In my opinion, it's not really a straw man because the alternative to the current POTUS has signed gun bans voluntarily, while the sitting POTUS has never done so. If the voting percentage had been off by even a small amount things could have been much different.
Also, the President can introduce bills and send them to Congress by having a Rep or Senator sponsor one for them, it happens all the time. I'm pretty sure there's enough anti-firearmm reps and sens out there that if Obama had wanted one he could have easily gotten one through Congress.
In light of the recent massacre, I think RINO Romney would have signed a much more further-reaching gun ban and done it faster to have the appearances of "bi-partisanship" and in trade to get his tax agendas passed than any we might wind up with, if we wind up with any at all. That's the danger with RINOs, they are quick to put up all kinds of liberal social issues in trade/sacrifice as a way of getting their true agendas passed.
Like I said above, Gary Johnson would have been the best of the 3, but as far as putting gun bans into place Romney was the worst.
