I’m left… way left on the political spectrum. I’m so far left, other liberals had to build an extension so I wouldn’t fall off. Nonetheless, I find myself standing with war hawk conservatives, free-market libertarians, and the ranks of the state militias in opposing President Obama’s Executive Orders to change the nations laws on gun transactions. Politics indeed make for strange bedfellows.
I’m willing to say that on the substantive law, I don’t have much of an objection. I don’t own guns, plan on owning guns, and generally support the idea behind gun control measures. I’ve never voted for a Republican presidential candidate or Congressional representative, and I live happily in the “People’s Gay-Public of Drug-Afornia,” to borrow a Doneghy phrase.
I oppose the President’s executive orders because the whole process is un-American and contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Having opposed conservative presidents’ use of unilateral law-making by way of executive actions, it would be intellectually dishonest to change my position when politically expedient because this is a matter of procedure. They are, to use a business term, best practices.
Allow me to explain…
Best practices contemplate a process carried out over an indefinite period of time. Imagine you’re the president of a small manufacturing company, and you’re a really good judge of, say, machine maintenance. Now, the manufacturing company has a quality control department to ensure a high quality end product. It’s a “best practice.”
However, times are tough, and you reason correctly that the manufacturing business would profit more at the moment if no quality control department existed because all the machines were highly reliable, not prone to error, and quality control takes resources and slows the process down.
You implement this change and add a requirement that every 4 years, the company president looks at the machines and make sure they’re doing okay. And they do okay, for years. In fact, you never have a single error, when you retire, you’re happy.
The board announces a new president. He’s from sales, not technical… and while he is assumed to try hard, he fouls it up and he fouls it up hard. Bad products go out causing far greater financial damage than the amount saved earlier. The next president does the same. Do you see where this is going?
A governmental best practice is to keep separate the rule makers from the rule enforcers. In short, the guys with guns don’t make the rules. Why? Because every country of unsuspecting victims to the brutal governments of fascism and tyranny has one thing in common, just one
– a leader who has the guns and who makes the rules.
In his recent Townhall meeting Obama called those who opposed him “conspiracy theorists” who believed he was out to get their guns. Is Obama going to “take our guns”? It doesn’t matter, because when we consolidate rule making with rule enforcing, someone will eventually. Maybe not Obama, maybe the next president. Or the president after that.
We stick to best governmental practices for a reason. Executive actions, whether Orders or Memoranda, should be heavily disfavored and in the context of arms, forbidden. Let us speak through our Congress. They’re there for a reason. They make laws by building consensus of the people not the consensus of a single person.
Discussion about whether Executive Action would curb violence confuses the issue. Discussion about whether a conspiracy exists confuses the issue. Executive Action over arms (whether EOs o.r EMs) is itself the issue.