Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Why Has Obama Doubled Down On Gun Control? (Updated)

Despite the sequester, Obama not only has plenty of your tax dollars to spend on private parties, but also to fly around the country lobbying to violate your Second Amendment rights. The question is, since gun control is so unpopular (more than 90% of police believe that it will do nothing to reduce crime), why is Obama so consumed with pushing the issue? The Power Line blog suggests:
So why is President Obama making gun control his number one issue, when it has zero chance of becoming law, and the political impact is negative for some of his own senators? I can think of only two reasons. First, he wants to whip the Democrats’ base into a frenzy in hopes of capturing the House next year, and the base hates guns. I think this motivation accounts for much of what Obama does, but does it really make sense to endanger Democratic control over the Senate, in hopes of a long-shot victory in the House? One wouldn’t think so. Second, Obama may view the gun issue purely as a distraction: anything is better than talking about the economy. Or Obamacare. Or Benghazi. Or Iran. Or North Korea. Maybe he arrives at gun control through a process of elimination. It isn’t a great theory, but it’s the best I can come up with.
I can't say why Obama is so particularly enamored of gun control, but for the left in general, this has become yet another battle ground for the cultural war between the enlightened elite and the stupid prolesGlenn Reynolds posted the following comment from one of his readers:
... But the real issue continues to be that guns have taken center stage in an ongoing cultural war. In particular, any legislation passed will be something to defend against the depredations of the cultural other. ...

From this point forward, criticism of any control legislation will be demagogued; the critic painted as one indifferent to the murder of children.

The best reason for unyielding opposition to any of the legislation being contemplated is that the legislation is terrible on its face – even failing to address the advertised concerns of those supporting it. However, running a close second to that reason is this: Nothing is to be gained and much is to be lost by appeasing those who simply dislike you. They will continue to dislike you, and all that they think you represent, regardless.
 And speaking of possible reactions to increased gun control, the Daily Caller made the following observations a couple days ago to Connecticut's secretive drafting of its gun control legislation:
Legislators who draft laws in secret are behaving like the king’s men who ignited the American Revolution. They can expect no less if they continue down such a dark road, many experts say.

What did the officials choose to draft law against by this nefarious method? Only the very palladium of liberty, the very thing the Revolution warned us to guard against, a bill to reduce and actually eliminate a right for keeping and bearing arms the public already legally keeps.

Along with a list of many of the most popular makes and models in use today, the bill includes broad descriptions of arms to cover an untold number of other modern and older firearms. Are they out of their minds?

Is it an excuse that they didn’t know what they were doing? Of course not. That is an aggravating factor.

These officials operate by consent of the governed, with rights of minorities protected. Laws are to be drafted in public, with input from experts and the public. They deliberately and with malice aforethought chose not to.

Infringement is banned by the Bill of Rights. This is not some debating point. Violation of the Bill of Rights is an offense against We the People, and throughout our history has earned punishment. Not just at the ballot box, but real punishment. Else, what value the Bill of Rights?

... But the worst offense remains drafting and proposing such treasonous poison in secret. Merely voting for it is no less serious an act. Legislators who participated in this infringement of the fundamental civil and human rights of the citizens of Connecticut act as enemies of American freedom whether they recognize it or not. This is not how Americans behave.

Using the acts of a madman to justify the acts of these madmen is reprehensible, immoral and corrupt. Worse, their failure to act in a way that might actually identify and curb future deranged monsters is a failure to accomplish their most rudimentary role. It is abrogation of their responsibility as elected officials. This is grounds for removal from office.

How should the public react when their officials depart from the rule of law, act without concern for established procedure, quorum in secret, enact laws without public knowledge, defy existing law and issue proclamations that cannot legally be met? Cheering them on, as the mainstream media has been encouraging, is irrational. Irrational acts in this arena bring up the specter of hoplophobia, the morbid fear of weapons. Is this supposed political problem in actuality an undiagnosed medical one?

