Obama, Clinton Say 'Disarm' While Failing to Protect
This is something the non-expert public understands. Suppose someone came to you claiming he was a brain surgeon. Even if you were not a doctor but had questions only a brain surgeon could answer correctly, you could evaluate the "brain surgeon" by giving him one exam and another to the cleaning person in the hallway. If they scored the same, you would begin to suspect the brain surgeon might be fake.
If the cleaning person continually outscored the "brain surgeon," a rational employer would consider hiring that person as head of surgery, which possibly explains the rise of Donald Trump.
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.