Why Obama is losing the argument over terrorism and guns
...When the first response of Obama and other Democrats to a terrorist attack is to disarm the innocent, you should expect that argument to fail. It is especially the case with the enemy resorting to crowd sourcing of its terrorist operations within the US. This tends to defy traditional intelligence operations and as Fernandez points out the Obama administration has not been very good in following the clues they have.
The most disturbing aspect of recent terror attacks is that the authorities were taken by surprise each time despite advance warning. This serial failure undercuts the administration's claim to competence.
The administration's demand for more gun control crucially rests on the claim of competence.
The argument that it is better to rely on state protection than on individual self-defense is only worth having if things work as advertised. But if the administration fails to push back against hostile ideologies and screen refugees, opens the borders, and refuses to heed obvious warnings, the administration has effectively disabled the regulars and you are left with the militia.
A political elite whose national security philosophy is "bring the boys home" has unfortunately imported the enemy ideology home as well.
The failure to anticipate consequences has allowed an outside threat to become an insider attack, and that has weakened the Obama administration's claim to public trust. "Jump, I'll catch you" is credible only when the fireman's net is not surrounded by mashed bodies.
If the Second Amendment didn't exist, it might have to be invented to meet the current situation.
The more incompetent the Obama administration becomes, the less convincing its demand for public disarmament will be. Conversely, the more competence the administration demonstrates, the more likely the public is to entrust its safety to it.