Obama displays his trademark hypocrisy as he talks about banning Americans from owning firearms

Last month, during a TV interview, former first lady Michelle Obama attacked the Second Amendment and declared that American citizens having "unfettered access to firearms" is "not a good thing."

This month, it was her husband Barack Obama's turn to attack the same constitutional right.

Obama suggested that the U.S. should follow in Australia's footsteps to combat mass shootings.  "You know, in Australia, they had one mass shooting 50 years ago, and they said, 'No, we're not doing that anymore,'" Obama told CBS's Nate Burleson.

That is normally how you would expect society to respond when your children are at risk. We are unique among advanced, developed nations in tolerating, on a routine basis, gun violence in the form of shootings, mass shootings, suicides.

Obama appears to be using the very ploy that he applied when as president he presided over any catastrophe.  Instead of accepting any blame and responsibility or issuing an apology, he would address the issue as if he were a bystander or a commentator.  He would join the criticism of the failure without calling it a failure and hence shirk all responsibility.  He would often project an undercurrent of righteous anger and disappointment, perhaps muster some tears.  It was a performance.

Obama knew that his myriad media lapdogs would cover it as an act of sincerity, and amidst all the slobbering, his actual failure owing to his misgovernance would never be addressed.

Obama did nothing about the gun issues during his eight years as president, yet now he is pontificating.

So let's begin by examining the gun laws in Australia that Obama supports.  The following is what an Australian government website states:

Owning and using a firearm is limited in Australia to people with a genuine reason, and self-protection does not constitute a genuine reason to possess, own or use a firearm.

The "genuine reason" clause leaves enough room for subjectivity, where governments can grant permission to certain individuals to own guns.

Whom will they deem to have a "genuine reason"?

That will most likely be the bodyguards of "elites" such as elected officials, billionaires, millionaires, showbiz luminaries, etc.  The rest — i.e., regular people — will not have a genuine reason, since Australian laws state that "self-protection does not constitute a genuine reason."  In the event of an attack, they have no option but to pray for a miracle.

This is exactly what Obama wants in the U.S.: one law for regular people and one law for the "ruling class."

Since the day Obama announced he was running for president on February 10, 2007, his immediate family has received protection from armed bodyguards.  The Obamas will continue receiving this protection for the rest of their lives.

Obama claims to be an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi.  Gandhi recommended that individuals must be the change they wish to see in the world.  Will Obama be that change he wants to see and give up all the armed security that he and his family receive?

We know the answer to that.

Obama will claim that he has a genuine reason; his life is under threat because he was a global leader.

But the same Obama has a problem with law-abiding citizens possessing guns, which is often their only affordable means of self-defense.   

There have been numerous instances where guns — at times the mere presence of a firearm — were the difference between life and death.

In Alabama, a man used his concealed handgun to prevent a mass shooting in a McDonald's outlet.

In Kentucky, an armed man was able to restrain a shooter outside a Kroger supermarket.

In Texas, a man fired several rounds from his AK-47 while fighting off five home invaders this year.

In Florida, a man used his AR-15 to fire 30 rounds while fighting off seven intruders.

In the state of Maryland, a woman chased three burglars off her property merely by loading a round into her AR-15.  The distinctive sound of a firearm being loaded was sufficient to cause the criminals to flee. 

For regular people, firearms are the only affordable tools for self-defense against burglars, home invaders, street thugs, and other variety of criminals who thrive in states run by Democrats, where the rights of criminals are respected more than the rights of victims.

In the absence of a firearm, they will be at the mercy of law enforcement officials, who obviously cannot always arrive on time during a crisis situation. 

Obama and his party have failed to protect citizens, leaving them with no option but to take matters into their own hands. 

Owning a firearm is a constitutional right.

A right is inherent.  It is not granted by the government or any other power.  A right is by virtue of citizenship.  What was never given cannot be taken away by any individual or governmental body.

Self-defense is a human right; it is the preservation of one's being and that of loved ones.  Once again, nobody can take away rights that exist by virtue you being human.

When the likes of Obama lament easy access to guns, they are actually saying that their own lives are of paramount importance, hence they deserve armed bodyguards, while the lives of regular citizens aren't really of much value, hence there is no harm in taking away their guns.

It reflects the disdain they have for regular people, especially those who live in red states, who they know are gun owners and the only ones affected by gun confiscation.

The right to affordable means of self-defense cannot be taken away just because some are abusing that right.

The abusers are the only ones who deserve to be punished.  The severe mental health crisis that plagues the nation needs to be addressed.

Obama's comments on guns once again reflect the hypocrisy of liberal "elites."

It is not just gun control; they don't really believe in most of the paranoid claims they make.

They don't really believe in the fearful claims they peddle about climate change — else they wouldn't have bought expensive ocean-facing properties or flown by private jet.  They didn't really believe in the fear-mongering they engaged in during the pandemic, else they would have had crowded parties privately.  They don't really believe in the "insurrection" or "white supremacy" claims or that Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 elections, but they repeated it anyway.  

Why do they relentlessly make claims that they know to be falsehoods?

They hope to create enough fear and paranoia among the public to facilitate a basis to trespass on the private space of citizens and infringe upon their rights.  It has to be remembered that once the government encroaches on private space, they never, ever walk back.

This is the ultimate aim: total control over the lives of citizens, disarming citizens and rendering them helpless and defenseless is the first step.

Photo credit: Twitter video screen grab.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com