It doesn’t take an expert to compare the United States’ gun-related murder rate with any developed nation in the world — or, say, Israel, Australia, Poland and Hungary combined — and notice that the land of stars and stripes always comes out on top.

Almost daily, we must open our newspapers to the tellings of tragedies fitting for a horror movie: nine benevolent churchgoers in Charleston, four marines and a navy sailor in Chattanooga, 27 first-graders and the people who taught them in Newtown — the list goes on.

In this context, and amid the repeated Second Amendment cries of uncompromising conservatives, President Obama did what legislators should have done long ago — set in motion a new effort to, according to his executive order, “reduce gun violence and make our communities safer.”

Key provisions of the Jan. 4 executive order include honing licensure requirements and closing the loophole that allows unlicensed individuals to purchase guns through trusts and corporations. It also intends to revise the background check system and put $500 million toward providing care to individuals with serious mental illnesses.

The idea that these reasonable provisions represent an attack on the Constitution demonstrates a misguided line of thought. It demonstrates the uncompromising nature of a political system in which no amount of slaughter can justify lasting changes.

Obama’s gun control executive order in no way violates the Constitution. The “grant of power” in Article II has allowed every president from George Washington to Obama to issue these orders, according to CNBC. 

As demonstrated by this directive, executive orders allow practical action. These orders allow the President of the United States to go forward alone when unbending, stuck-in-the-past politicians disfigure the legislative process and allow for preventable tragedy.