White House Morons on Gun Control

Trigger Warning:
He's holding a scary-looking gun, ban it!
I've asked liberals a very simple question many times before-what gun laws, specifically, would have stopped the San Bernardino terror attack?  I've blogged about it, I've asked on Twitter and Facebook.  Mostly the question gets ignored, but I have gotten a few responses.  The first response I got insisted that the answer to San Bernardino and other mass shootings was to make illegal guns even MORE illegal.  Other liberals have told me that "something must be done!"  That dodges the question completely, of course.  I even got one liberal who told me that having a law against murder would have prevented the San Bernardino shootings.

I'm not the only one asking this question, though.  It turns out that an intrepid reporter dared to ask White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest the same question.  Via the Washington Free Beacon, what followed was an interesting exchange:
I'd recommend watching the whole video, but I've taken the money shot out of the transcript for you:
Q    Can the White House point to a recent mass shooting that would have been stopped by an expanded assault weapons ban or stricter background checks?  I mean, the evidence seems to be that in all these recent mass shootings, these folks either pass background checks or were very determined to circumvent the sort of 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?
MR. EARNEST:  Again, Byron, I think the same thing applies here, which is it is 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.  That’s a common-sense view.  The President believes that 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.
Q    Were any of the recent mass shooters on the no-fly list?
MR. EARNEST:  Not that I’m aware of, but you’d probably have to ask the Director of National Intelligence to confirm that.
That's what we get from the smartest people in the room, folks.  There's some nonsensical rambling about "common sense," and Josh Earnest floats the "No Fly, No Buy" proposal that Democrats have been championing.  When you get right down to it, though, the White House has absolutely no answer to the question.  Why?  It's because there literally is no law that would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, or any mass shooting ever, really.  You can throw up all of the hoops and hurdles you want.  You can hit anyone buying a gun with massive amounts of thorough background checks.  You can close all the loopholes you want.  At the end of the day, though, no law will stop a terrorist, or a psychotic individual, from picking up a weapon and gunning down innocent people.  California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet San Bernardino still happened.

Let's humor Mr. Earnest and the liberals for a second though.  Say we pass a law stating that if you're on the no-fly list you can't buy a gun.  There's a few questions we have to ask.  The first and foremost question, of course, is how does one get on the no-fly list?  From HG.org:
Those placed on the No Fly List are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States, and has even been used to divert aircraft containing persons on the list who are not traveling to or from the U.S. away from U.S. airspace. The names on the list are derived from U.S. intelligence gathering, and fluctuates in length, but as of 2012 the List reportedly contained just 21,000 names.
Okay, so it's derived from intelligence gathering.  That's pretty freaking open-ended.  How is this intelligence gathered?  How is it used?  Who makes the decision?  I know we won't get the answers to those questions, and we shouldn't.  Still it seems awfully stupid to trust in this "intelligence gathering."  I wonder if anything untoward ever happens?  Well, HG.org continues:
The No Fly List is currently the subject of a number of different lawsuits against the U.S. governement, primarily for preventing travel by those who claim no affiliation or knowledge of terrorist groups other than what they have heard in the news. Many of these individuals are reporters, business people, teachers, or others who travel frequently to predominantly Muslim countries and/or practice Islam themselves. As a result, many have asserted that the No Fly List is fueled by bigotry, not legitimate intelligence regarding terrorist ties.
Woah, woah woah, what?  Normal people get thrown onto the no-fly list?  Why yes, yes they do.  One incident happened back in 2012 when an 18-month-old baby was actually thrown off a JetBlue flight because she was on the no-fly list.  The explanation?  A glitch.

That's not the only example, though.  CNN has compiled a list of just some of the no-fly list's most spectacular failures.  So who has been snared by no-fly list false positives?  Oh just a few names you might know like Cat Stevens, several men named "David Nelson," and the late Senator Ted Kennedy.  Kennedy, by the way, was stopped and interrogated no less than 5 times.

Mental Floss wrote an article back in September that describes just some of the reasons you can end up on the no-fly list.  Among the reasons were traveling to the wrong country, the content of  your tweets, not becoming a FBI informant, and having the same name as someone on the list.  Oh, and just in case you thought it was easy to get off the list, it's not.  From the same article:
A number of high-profile lawsuits have claimed the government unjustly added people to the list and blocked their efforts to have their names removed.  Last summer, a federal court ruled in favor of 13 people who claimed the government violated their constitutional rights to travel by placing them on the no-fly list. The government was ordered to tell the plaintiffs whether they’re on the list, spell out the reasons they are barred from travel, and to give them a chance to challenge the government finding.
Let's also not forget that you can be added to the no-fly list without your knowledge. In fact, as Mental Floss reports, many people only find out they're actually on this list when they are denied boarding onto a flight they've already booked.  The potential for abuse is obviously high.  What would the Obama administration do with a no-fly list that also kept people from buying guns?  What would, God forbid, a new and vengeful Clinton administration do?  The possibilities are literally endless.

We shouldn't be surprised, though, that the Left's answer to gun control is to place their faith in an extra-judicial process that could be used to deny potentially hundreds of thousands of citizens their Constitutional rights.  Gun control is not about safety, and it never has been.  Gun control has been about expanding government control over its citizenry.  Every tyrant and tinpot dictator knows that the surest impediment to government domination has been an armed populace.  The Founding Fathers knew it as well, which is why they saw fit to enshrine the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

A disarmed American public is the wet dream of Leftist tyrants everywhere.

Share your thoughts and comments below.  Or follow me on Twitter @trigwarnblog, or check out my Facebook page.

Comments

Popular Posts