Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant wants his state to make it illegal for federal officers to enforce laws in MS that violate the constitution, which calls into question his knowledge of said constitution. PHOTO: AP
Republicans are so mad about President Obama's new gun reforms, you would think that they knew what those reforms are. From what they are saying, however, it seems they don't.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called it an “extreme anti-gun agenda…exploiting the murder of children.” Rand Paul said that Obama is developing a “king complex” and they need to “nullify” his efforts. Marco Rubio said that Obama “doesn’t have license to ignore the constitution.” Two congressman, Steve Stockman of Texas and Trey Radel of Florida, have brought up the possibility of impeaching Obama in response to his gun reforms. “It’s just one of those times in our history,” said Radel. “We’re at a kind of breaking point.”
“The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” wrote Stockman.
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant wants his legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution (which, given the gun reforms it's in response to, makes one wonder how well Gov. Bryant knows the constitution).
"If someone kicks open my door and they're entering my home, I'd like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished," Bryant said. "And what we're doing now is saying, `We're standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.'"
Okay, ready for the big reveal?
No one is getting their guns taken away. No one.
But what about the 23 executive orders? Those deal mostly with background checks, facilitating improvements to mental healthcare, training school personnel and first responders, stuff like that. There is nothing in there about taking anyone’s guns.
Ah, but how about Obama’s legislative proposals? Don’t those ban assault weapons? Well, they seek to. Obama did propose a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban (yeah, remember 1994-2004 when Americans were completely defenseless without their assault rifles? Me neither.), but that has a narrow chance of making it through the Senate and almost no chance of making it through the House. He also proposed limiting high-capacity magazines to ten bullets, which has a better chance of passing, but won’t involve taking away anyone’s guns that they already own, more likely would be a restriction on how legally owned larger magazines are used. So, Phil Bryant, Governor of Mississippi quoted above, no one is suggesting the “three-bullet” scenario you outlined above. Stop setting up straw men.
Finally, for all those people saying that the suggestion of the assault weapons ban violates the constitution, specifically the second amendment, the second amendment calls for a “well-regulated militia.” Here’s why the “well-regulated” part doesn’t mean full access to all weapons: let’s suppose that predator drones get cheap enough for popular use, and that, if you are willing to pay extra, they can be outfitted with cluster bombs. Do we really want to sell remote-operated bombers to anyone who can pass a background check? So we want some limits on the weapons we can all own, right? Shouldn’t those limits be somewhere around the ability to kill lots of people very quickly? Like say, automatic weapons that can hold more than ten bullets?