Now, Wait Just One 2nd!

The current hysteria over gun control has left me unsure whether I should laugh or cry.  The "all guns, all the time" crowd will repeat one propaganda slogan and smugly declare it as the ultimate truth.  When you point out the inaccuracies of the slogan, and that the originators of the slogan have a financial interest in the issue, they repeat the slogan as if repetition is a viable substitute for reality.  Although the wording varies, the content remains the same.  If any type of gun regulation is allowed it will automatically lead to all guns being outlawed and all guns being confiscated.  This is the belief and no amount of reason will dissuade those who wave it around as if they just carried it down from Mt. Sinai.

In the realm of debate or public speaking, this is known as a "slippery slope" argument.  In essence, the first step, is claimed to guarantee the last step.  One method to test the logical consistency of a statement is to replace the key articles.  Does the result still make sense?  Here are some examples of consistent statements.  "If you step in the fire your shoe will get burned."  "If you step in the puddle your shoe will get wet."  These are consistent statements, and the conclusion is a logical result of the action.  Now back to the slippery slope.  Just because I start driving west, does not mean I am going to California.  Just because I flirt with someone doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with them.  While in each case the action can eventually lead to the conclusion, the actual result is uncertain.  Although in the case of my flirting, I can tell you it's highly unlikely I'll need to take my shoes off.

In the case of gun regulation leading to outlawing and confiscating all guns, what is lacking is a transport mechanism.  The United States Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws, and they define limitations and applicability of laws, including Amendments to the Constitution.  Their rulings have resulted in limitations being applied to some Amendments, including the Second.  Historically, the court has been very reluctant to change rulings, which makes any further restriction placed upon the Second Amendment, highly unlikely.

An Amendment to the Constitution can not be changed.  It can only be repealed by passing a new Amendment which cancels the original one.  This has been accomplished once when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st.  The process of amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult.  The first step is for a proposed Amendment to be approved by a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate.  The next step is ratification of the Amendment by 3/4 of the states.  At the beginning of the amendment process a time limit is generally placed.  If the Amendment is not ratified by this date, the entire process must start over.  There is no way to bypass this process, short of a successful revolution which overthrows the government and cancels the Constitution.

With this in mind, do you see any possibility of President Obama, before his term runs out, getting enough votes in the House and Senate to get an Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment passed,and then getting 38 states to ratify that amendment?  If you see this as a real likelihood, you might want to make an appointment with your doctor.  Whatever medication you are on is seriously impacting your ability to interface with reality.

Briefly, before I close this boring explanation of the workings of our Constitution, I'll address the uproar over President Obama's use of Executive Orders.  A certain segment of the media wants you to believe that President Obama is using Executive Orders to bypass Congress and violate the Constitution.  While it is possible for an Executive Order to be abused, causing a violation, the order itself can not violate anything.  Any order that is a direct violation would immediately become null and void, and depending on the order, could result in impeachment proceedings being initiated.  If the orders issued are, as claimed, violating the Constitution, why hasn't Congress responded with the impeachment process?  I'll be patient while you work out the math.

There is another internet deception that you've probably seen, claiming President Obama has issued vast numbers of Executive Orders, greatly surpassing past Presidents.  Also that he has issued several very alarming Executive Orders.  The alarming orders do exist, but they were all issued by President Kennedy, with two exceptions. One issued by President Johnson, the other by President Ford.  In total numbers of orders issued, the grand champion was Franklin Roosevelt, followed by Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman.  President Obama is struggling along towards the back of the pack when it comes to Executive Orders.

There is some excellent information on all of the above available online.  Do a few searches, do some reading, and if you're still freaking out, try breathing slowly into a paper bag.