by Greg Campbell
In recent weeks, President Obama has mounted an offensive against gun rights advocates by announcing that he would use whatever powers he had to create further gun control measures. He appointed Vice President Biden to head a task force that would explore gun control options and Biden has made it clear that he intends to utilize executive powers to circumvent Congress in an attempt to create more stringent gun control measures.
Obama, a former Senator from Illinois, the state with the strictest gun control laws in the country, has made his stance clear by pushing the narrative that has been widely debunked by a multitude of studies- that more guns equal more crime. However, in matters concerning his and his family’s personal protection, he has not stuck to that narrative and, seemingly, wishes to be around as many armed men with guns as possible.
Last week, President Obama signed into law a provision that affords former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection.
The legislation, created by South Carolina Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, repeals an earlier law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. The law sailed through Congress and had bi-partisan support as it was hailed as a cost-saving measure that would save millions over the years. Former President George W. Bush would have been the first former president subject to the 10-year limit on protection.
Aside from the obvious incongruency in the “more people with guns equal more crimes” narrative favored by President Obama, his signing of the law also signals yet another cost for the American taxpayer at a time when the president and the Republican Party have been sparring over the runaway cost of government and the Democrats’ unwillingness to cut any meaningful spending.
As President Obama bemoans the stance by the NRA- that armed personnel in schools may enhance security- it should be noted that Obama sends his daughters to a private school with 11 armed security guards.
It seems that at a time when Americans are concerned with gun violence, Obama is content with attempting to limit the means of self-protection for the average citizen, but similarly content with expanding the means of protection for himself and his family- and at the expense of taxpayers, no less.
As for the rest of Americans who are, by-and-large, unable to afford a security detail and must rely on their Second Amendment rights as their last line of defense, they are likely to see executive actions that will chip away at their ability to adequately protect themselves. Ironically, such actions will be coming from a man well-protected by men with guns.