The so-called “common-sense” and “modest” laws in Britain and Australia Obama refers to aren’t common-sense or modest at all, but rather require extreme confiscation and bans.Pavlich is not the only commentator to point out what Obama really means when he constantly points to those two countries as examples of great gun laws. Last week Charles C. W. Cooke wrote over on National Review Online:
In 1996, the Australian government confiscated hundreds of thousands of personally owned firearms as part of their new “common-sense” gun control laws. In 1997, British citizens were forced to turn over their handguns for destruction. The prettier and more expensive versions were confiscated and placed in museums. Is this what Obama is suggesting should happen to the estimated 300 million firearms owned by American citizens? Is that what he means by “common sense,” “modest regulation” and “changing our laws?”
Of course it is.
This is remarkable. Customarily, Democratic politicians react to mass shootings by calling for pointless around-the-edges reforms: “universal” background checks, hard limits on the size of commercially available magazines, rules that determine how certain rifles may look, etc. In fact, since 2012 Obama has tended to take this approach himself. Now, however, the president is openly praising two countries that confiscated — yes, confiscated — firearms. That matters — and a great deal.And Jonah Goldberg, also at National Review:
Why? Well, because the president’s defenders like to mock those among his critics who argue that he wants to “take their guns away.” As of today, they will no longer be able to do so.
This is not “hysteria” or “a matter of opinion.” This is a cold, hard fact. If you praise Great Britain or Australia, you are praising confiscation. Before yesterday, Obama has always alluded to Australia in passing. Now he is praising it directly and adding Great Britain into the mix. That’s a significant change.
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.Freed from having to run for re-election, Obama is making his true colors on guns known, yet the average American probably doesn't understand what he is pushing. As long as he has the mainstream media to cover for him, most Americans probably won't know what Obama means when he points to Great Britain and Australia as perfect examples of gun control.
Update: On Tuesday, Pavlich spoke with NRANews' Cam Edwards about her article in The Hill.