Read this:

Obama administration officials are deliberately keeping gun owners in the dark about the president’s gun-control agenda as we head into next year’s national election, because administration officials know that when NRA members and gun owners show up at the polls en masse, anti-gun candidates lose.

The Obama campaign’s strategy goes like this:
1.Neutralize gun owners and NRA members as a political force in the upcoming national election by pretending to be pro-gun or at least not focused on pushing a gun-control agenda;
2.With gun owners neutralized, Obama will be able to win the election. After the president is re-elected, he won’t have to answer to voters because he won’t have to face another re-election battle;
3.Launch a full-scale, all-out assault to rip the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights through legislation, litigation, regulation, executive orders and international treaties — in short, every lever of power at the administration’s disposal.

Barack Obama spent his entire political career proudly and publicly pushing for the most radical anti-gun positions you can imagine. He endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He opposed right-to-carry laws. He voted to ban nearly all commonly used hunting-rifle ammunition.

During the presidential primary debates, Obama even vowed to re-impose the discredited Clinton gun ban, which banned many commonly owned firearms used for hunting and self-defense.

As they say, read the whole thing. He makes a pretty good case. Mittens is bad on gun control. Make no mistake about that, but he isn’t a zealot for it. A conservative House and Senate can hold him in check on the issue. They may not be able to restrain an Obama who doesn’t care about re-election. Then there is this from scholar John Lott:

President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.

His push as been quiet but relentless.

Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called “signing statement,” a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.

Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.

But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?

Obama is trying to accreate to himself the power of Judicial Review. This is more than a threat to firearms rights. It is a massive breach in Separation of Powers, as he is trying to Steal the power of the Judiciary for the Office of the President. As a putative Constitutional scholar (he played one for the University, you may remember), he surely knows the damage that this can do the Judiciary. After all, the Judiciary has already ruled the Line-Item Veto unconstitutional. Here, Obama wants a Line-ItemVeto on everything, not just spending. Unconstitutional (anti-Constitutional, even) in his first term, a Second Term Obama will have no effective check on his overweening lust for power unless the Judiciary and the Congress bands together to put paid to his recklessness. We should not put the Country in that position, even if that means a President Mittens. That said, I don’t think Mittens can win, for the many reasons that I have repeatedly stated. Obama will be a formidible opponent, and Mittens can’t even win loyal Republican votes.

If elected to a second term, Obama will end up appointing over half the federal judges. That sure can make a big difference.

Vote as if your freedom depended uon it. Because it most assuredly does.