Second Amendment restrictionists have neither facts nor popularity on their side. Tweet If only Barack Obama exhibited as much contempt and tenacity toward America's foreign adversaries - particularly Russia, China and Iran - as he does toward fellow Americans who happen to interpret the Bill of Rights more expansively than he does. This week, Russia utterly humiliated Obama before the eyes of the world, further eroding enemies' fear and allies' respect toward America in an increasingly unstable world. Among other indignities, it was confirmed that Russia actively targets Syrian rebel groups supported and supplied by the U.S. "U.S. officials," reported The Wall Street Journal, "said Russia's targeting of its allies on the ground was a direct challenge to Mr. Obama's Syria policy." It's as if Obama really does seek to bookend Ronald Reagan's presidency by losing the Cold War that Reagan astonishingly won. Yet from Obama and his administration, only the usual menu of platitudes, resignation and timidity. Compare that to his treatment of fellow Americans whose appreciation for the Second Amendment simply differs from his own. In the past, Obama has referred to political opponents as "enemies" whom his supporters should "punish." How often has he employed similar vitriol toward foreign adversaries, even those like Iran who openly call for death to America? Last week's murderous rampage in Oregon provided just the latest tawdry example. Before the killer's name was even made public or the bodies removed, an Obama visibly angry in a way never exhibited toward foreign adversaries promised to "politicize" the tragedy and ripped into those who support the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms. In so doing, Obama and others who seek to restrict Second Amendment rights trotted out two stale claims. First is the assertion that America suffers a comparatively high murder rate due to its "gun culture" and Second Amendment protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms, unique among nations. The second is that America leads the world in mass shootings. Neither claim is true. With regard to the worldwide murder rate, the U.S. actually isn't an outlier. In fact, its murder rate of approximately 4 per 100,000 people is less than half the average worldwide rate of over 10 per 100,000. Nations like the U.S. (89 firearms per 100 people) and Switzerland (47 firearms per 100 people), which do stand out in terms of high firearms possession rates, suffer minuscule murder rates compared to nations that essentially prohibit firearms possession like Brazil (26 per 100,000 people), Russia (13 per 100,000) and Mexico (23 per 100,000). Moreover, the U.S. murder rate has plummeted by 49% since 1993, even while our firearm possession rate has skyrocketed. The number of individual states that have relaxed their firearms restrictions has similarly skyrocketed during that period, so there is simply no correlation between firearms possession or less-restrictive laws and murder rate. The trajectories are actually inverse. Obama's claim, repeated by his ideological fellow-travelers, that the U.S. suffers a uniquely high mass murder rate is similarly false. Researchers Jaclyn Schildkraut of the State University of New York and H. Jaymi Elsass of Texas State University examined global mass shootings and found that at least three European nations - Norway (1.3 per 100,000), Finland (0.34 per 100,000) and Switzerland (0.17 per 100,000) - suffered more mass shootings per capita than the U.S. (0.15 per 100,000). Accordingly, the "settled science" that Obama and his supporters constantly claim to treasure directly refutes the myths they perpetuate on the issue of firearms possession vis-a-vis the U.S. murder and mass shooting rates. Not to be deterred, both Obama and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton express a willingness to use executive authority to enact gun control measures. There are a couple of problems, however. First is the inconvenient fact that the National Rifle Association (NRA) that they demonize enjoys a far higher popularity than either Obama or Clinton. According to an August 2015 NBC News survey, the NRA maintains an approval rating of 43%, with a disapproval rating of 32%. In comparison, Obama's Real Clear Politics approval average stands at 45.4%, with his disapproval average stubbornly higher at 49.4%. For her part, Clinton suffers an approval deficit of 41% favorable to 51% unfavorable. Second, most of the restrictions they advocate were already contained in the federal "assault weapons" ban that spanned the years 1994 to 2004. After that law rightfully expired, a funny thing happened: The U.S. murder and overall crime rates continued to plummet in the ensuing ten years. Accordingly, Second Amendment restrictionists have neither facts nor popularity on their side. That won't stop them from continuing their crusade, but it should inform Americans who rightfully stand against them.