From The Hill:
By Bradford Richardson | January 03, 2016, 10:43 am
According to Carly Fiorina, not only is President Obama’s planned executive action on guns misguided and reckless, it is also blatantly unconstitutional.
“President Obama has been a lawless president in his use of executive orders, whether those executive orders are around immigration or whether those executive orders are around gun control,” the GOP presidential hopeful said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“And it is delusional, dangerous, not to mention unconstitutional for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to continue to talk about climate change and gun control in the wake of a Paris terrorist attack, a San Bernardino terrorist attack, instead of talking about a plan to defeat [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria],” she added.
The former business executive encouraged Obama to enforce the laws already on the books rather than issue new regulations.
“The thing the president should be doing on gun control… is enforcing the laws that we have,” she said. “We have long lists of criminals who own guns, who routinely purchase guns. We know who these people are, and we are not prosecuting any of them.”
“I think we need to enforce the laws we have, and we are not doing so.”
There’s a bit more at the link, and I suppose that I could have picked any of the Republican presidential candidates to make this point, but Mrs Fiorina happens to be my personal favorite, and it gives me yet another excuse to link to her campaign website and encourage campaign donations to her. 🙂
One thing that the President and the Democrats and the left are trying to do is push the meme that the President simply has to take action, because the Congress has not. Well, that’s bovine feces! As the late Dr Vincent Davis, then Director of the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce pointed out in one of the few lessons which has stayed with me since my ancient days in college, if someone has the power to do something, and chooses not to do it, then he has taken an action just as surely as if he had done whatever action it was. If the Congress has not passed any new gun control legislation, it is because a majority of the Members are satisfied with the laws as they currently stand! By not passing any new legislation to restrict our natural rights as recognized by the Second Amendment, the Congress has taken the action of not agreeing with the President, something perfectly within Congress’ rights.
Stacey Stacy McCain has been only one of the latest to point out that gun control legislation is not doing what the left have claimed it would do, noting that Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun control ordinances in the country, and was was the plaintiff in Chicago v McDonald, the 2010 Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms,¹ is still “Murder City, USA,” having recorded 468 murders in 2015. If gun control laws actually worked, actually did what the proponents claim they will do, then our big cities ought to be the safest places around, not the most dangerous.
But, make no mistake about it: gun control laws could work, but only if they were mandatory gun confiscation laws, if they took away our Second Amendment rights. Gun control could work if and only if all firearms were confiscated, and the left know this, and, despite what they say, that is their goal!
Oh, it wouldn’t apply to them: Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the left elite would still retain their armed bodyguards, but us commoners, nope, not for us!
And while it would, technically, apply to the criminals, the criminals wouldn’t surrender their guns, which would mean that those weapons would be confiscated only as they were used, and found by the police. So, gun control laws would work, but only after a good, long time of the law-abiding folks being disarmed and only the predators having weapons, but the left don’t care about that, not in the slightest.
¹ – The Court held that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right two years previously, in District of Columbia v Heller, but the city of Chicago claimed that Heller applied only the federal government, and that state and local governments could restrict the individual’s rights based on local conditions. The Supreme Court slapped down that nonsense, applying the Second Amendment to state and local action as well.