Image thanks to the Washington Post
I think it's kind of gross how numb I've become to mass shootings. When I hear the news, all I can think of now is how the news organizations seem to have the graphics ready; it's all well put together and very clean.
They're expecting it.
And here we are again, with Obama proposing stricter gun control measures while member of Congress continue their staunch opposition. Let me just preface this: I don't really know where I stand on the issue on gun control. I'll explain my thoughts in another post so it doesn't contaminate the main focus: Obama's proposal (threat?) to use executive action to pass said measures.
First things first, Obama's executive actions would be in part focused on forcing individual gun dealers that sell 50 or more guns a year to obtain a license and require background checks on their clients. That being said, it's worth pointing out that the owners of the guns used in both the Roseburg and San Bernadino shootings were both purchased legally, the buyers both undergoing background checks.
There are also some polls that add some interesting background information, mainly a joint poll conducted by ABC and the Washington Post that states that while 42% support stricter gun control, 47% support encouraging people to carry guns legally and 1% volunteered both (at the same time I'm guessing).
Consequences aside, if President Obama does go through with using executive action, it'll provide a contemporary case study on both the power of said legislative method and the current power of the president.
How do you believe the balance of power currently falls? If President Obama were to forcefully legislate (is that even the correct verb?) stricter gun control methods, would Congress mount a response? Maybe even the Supreme Court would be willing to grant certiorari to such a case just to exercise their check over the executive branch (although Congress would probably get there first)?