The recent Santa Barbara killing spree by a mentally disturbed young man has predictably resulted in calls by Democrats for more gun laws, despite the fact that the killer murdered as many people with a machete as he did with a gun. In fairness, some media outlets did mention that three people were stabbed to death, but White House Press Secretary Jay Carney kept the focus on guns. From The Hill:

“’The thoughts and prayers of the president and the first lady and everyone here are with the families of those who were killed and those who were wounded,’ Carney said.

Carney reiterated as a ‘broader manner’ that there were things Congress ‘can and should do’ to reduce gun violence. [Emphasis ours]

As for President Obama, he too concentrated on new laws that would affect gun owners. According to Carney, the President was:

“…disappointed in the failure of Congress to take action on a measure that was entirely consistent with Second Amendment rights that he supports, that would have simply expanded background checks and made the system more comprehensive and effective.”

Now, attempting to convince gun owners that Barak Obama supports “Second Amendment rights” is bad enough. But claiming that increased background checks will stop mentally deranged mass murderers is utterly ridiculous.

Naturally, we also had the now obligatory interview with a relative of one of the victims:

“The father of one of the victims of the spree angrily denounced politicians, including the president, following the shooting.[Emphasis ours]

Ignoring the stabbing victims, Richard Martinez urged Obama and Congress to take “immediate action” to implement new gun control laws:

“’Today, I’m going to ask every person I can find to send a postcard to every politician they can think of with three words on it: “Not one more,”’ he said Tuesday. ‘People are looking for something to do. I’m asking people to stand up for something. Enough is enough.’”

It didn’t take long for Democrat politicians to jump on the bandwagon:

“House Democrats introduced legislation Friday designed to keep firearms from the hands of the severely mentally ill. Sponsored by Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), the measure would expand the list of people prohibited from buying or possessing guns to include a broader swath of mental health patients and convicted criminals.”

But the following comment on the pending legislation should give any gun owner chills:

“One such effort, the Democrats suggest, would be to empower police to seek warrants to seize firearms from those they believe might use them to harm themselves or others.” [Emphasis ours]

So, all that would be required to have our firearms seized is that officers “believe” that we “might” be dangerous? And what criteria will be used? Being a vocal advocate for gun rights? A Tea Party supporter? A combat veteran? A member of the USCCA? You get the picture.

With measures such as outright bans becoming increasingly unpopular, across party lines, gun control proponents now use carefully crafted language claiming they are “only trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill” which sounds “reasonable” to the public. But we know better. Or at least, we should.

Make no mistake, the 2014 mid-term election will be pivotal for us. Barak Obama has two more years during which he will likely nominate one, perhaps two, Supreme Court justices. With our rights hanging by a 5-4 thread, we’d all better stay involved.