The Real Motives Behind Current Gun Control Efforts

President Obama is doing what his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel suggested: "Never let a crisis go to waste." While no one who matters has been indicted or convicted for, as this author notes, "gifting" drug cartels in Mexico with guns, Obama wants to disarm you and me. More about that later. First let me have you read Too Fast, Too Furious at the American Thinker yesterday by John Griffing. The highlights include this:

It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?

Indeed, and you better believe that Sen. Frankenstein...er...Feinstein knows it too. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has noted that a felon doesn't have to register his weapon, because to do so would lead to his own self incrimination.  So, why does Ms. Feinstein's law call for registration when the only people who must obey are people who are already law abiding?

The question then becomes, why would Obama want to make it harder for citizens to defend themselves? Perhaps Obama is afraid that his actions might prompt a violent response from the citizenry, or he may want to identify people who are likely to oppose his radical policy moves, assuming a correlation with gun ownership. Or Obama may simply want a greater degree of control over individuals -- irrespective of the reason. Whatever his stated rationale, we know his motives are neither noble nor well-intentioned.

The key words here are "neither noble or well-intentioned." The fact is that the young man who entered a school at Sandy Hook with a stolen gun and shot a number of defenseless students and teachers had already committed several illegal acts in the process of committing murder, none of which even gave him pause. The fact is that millions of peaceable armed citizens did not do the same thing. How does the banning of 120 different weapons somehow stop another crazy young man from doing the same thing somewhere else? The fact is it doesn't.  One more law will make no difference, so why enact it?

An author writing in a publication like American Thinker is not allowed to speculate on what politicians may be thinking, but as the editor and writer of this blog, I am.  So, I will.  The milestone to be achieved here is to carve off a group of gun owners, demonize them, and then ban their style of weapons.  Next, they will of course be coming for your deer rifles and your M1911s, but that is later, after another crisis.  Eventually, they want to ban all firearms, reducing the Second Amendment to irrelevancy, so that they have free rein to dictate how and where you live, what you eat, how much you can make...or, to put it another way, your life.   They find honoring your rights to be too pesky, and want to be free to trample your rights, and your freedoms.  The goal is Tyranny.  That is why I believe they are doing this.  It must be opposed, whether or not you personally see a "need" for these military style semiautomatic weapons or not.  We can not allow the gun grabbers one more inch.