President Barack Obama seems to think that different gun rules should apply to people in rural areas and people in urban areas. As I noted last month:
Curiously, the president attempted to draw a distinction between gun ownership in rural areas versus urban areas, according to the interview:
Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that.
So it’s trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.
My point was that if liberals have declared words like “Chicago” to be racial code, then surely Obama’s attempt to distinguish between rural and urban gun owners should be judged by the same standard.
Obama repeated the same “regional” argument yesterday, saying he wanted to be “respectful of regional differences.” But if that were really the case, why wouldn’t he leave the issue to state and local authorities?
There is no basis in federal law for the distinction Obama is trying to draw. The only distinction is political: “bitter clingers” are a significant obstacle to Obama’s gun control.
Hence the meaningless talk about regional differences–which, if we are to believe the liberal media, amounts to racism.