Katie Pavlich: Yes Obama Does Want to Take Your Guns

Katie Pavlich has this Op/Ed at The Hill that explains exactly what President Obama means when he says America should pass laws like Australia and Great Britain, "countries like ours, our allies" to address mass shootings.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

And Jonah Goldberg, also at National Review:

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.

Sanders, O'Malley Follow Clinton with Gun Control Proposals for Campaign

Yesterday I shared news via National Review's Jim Geraghty that Hillary Clinton was unveiling gun control proposals for the campaign that included the usual so-called "universal" background checks, so-called "gun violence" restraining orders, and repealing the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.  Later in the day the Wall Street Journal reported that Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley followed suit.

Mr. Sanders, who has a mixed record on backing gun-control measures, laid out a set of proposals on Monday afternoon that have considerable support among Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton. They include requiring background checks for sales by unlicensed dealers at gun shows, banning assault-style semi-automatic weapons and providing better mental-health care.

While Clinton has tried to drive a wedge between Sanders and his supporters because of his past mixed record on Second Amendment issues, he took the opportunity to remind people he has a "D-" rating from the NRA.  Compared to O'Malley however, Sanders looks like a friend to gun owners:

Another Democrat running for president, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, has the most aggressive set of gun-control proposals. Among other ideas, he would require that every person who buys a gun get a license and be fingerprinted, and he would establish a national gun registry.

“It doesn’t matter who you support in this race—common-sense gun reform is something we should all fight for,” he said in an email to supporters on Monday.

None of the Democratic candidates have talked about how the homicide rate involving guns has dropped dramatically while the number of firearms in the hands of Americans have almost doubled:

Courtesy National Review

On top of that, it was reported by BearingArms.com yesterday that some of the survivors and the family of a victim have responded to Obama's calls for more gun control, saying such proposals would not have stopped last week's attack.

Guns are the easy target for politicians and the gun ban lobby.  No one wants to talk about the  real problem, something that is much harder to address, and that is the fact there are those who will do bad things and not care about the consequences.