During a question and answer session at the White House Tuesday, President Obama stated that he is often asked what is his biggest reason for disappointment in his time in the White House, and the answer should not surprise gun rights advocates.
My biggest frustration so far, is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of, you know, people who can do, you know, just unbelievable damage.
But wait a second. Who would these people be? Technically, of course, that depends on what one judges to be “just unbelievable damage,” but if he is concerned about guns in the hands of people who can do such damage, rather than those who will do it, then he just announced that his “biggest frustration” is his inability to disarm just about everyone. Just about anyone, after all, is capable of wreaking enormous carnage with a gun (or a gallon of gas and some matches, or a plane ticket and a box cutter, or common household chemicals and some basic knowledge, etc.).
Writing for the National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke notes that in the same talk, Obama lavishly praised Australia’s reaction to a mass shooting in 1996:
Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.
Our levels of gun violence are off the charts [Oh, really?]. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.
Those “very severe, tough gun laws” Obama clearly longs for featured mass confiscation of erstwhile completely legal semi-automatic firearms, from people who had no propensity for violent crime. As Cooke says, “You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law.” And Obama’s inability to get such a law passed in the U.S. is his “biggest frustration.”
Also yesterday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a news briefing that Obama is looking for ways to unilaterally impose more oppressive gun regulation, by executive fiat. From The Blaze:
“The president’s goal is to look for opportunities to act administratively, unilaterally using his executive authority to try to make our communities safer,” Earnest said, responding to a question the day that a gunman opened fire at an Oregon high school, killing one student and injuring a teacher. “We’re always looking for those opportunities.”
This is not to say that Obama is entertaining thoughts of an executive order implementing mass confiscation of semi-automatic firearms, despite how far such an abomination would go toward easing his “frustration.” Even he very likely knows that he cannot go nearly that far, and if he does not know that, his Secret Service detail should tell him they can’t help him if he insists on going through with such madness. Still, he must have something in mind for these “opportunities to act administratively, unilaterally using his executive authority.”
Well, he also said yesterday, addressing the point that the problem is mental health, rather than guns, that other countries have mental illness, but much less “gun violence” than the U.S., so the problem must be inadequate gun regulation. From CNN:
The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It’s not the only country that has psychosis,” he said. “And yet we kill each other in these mass shootings at rates that are exponentially higher than any place else. Well, what’s the difference? The difference is that these guys can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses and that’s sort of par for the course.
The problem is that Americans “can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses”? Is that what he has in mind–an executive order capping ammunition purchases?
Maybe, maybe not. We’ll presumably know soon. Whatever he has in mind, remember that our freedom is his “biggest frustration.”
Update: National Gun Rights Examiner Dan has more, in “Obama reveals desire to impose Australia-style gun bans in U.S.”