What Gun-Control Advocates Mean but Dare Not Say -- Guns Should Be Confiscated

From Charles Krauthammer at The National Review:

As for the only remotely plausible solution, Obama dare not speak its name. He made an oblique reference to Australia, never mentioning that its gun-control innovation was confiscation, by means of a mandatory buyback. There’s a reason he didn’t bring up confiscation (apart from the debate about its actual efficacy in reducing gun violence in Australia). In this country, with its traditions, public sentiment, and — most importantly — Second Amendment, them’s fightin’ words.
...................

In the final quarter of his presidency, Obama can very well say what he wants. If he believes in Australian-style confiscation — i.e., abolishing the Second Amendment — why not spell it out? Until he does, he should stop demonizing people for not doing what he won’t even propose.

Because actually doing something would require effort. Something the Dear Leader has never shown any inclination to do. For him he is constantly in campaign mode, demonize and give speeches, but governing ... that would take work. The only thing he has ever "worked on" is his golf game. (according to the rumor, he really sucks)