EXECUTIVE ACTION

Twisted out of shape by more and more gun violence, a tearful President Obama announced he will act unilaterally to tighten up gun purchase laws, extending the definition of "gun dealer" to include gun shows and Internet sales. The move will force these guys to perform background checks, just like retail gun stores do now.

(Obama also wants more FBI agents to expedite those checks. And some other stuff [more money for mental health] that will require Congressional approval.)

Predictably, Republicans have condemned Obama's outrageous overreach of power. The general response is, as usual, a demonstration of the time-honored political maxim: Why merely react to a provocation when you can over-react?

One fellow, Republican John Culberson (Texas) promises to kill funding for the DOJ forthwith. Not waiting for a lawsuit, etc., he's going to paralyze the country's top law guys until Obama gives in to his demands. As Culberson says, our Second Amendment rights are just too precious to hang around doing nothing.

Republican Presidential pre-candidate Marco Rubio chimed in, saying Obama was obsessed with undermining the Second Amendment.

(If background checks for gun ownership are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has so far dropped the ball.)

Background checks have been around for a long time, guys, and are supported by 92% of Americans. But Republicans (largely under the thumb of the National Rifle Association) object to anything that comes between an American with a hankering for a gun and the immediate and satisfying possession of that gun.

If gun folks know anything it's that the slightest interference in the gun-buying process is just the first step on the road to total gun confiscation.

Republican hopeful Ted Cruz knows it. He has a Website that sports the headline: OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS.

And he's right, of course. If you're a lunatic on your way to an elementary school, Obama does want your guns.

Is Cruz really against that?

The Speaker of the House (Republican Paul Ryan) suggested Obama was engaged in a "dangerous level of executive overreach."

But let's face it: This is what they have to say when Obama does something at a time when Congress refuses to do anything. Those guys wouldn't even prohibit folks on the No-Fly list from getting guns. (And with a gun you could shoot your way past the gate—to hell with the stupid No-Fly list.)

As for the NRA: "President Obama's executive orders will do nothing to improve public safety."

(They also reminded Congress-critters their NRA grade was subject to change, should any of them waver in their support for unfettered gun ownership.)

The NRA hinted Obama's action was so inconsequential the gun-rights organization might not even bother to act to stop him. (Unlike Culberson, who vows to cripple the Department of Justice.)

Apparently the NRA feels Obama's orders will have no impact at all—neither save lives nor inconvenience gun buyers.

(Would it be cynical to suggest the NRA cares more about the latter than the former? After all, those guys are not in the business of making America a safer place in which to live. They're only out to protect the safety of the Second Amendment from all three branches of federal government.)

Personally, I have no dog in this fight. I don't care whether people own guns or not. In fact, I think you could make the argument that if everyone carried guns in plain view, the level of impulsive gun crime might go down. The bad guy would be made to think twice.

(On the other hand, thinking twice [or, for that matter, once] is not the strong suit of the average criminal. Might he not avail himself of the gun of the nearest law-abiding citizen? In that case, packing heat could represent an attractive nuisance to weak-minded individuals—perhaps even a kind of entrapment. ["The gun was right there, man! That guy was just begging me to take it! Can't you see why I had to kill him and his family?"])

What interests me is how our pals the human beings come up with reasons to counter the thoughts and actions of others.

For instance, how can the NRA say Obama's actions will do nothing to improve public safety? Since the executive action will merely extend background checks, the NRA must be saying that background checks have never prevented anyone from getting a gun and using it for murder.

Could they possibly mean that?

Criminals, the NRA must suppose, all have their own extra-legal source of guns. But if that's the case, why are a substantial number of bad guys barred by background checks from making purchases each year? Seems a lot of convicted felons are still trying to sneak through the front door at Big Five.

Isn't it likely the most sketchy of gun buyers would avoid retail stores in their attempt to buy a weapon? Obama's action is meant to close the gun-show loophole, forcing the morally-challenged citizens to find guys like that preppy-looking gun dealer in Taxi Driver.

Setting aside the criminal element, what about the mentally ill? A lot of mass shootings are perpetrated by off-balance folks out to right some imagined wrong or to impress the world with the accomplishments of their hyperactive trigger fingers. The background check may be an imperfect tool to keep guns out of their hands, but how can the NRA be so convinced not one incident of murder has ever been prevented?

NRA types (and a great many Republicans) have to conclude the President is shedding only crocodile tears over the children of Sandy Hook Elementary, that he has in his hard and conniving heart nothing for the innocent victims of gun violence, only a raging contempt for the Constitution and a desire to destroy its precious Second Amendment.

Why he would endeavor to undermine the foundation of the country is puzzling until you remember he's a Muslim terrorist from Kenya who has already hijacked the Presidency. Look what he did to Israel, concluding a secret deal with Iran that guarantees the Shiite faithful as many atom bombs as they could ever want.

As Donald Trump once announced: We need a new President, fast! Well, a new President is on the way, Donnie. Could it be you? I have a feeling you think it might.