Just for the record, he feels that our President should accomplish gun control not by legislation, but by fiat. Yeah. By executive order.
Political reality makes even a modest gun law a difficult legislative sell. But if the Obama administration really cares about limiting gun violence, it could pursue a different strategy, one that doesn't involve Congress and isn't likely to provoke a storm of opposition.What he's proposing, actually, is that the government only buy guns from companies who toe the line, whatever line that might be.
Modern government is not only a lawmaker. Indeed, the most effective executive powers may not derive from statutes at all. The government that President Obama oversees is also a gigantic, well-funded procurement agent. And it can—and should—use that power to change American gun policies.I can see where this is going. If you want to sell to the government, you've got to quit selling to.. who?
More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business.Yeah, that's where I thought he was going with that. Then he goes and gets all socialist on us.
In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways. After all, firms that received TARP money are subject to a bevy of pay restrictions—wisely constructed or not—and were forced to cancel showy parties and retreats.Well, Eloit, to answer your question, no we're not getting used to the notion that goverment as an economic actor can exercise it's power in differing ways. I'm personally not used to that idea at all. It smacks of socialism.
If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?
I'd recommend that gun manufacturers follow the example of Ronnie Barrett and refuse to sell to any agency who tries to push such nonsense. Ronnie's guns were outlawed in the state of California for regular citizens, and Barrett quit selling to California agencies. In his words:
Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California's passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.Ronnie Barrett is a great man, a great business man, and a staunch defender of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. I can't see that refusing to sell to California has hurt his business any. To the contrary, it seems to have helped him.
My last words to Eliot Spitzer? Hey, Eliot! Go play with your whores and leave the rest of us alone. You had your chance and you blew it. Blew it. Heh!