Obama Spokesman FAILS MISERABLY When Reporter Asks What Laws Would Have Prevented Shootings

What is the magical number of gun control laws that will keep Americans safe? Do we need one more law? Six more? A thousand more? If conservatives cave to liberal demands and institute universal background checks, “assault weapons” bans, federal registries and other anti-Second Amendment measures, will there ever be a time when the left will feel contented by having struck an alleged proper balance on the issue of guns?

Of course, any who have paid attention to the radicalization of the Democrat Party are sure to acknowledge that simple goals are not in the liberal playbook. Like the old adage, if one gives a liberal an inch, be prepared to lose a mile.

That is precisely why the current liberal strategy is to focus on one step at a time. It’s always “one more” gun control law, one more “commonsense” measure to keep Americans safe. Where does it end? What law will help keep Americans safe from criminals who do not follow the law?

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stumbled and tipped Obama’s hand when he was unable to explain what laws proposed by Democrats would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings.

Reporter Byron Tau noted 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio’s assertion that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun control legislation. Rubio’s statement was rated “True” by the Washington Post fact-checker.

“If not a single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by the kind of gun control measures you champion, are those the right approach to this problem?” Tau asked.

Earnest did what all press secretaries are trained to do when they’re backed into a corner from which they cannot escape; he evaded and reframed the discussion, saying,

“Well, Byron, I think we’ve been pretty direct and upfront about the fact that there is no piece of legislation that Congress can pass that would prevent every single act of gun violence. I think the case that we have made is one that rests primarily on our concern about national security and our careful consideration of common sense.”

He further explained,

“The president believes it’s common sense and it is in our national security interests to prevent those who are deemed by the government too dangerous to board an airplane that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun, until such time as they can resolve the concerns that the government has about their potential links to terrorism.”

For those who don’t speak polished political weasel, I’ll translate: “Well, the proposed laws won’t actually help with shootings, but it will help with our civilian disarmament agenda. Now I’ll use scary words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘national security’ to distract from the topic we are supposed to be discussing and tie it all together with our favorite buzzword ‘commonsense’ to make our radical agenda appear more palatable.”

“Can the White House point to a recent mass shooting that would have been stopped by a expanded assault weapons ban or stricter background checks?” Tau asked. “The evidence seems to be that in all these recent mass shootings, these folks either passed background checks or were very determined to circumvent the strict gun laws that are already on the books. Can you point to any that would have been prevented or stopped by the kind of proposals the White House is championing?”

“Again, Byron, I think the same thing applies here, which is it’s not our view that we should wait until somebody who’s on the no-fly list walks into a gun store, legally purchases a gun and kills a bunch of innocent Americans before we pass a law preventing it,” Earnest said. “That’s a common-sense view. The president believes that’s in our national security, and that’s why we believe quite strongly that Congress should take action to address it and close the no-fly, no-buy loophole.”

Tau finally asked if any of the recent mass killers were on the no-fly list. Earnest was forced to admit, “Not that I’m aware of.”

The Obama Administration sees an opportunity in squashing two civil rights with one effort. The terrorist watchlist is arbitrarily filled with names blacklisted by the government and there remains no due process for those who have run afoul of the government. The Obama Regime hopes to extend this outrageous unconstitutional violation to restrict Americans who have been found guilty of nothing from exercising their Second Amendment rights by possessing a firearm.

With the NSA abusing hundreds-of-millions of Americans and the IRS orchestrating a years-long campaign to suppress political dissent, it can hardly be a surprise to discover that the most-tyrannical administration in our nation’s history now wages a war on American citizens by insisting that they be granted the power to decide, without any judicial oversight, who does and who does not have constitutional rights.

This is the kind of thing that happens in China and Cuba; it cannot be allowed to happen here in the United States.

About the Author

Greg Campbell
Greg Campbell
An unapologetic patriot and conservative, Greg emerged within the blossoming Tea Party Movement as a political analyst dedicated to educating and advocating for the preservation of our constitutional principles and a free-market solution to problems birthed by economic liberalism. From authoring scathing commentaries to conducting interviews with some of the biggest names in politics today including party leaders, activists and conservative media personalities, Greg has worked to counter the left’s media narratives with truthful discussions of the biggest issues affecting Americans today. Greg’s primary area of focus is Second Amendment issues and the advancement of honest discussion concerning the constitutional right that protects all others. He lives in the Northwest with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.

Send this to a friend