Debate on Obama’s spate of 23 executive actions related to gun control center include whether they signified tyranny or incompetence.

Canadian student, Luke Stibbs from the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, notes that they clearly represent hypocrisy as well as tyranny, as he offers his perspective in The College Conservative.

In the campaign of 2008, then-Senator Obama sharply critiqued George W. Bush for the use of signing statements to shape the implementation of law.  Now, as is usual for this President, he did what he explicitly said should never be done, and used signing statements himself on numerous occasions.  On Wednesday, President Obama took the idea of signing statements to a new level during his issuance of 23 executive actions on gun control, specifically to “[c]larify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.” Interesting.

There are some pretty obvious follow questions to that executive action, like, “Why would my doctor need to ask me about guns in the home?  What medical relevance does it have?” or “Why does the government CARE if my doctor is allowed to ask about guns in the home?  Don’t I have Doctor/Patient Confidentiality?”

Interesting questions, huh? Thankfully, when you look at another of the President’s executive actions, you get a semblance of an answer.

The President ordered his administration to “Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities.”

Now, does owning a gun imply a threat of violence? Not in my eyes. But I don’t enforce federal law. Does the Obama Administration see gun ownership as a potential threat of violence that trumps doctor/patient confidentiality?

If the answer to this question is no, then the first executive action we talked about today has nearly no meaning. If your doctor has to ask you if you own a gun, but can’t tell anyone because of doctor/patient confidentiality, it has no effect at all. You can call the President many, many things, but ineffective is not one of them.

Stibbs concludes with his own experience with weapons:

If you can change the paint on a firearm, and it become legal or illegal, the law is not based on reality, but on the Administration’s warped view of reality….

Any experienced shooter can reload a gun faster than I can. Some people can reload so fast that you can’t even tell they reloaded.

The actual common-sense solutions that were proposed by the White House are overshadowed by the blind partisan demands. This President has never negotiated in good faith, and any steps to compromise with him will be rejected until absolute surrender. Does that sound familiar to anyone else?