Obama’s Dream For Gun Control Would Take More Away Than Your Gun

Scott Greer Contributor
Font Size:

President Obama is making one last attempt at enacting gun control legislation before his final term in office expires.

And this time, he’s not worrying about going through Congress to get it done.

Obama announced to the nation Tuesday his executive order to implement new restrictions without congressional approval in a speech that brought him to tears.

The main thrust of the White House plan is to expand background checks for buyers of firearms — a move long desired by liberals. An emotional Obama explained that even if his measures don’t prevent the next mass shooting, they’re still worth doing.

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common sense reforms, like background checks, might not have stopped the last massacre. Or the one before that, or the one before that. So why bother trying?” the president said. “I reject that thinking.” (RELATED: Obama Doesn’t Care If His Gun Actions Can Actually Prevent Shootings)

[dcquiz] The struggle for gun control, according to Obama, is just like the movements to abolish slavery and legalize gay marriage — meaning it’s going to be a long battle to achieve the wide-ranging restrictions the Left would like to see placed on firearms.

But Obama promises his executive order will be a small step in the right direction to the type of gun control communist China has. (Yes, he did in fact cite the authoritarian state’s lack of guns as something to aspire to.)

What was so noticeable in the president’s speech was the lack of any mention for what motivated the last high-profile shooting in America. San Bernardino wasn’t caused by Syed Farook’s assault rifles possessing him and his wife to go out and kill — it was caused by radical Islamic ideology.

By ignoring the motives for the shooting, which serves as the direct impetus for his latest executive order, Obama is able to characterize it — and all other shootings — as a problem of Americans owning too many firearms.

What liberals like Obama want to do is to fix that issue by ensuring fewer Americans have guns. To them, that development would entail a serious reduction in this country’s violence, which implies law-abiding gun owners present a major threat to society.

And, to liberals, they do.

When reports first starting coming in about San Bernardino, the focus was immediately on crazed white men with guns rather than crazed jihadis with guns. Once it turned out it was terrorism — the kind the Left likes to gloss over — the focus remained firmly on guns and trotting out the “white supremacists are more dangerous than Islamists” line.

The point was clear: In spite of the brief interlude of homegrown jihad, we’ve got to figure out a way to make sure the stereotypical person who own guns can’t buy anymore.

That stereotype usually amounts to a white, rural, conservative male who’s suspicious of the government and of the changing times.

The other top story in the news right now sheds light on how much the Left hates the idea of these people owning guns.

While Obama was presenting his executive order, Oregon was still dealing with the worst act of terrorism since the beginning of mankind. Namely, a bunch of armed ranchers/militiamen who strongly resemble the gun owner caricature have occupied an empty building belonging to the federal government in the middle of nowhere.

The reason for this militia standoff relates to a complicated grazing dispute ranchers in the area have had with the feds. Though the stand-off appears it will probably be peaceably resolved with minor cost to both sides, liberals all over America have treated the isolated matter as one of grave importance — and they want these militiamen crushed.

Former talk show host Montel Williams demanded a “shoot to kill” policy in dealing with the Oregon outlaws. Several commentators have complained — without any relevant cases in hand — that if the militiamen were black or Muslim, they’d already be dead by now. All said with an eyewink that those Oregonians should be in a morgue right now. CNN talking head and Daily Beast columnist Sally Kohn bemoaned the government’s appeasement of the occupiers’ “terrorism” and wished for swift and harsh justice to be dealt to the dissidents.

It’s worth pointing out how harshly the feds dealt with white resisters in the 1990s at Waco and Ruby Ridge. (Or, as Kohn calls it, “the Ruby Ridge Massacre in Waco, Texas.”) The notion our government handles white “terrorists” with kid gloves is a fanciful, yet totally false notion.

Progressives were probably actually quite pleased to have this story on their hands. Not only could it be exploited to deflect from Islamic terrorism, it could be used to argue for why certain people shouldn’t have scary weapons.

Now we can all pretend white men high on toxic masculinity and armed to the teeth are the primary threat to America and not radical Islam or urban violence.

The most important thing to realize about gun control is what it’s actually trying to control. It’s not guns or even really gun violence, but the archetypal gun owner. Liberals want him to give up the power that comes with owning a firearm and let the state and its nice progressive bureaucrats handle any issue he might have. (RELATED: Liberals Hate Police But Love Police States)

To put it another way, gun control is a power transfer between citizens and the state, and the state receives the better end of the deal.

There’s a good reason why we have the Second Amendment — it gave citizens the ability to defend themselves, their family and their property with their own means. The 21st century Left doesn’t want law-abiding folk to have that kind of power.

As Obama admitted in his announcement, the restrictions failing to curtail crime and violence doesn’t matter in the long run. The unstated thing that matters is ensuring America becomes where the stereotypical gun owner can no longer be a gun owner, and their way of life is extinguished.

Follow Scott on Twitter