When the king chooses to post laws too high on the wall to be read, issues edicts that cannot be tolerated, takes actions without the consent of the governed, allows representatives but does not allow them to represent their constituents, and attempts to strip from the public the main tools they possess to guarantee their safety and independence in deference to his own, what course can the public be expected to steer?

Perhaps the most curious element of the Connecticut approach to gun law, and the most dangerous facet of this entire adventure, is that government officials have exempted themselves from this whole proclamation.

They remain free to own, possess and use every bit of this lethal arsenal they forbid to the public. If these implements are so dastardly, so deadly, so powerful, so dangerous they must be banned from We the People, how on Earth can We the People possibly entrust them to the hands of, well, who exactly?

Under what rationale can all the “designated” people in this secretly operating government be allowed to possess such awesome firepower? Such high capacity? Such dark guns with so many features? Do Blacks in America trust the man quite that much? Do you? Just who do they think they need it for? Do they face murderers the public does not? Just who do murderers murder?

Isn’t it the government that is the corrupt, immoral, capable of every imaginable act of deceit, deception, official malfeasance, coverup, fraud, theft and mayhem we see in the nightly “news”? Do criminals seek out police to assault, or do they seek out us innocently in theaters, schools, shops and our homes? If the police keep saying they’re outgunned, hey, they’re the second responders, anyone can see that on the “news.” If anyone needs arms capable of repelling boarders, it’s the public — the people crime is perpetrated upon.

If the government needs all this sophisticated weaponry, feels it must exempt itself from the laws it proposes to control us, how does that square with the fact that it is government that is the greatest murderer of people, and has been throughout all of recorded history?

If the anti-rights Americans on the left have their way, led now by Connecticutters, we would be relegated to little guns that don’t work well, with only a few small bullets, that fire the small bullets slowly and then we would be out. This is not the balance of power the Founders sought. Small guns with a few bullets are not safe. Limited power does not keep your own government in check. Government arguing to limit your power in deference to its own is government not to be trusted.

When we the people have pop guns, and the government by law grants unto itself the power to own and use all the serious guns on the list it forbids to us, the free country we all want is over, and that cannot be allowed to pass.

That is the way of a tyrannical government that does not trust its people. The excuse that this is for our own safety is abject nonsense. “Disarming you for your own safety” has been the rubric of every tyrant of the last century. Sorry, Connecticut, even if you mean well, history has got you there. And if you do mean well, perhaps worse, it makes you classic useful idiots.
Update: This article at Front Page Magazine claims that Obama's actions can be explained by reviewing basic rules advanced by Saul Alinsky:
In spite of the media’s conspicuous silence on the matter, it is no secret that Saul Alinsky’s manual for “community organizers”—Rules for Radicals—exerted an immeasurable influence over the world’s most well recognized community organizer, President Barack Obama. Thus, to understand why Obama does what he does, we need to be familiar with the vision that Alinsky delineated in his book.
... Just because Barack Obama has left behind the low-income Chicago communities in which he once agitated doesn’t mean that he left behind the skills as a community agitator that he learned from Saul Alinsky. Rather, he now regards the country as his community to organize as he sees fit.

Obama not infrequently invokes American ideals, even while he conspires to “fundamentally transform” America.

In spite of what he says, Obama does not want national unity. There can be no unity with a people who one wants to fundamentally transform.

The President regularly speaks and acts as if there is perpetual class warfare being waged by “the Haves” on “the Have Nots.” Indeed, this is what he wants for Americans to believe. It is this desire on his part that accounts for why he spares no occasion to demonize both “the richest one percent” who he accuses of refusing to pay “their fair share,” as well as those Republicans who threaten to impede his plans to raise taxes.
Again, Obama does not want unity. He wants division.

Obama constantly moves from one divisive issue to the next, from Obamacare to gun-control, from amnesty for illegal immigrants to support for “same-sex marriage.” We see now why this is so.

Obama does not want unity. He wants to keep the country as polarized and disoriented as possible.

No comments:

Post a Comment