Even without Congress, Obama could act to restrict guns … 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. – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: Gun control is necessary now. Too much blood has been spilled.
Free-Market Analysis: We would be all for gun control except for two things: It doesn’t work and it seems to be part of what we call directed history. The goal is to reduce the ability of individuals to fight back against world government.
There is almost no doubt more “controls” are on the way. This Reuters article explains how and why. Reuters is a bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece of the power elite, in our view. So when Reuters publishes an article like this, we pay attention.
The thrust of the Reuters article is that President Barack Obama has plenty of power within the executive branch to curtail the purchase and usage of firearms. The article also points out that because Obama has won a second term, he doesn’t have to make so many political calculations.
Here’s some more from the article:
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 …
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.
The National Rifle Association, the largest U.S. gun rights group with 4 million supporters, relies largely on its ability to influence lawmakers in order to block legislation.
Obama’s appointees at the U.S. Justice Department have been studying ideas since the January 8, 2011, shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and 18 others at a public meeting. Giffords survived but six people died.
Christopher Schroeder, who ran the Justice Department’s review, said it looked at possible legislation to send to Congress as well as action the administration could take itself.
“You always look at both, because if you can do it administratively it’s certainly a less involved process,” said Schroeder, who has since returned to a professorship at Duke Law School.
Many of the ideas have to do with the background checks that licensed gun dealers run on potential buyers.
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 …
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.
Other proposals for executive action by Obama include sharing information with state and local law enforcement about possibly illegal purchases; maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods to help with investigations; and restricting the importation of certain military-style weapons, as President George H.W. Bush did in 1989.
We see in this a number of subdominant elite themes. The idea that the US executive branch has extended power through executive orders is one such. There is no Constitutional authority that we know of for the kind of broad-reaching executive orders that POTUS is now signing or intends to sign.
Additionally, there is no clear-cut mandate for gun control or confiscation from a Constitutional point of view. The antecedents of the Second Amendment are fairly clear. Study them and the idea that people were not to be armed at will becomes tenuous.
So what is behind the current gun control push? Well … obviously, recent gun shootings have contributed to it. But from our point of view, it is the power elite that is making the push for gun control and gun confiscation becauseglobal governance demands it.
Significant millions in the US are armed and determined to resist the encroachments of an international order. That’s a problem for the elites driving the current global agglomeration.
The US has seemingly always been a primary target of those who want one world. The US’s republican culture and tradition of agrarian independence has been attack since the nation’s inception and even before, from what we can tell.
Thus, the current gun control agitation is a kind of endgame to a process that has been underway for at least two centuries or more.
What is most worrisome to us about the current push is its apparent ruthlessness. Obama may be traveling far beyond what is constitutionally justified but the larger issue must be the shootings themselves.
As we’ve pointed out in numerous articles now, beginning with Columbine (if not before) the questions regarding official narratives have multiplied. In almost every prominent case there have been reports of additional shooters and other inexplicable events.
Who is responsible … and why? We don’t know what can be done to assure the truth gets out but some sort of additional public or private investigatory body is surely needed.
It is unfortunate but true that official investigations into these sorts of events are yielding more questions than answers. And that goes for such shattering episodes as 9/11, as well.
Obama can indeed make it more difficult for those in the US to locate and purchase weapons. But it still remains a misguided policy. It empowers an elite that apparently wants to create world government, negates the US Constitution and uses events such as the recent massacre at Sandy Hook as a justification.
Conclusion: It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is some sort of strange and subterranean – yet national – psy-op designed to facilitate increased internationalism at the expense of individual freedom.