtful that progressives will complain about additional gun control laws, many will likely question the method by which then came to be.

While the idea of an Obama dictatorship is a conspiracy theory, it’s not a conspiracy to suggest that the executive office should not be allowed to unilaterally assault the second amendment without the full consent of Congress. The gun control debate over the second amendment hinges on the meaning of “shall not be infringed.” This language must either mean “the right cannot be violated but may be subject to regulation” or “no restriction or limitation can be placed on the right.” Studies of the word “infringed” as used by James Madison, Samuel Adams and the Congressional Committee show that the original intent of the law was that “no restriction or limitation can be imposed.”

The Washington Times points out that arguments for regulating gun ownership would logically extend to include regulating religion:

“Consider this. The original wording of the First Amendment was “…nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” It is absurd to claim that the freedom of religion was guaranteed but subject to “reasonable” regulation. This first draft was eventually reworded to say, “Congress shall make no laws…,” thereby clarifying the intent beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

As Gallup reports, just four percent of Americans identify guns as the nation’s top problem. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, a Gallup Poll from December seems to indicate that a whopping 87 percent of Americans may agree with the overall idea of the NRA’s plan for a Model School Shield Program. When asked about “increasing the police presence at schools” 53 percent considered this plan “very effective” and 34 percent “somewhat effective.” Only 12 percent thought this idea would be ineffective and one percent offered no opinion. The Gallup poll also compared what people thought about the effectiveness of various plans, including mental health:

“Almost as many people (34%) thought that at least one school official in every school should carry a gun as those who favored banning the sale of assault and semi-automatic guns, while 27% felt that the news media should not print or read the names of the shooter. The news blackout of the shooter drew the highest percentage of those who thought it would be ineffective, at 40%, but the gun ban was a close second in the ineffectiveness rating at 36%. What also becomes clear from the poll is the public’s perception that all of the solutions offered would be fruitless, as 53% was the highest positive rating of any of the remedies.”

Do you think that it should be considered treasonous for the executive office, and specifically President Obama, to issue an executive order on the second amendment that usurp’s Congress’s authority?

Comments