For Obama, Gun Control Is about the Issue Not the Solution

From Jonah Goldberg at National Review:

But ultimately Obama was just paying lip service to an ideal he does not live by. He’s not about to try building consensus on gun policy among people of good faith. He’ll take the same approach he’s taken throughout his presidency: He’ll delegitimize opponents of his sweeping agenda as irrational, self-interested enemies of decency and progress.

As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York recently noted, Obama has a long history of trying to shut down disagreement by accusing his critics of politicization. ...............

The common denominator in all of these cases is Obama’s unimpeachable certainty that he has a monopoly on all the good arguments and all the best motives. Now he even claims the exclusive right to politicize issues when it suits him.

This is the very definition of the Dear Leader's Regime. Not do anything substantial, but make sweep generalizations bout doing SOMETHING, anything. Then, demagogue anyone who disagrees with him.

In his remarks Thursday, he insisted that all he wants are common-sense reforms that would stop mass shootings, as if the people who disagree with him are in favor of such slaughter.
..............................

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” Obama said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

The disingenuousness was breathtaking.

One can forgive the average American, not to mention the typical White House correspondent, for not knowing how Britain and Australia dealt with gun violence. But Obama knows. Both countries employed massive gun-confiscation programs (programs that depend on national gun registries so the government can find them). The British in effect banned handguns. Obama may consider that a reasonable, common-sense approach, but he knows full well that millions of Americans don’t.
..............................

After the Sandy Hook slaughter, there was a bipartisan consensus that more needed to be done on the mental-health side. But Obama, fresh off reelection, rejected a piecemeal approach, largely preferring to go for a “comprehensive” solution. He ended up with nothing.

That’s because Obama prefers politicizing to actual politics.

Notice, he make no specific proposals, other than a vague reference to confiscation, but does not make an argument for it.

Is there any wonder why Putin just laughs him off?