More Top Stories:

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…

 if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.


Opinions posted on are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
%d bloggers like this: