Did President Barack Obama shed crocodile tears Tuesday while explaining his administration would finally be taking action to curb the gun violence that runs rampant in Democrat-controlled strongholds like Chicago and Detroit? Probably, since he needed to do something to distract from the reality that what was he was proposing was not really that tough at all.

On issues such as these the details matter. To see what is true and what is not one has to turn, unfortunately, to the lawyers. Fortunately a very good one, Professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western University School of Law, turned in a sharp "instant analysis" for The Washington Post within hours of the president's speech that debunks the seriousness of it all.

The president, it seems, is not issuing executive orders but rather ordering executive actions that merely have the effect of clarifying the meaning of those laws and regulations already on the books. As defenders of the Second Amendment have warned, these actions like the issuance of new executive orders without regard to the authority of or consultation with the Congress on the matter does present an opportunity to make mischief.

"Taken at face value, the new ATF guidance is thus nothing more than a restatement of existing legal requirements. Put another way, it merely identifies those who are already subject to the relevant federal requirements and does not in any way expand the universe of those gun sellers who are required to obtain a license and perform background checks," Adler wrote Tuesday.

"In other words," he continued, "it is – as the document says – a guidance, and not a substantive rule. It has no legal effect."

The Republican National Committee was quick to issue a response emblematic of the criticism that followed Obama announcement.

"The recent tragedies that have gripped our country are heartbreaking, but none of the unilateral restrictions President Obama is proposing would have prevented them, making his proposal all the more insulting and political," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. "The truth is this executive overreach is all about burnishing the president's legacy and boosting Democrat enthusiasm in a presidential election year. But that's no excuse for subverting the will of the people's representatives in Congress, and the American people won't tolerate President Obama's dangerous power grab."

Echoing this view was Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who, in a statement of his own, accused the president of trying to "show off to his liberal base."

The president's directives, Inhofe said, resulted from "he and his staff working night and day to find ways for him to push his gun control agenda unilaterally while we've been waiting years for any leadership or a clear strategy for the Middle East, ISIL and Syria."

Are those who regularly defend the Second Amendment right to be concerned? What the president has directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to do is not earth-shattering and may even help codify into a law a few recent court decisions that few people found to be objectionable at the time they were issued. On the other hand, when liberals and progressives like Obama start taking about modest measures and common-sense gun control, they are offering a half a loaf while fully intending to drive off with the entire bakery truck at day's end. They are simply not to be trusted.

As to why, well, it is easy enough ascertain the reasons why if you think about it and look at the election returns: When it comes to guns the country is not with them. Sure, there are plenty of polls that say a majority of Americans support stricter gun control measures – like the closing of the so-called "gun show loophole," but the only people who vote on the issue are the people who already own guns. The constituency for doing something affirmative just does not exist no matter how much money former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other billionaires put into the cause. Democrats in key presidential states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio for years have crossed the aisle and voted Republican because the Republican supported gun rights and the Democrat didn't.