President Barack Obama stood outside the White House last week and lamented the defeat of the expanded background check bill in the Senate. He stood there, repeating over and over how 90 percent of all Americans wanted such a law and how it wouldn’t have infringed on the rights of a single American. He called the pro-gun lobby liars for calling it registration.
Mr. President, you are the liar!
Obama can say that the bill outlawed a registry, but to what effect? Congress passes and overrides laws all the time. He knows this. Anyone with a single course in civics knows this as well. To tout this as proof that there will never be a registry is disingenuous at best…and with this president, I don’t see the best.
You see, when a paper trail is put in place for every gun purchase, or even a huge majority of them, you have created a de facto registry. Oh, I understand that it’s held at the gun stores, but for how long? No one said that this bill created a registry, but we knew it would make a registry just that much easier.
President Obama argues that if 90 percent of Americans support expanded background checks, it should go through. However, that number is based on a single question that left the interpretation open to the person being polled. Some would think it just means expanding the process to make sure the mentally ill can’t purchase guns. For others, it’s complete registration. There’s a lot of wiggle in there.
Further questions, and other polls, have found just how soft those numbers are in fact, with 53 percent of gun owners believing that expanded background checks would lead to registration and confiscation. No mention from President Obama on that statistic.
President Obama said that the expanded background checks wouldn’t infringe on the Second Amendment rights of a single American. Really? So, telling me I can’t purchase a gun through an ad in a newspaper – a part of Pat Toomey’s “compromise” – without getting permission isn’t infringement of my rights?
Mr. President, what would you say to someone who wanted to make it more difficult to get a permit to protest something? Yes, that would be an infringement on their First Amendment rights. Yes, the Patriot Act infringes on our Fourth Amendment rights because it makes it unnecessary for law enforcement to get a warrant for some things in some circumstances. That is the nature of infringements.
Whenever the government asks for more power, it is not just about what they’re asking for, but what they’ve asked for in the past and what they may ask for in the future. This bill wasn’t just about expanding background checks. It was about what comes next. Washington is notorious for being given an inch and taking a mile.
President Barack Obama knows this. He may play ignorant, but he and his staff aren’t. They know this is how it works. Anyone with a fully functioning brain knows this is how the system works. They get what they can, and then try and get more later.
Here in Georgia, we have used that approach to repeal some of our draconian firearm carry laws. We take what we can get, then come back the next session and point to how the doomsayers were wrong. We do this because that’s just how politics works.
However, things work both ways, and the White House knows this.
President Obama said there wasn’t one coherent argument to expanded background checks, but the problem is that he wasn’t listening. That’s not surprising. Mr. “I won” isn’t known for listening to opposition anyways.
Mr. President, one coherent argument I can make is that I don’t trust you to stop there. How’s that?
More Contributions From TheBlaze: