I’ve been looking for this clip since I first heard that an enterprising journalist FINALLY confront the White House about the fact that none of the mass shootings of late would have been stopped by any of the gun control proposals favored by the President (i.e. all of them). And here it is. Press Secretary Josh Earnest starts with the usual “common sense” rhetoric, what I call the “pay no attention to the facts behind that curtain” approach. When pushed, the PR flack’s forced to admit that he knows of no mass shooter who was on the “No Fly, No Buy” list. For Progressives, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of tyranny. Or more.
Their strategy is obvious. It’s incrementalism. They know that these “sensible steps” wouldn’t have impacted any of the last 12+ mass shooting events.
So once they get their “common sense” solutions in place and another mass shooting happens they can then try for more “common sense” steps that further erode our rights.
The Democrats have been increasingly desperate about this stuff and I think the executive orders could go a little further than anticipated. The capitulation of the GOP on this travesty of a budget shows that they won’t flinch no matter what Great Leader does.
I’ve noticed the trend that most hoplophobe Dems increasingly try to frame gun rights around hunting. That’s the strategy that was successfully used for near complete disarmament of Japan and Europe. If you need a license for hunting and you need to fill out a lot of paperwork for that, and can only use certain types of ammunition and certain magazine sizes, then clearly you should have no problem submitting to even more burdens to simply own a firearm. They hope they can make it such a PITA to exercise our rights that many of us will simply give up.
Let’s hope they are wrong.
“Deemed by the government” as too dangerous.
Common sense, common sense (repeat repeatedly with repetition. often).
Just to make absolutely certain I just checked my copy of the Constitution of the Unites States of America and its attached amendments and as I thought I could not find the words “unless deemed by the government as too dangerous.” ANYWHERE in that document.
My blood ran cold and I had to stop the video when I heard this sentence. What is more shocking is that the press corps didn’t immediately start climbing over each other yelling follow up questions… They just accepted it and moved on, I suppose, like most of the people in this country.
There’s also this from the Fact Checker at the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/
Imagine that…a mass media fact checker checking *actual* facts and — gasp! — agreeing with a Republican. (B-b-b-but….what about the narrative?)
There is more dignity in being a cheap prostitute than there is in being a White House press secretary.
And, did any of the corespondents ask about the due process issues of placing people on the no-fly-list and then making them prove they shouldn’t be? Its not common sense, its blatantly unconstitutional.
“Too dangerous to board an airplane…” then why dont they lock the bastards up? What kind of a person can go in front of the WH Press Corps everyday and spout this innocuous blather with a straight face?
That blather is a lot of things, but “innocuous” isn’t one of them. I wish it were.
I assume you mean nocuous blather.
Is that a thing?
I think it’s the same word as noxious. Funny how putting a simple little prefix in front of a word makes it mean the exact opposite.
Except for “inflammable”… 😉
just ask dr. nick.
inane obnoxious blather perhaps.
Gun-grabbers ears make positive gun facts sound like the parents on the Peanuts cartoon are speaking
“wa WA wa WAA Wa gun control wa WA waa WA WAA waaaa effective at stopping mass shootings wa”
The reporter should have asked if Ted Kennedy was a terrorist.
The reporter should have asked if we shouldn’t just lock up these “reasonably suspected terrorists” until such time as they can avail themselves of the “process” to get their names off the list. If they are too dangerous to buy a gun, aren’t they too dangerous to walk into a Wal-Mart and buy pressure cookers and ball bearings?
Well, do we need to wait until somebody with blond hair walks into a gun store, buys a gun, and then shoots a lot of innocent people before we pass a law preventing that? How about…someone with two legs? Gonna wait until one of those folks walks into a guns store, buys a gun, and shoots some innocent people before passing a law preventing that? It’s just common sense….
So, do we need to prevent walking into a store, buying a gun, or shooting a bunch of people? Dickifult question. Maybe we should consider which would be important if someone already HAS a gun, doesn’t even need to walk into a store, is it OK if HE shoots a bunch of people? AArrgh, this is SO-oo-o-o-o hard. I need someone really brilliant to do my thinking for me. Maybe Barack Jomama, the coke-smoking slacker!
yeah, good thing he’s sooooo smart they hide his academic records….
UGH, yeah his “we have to be proactive” stance is super aggravating. We have to be proactive with empty gestures and heavy-handed and utterly fruitless actions? That’s proactive!?
It’s all a lot of flowery language to hide their real meaning. We want your guns. All of them. Because we don’t like guns and we don’t trust you.
Well I don’t trust you either, sir. Hence the 2nd amendment. So take your tyranny and shove off.
So, they punk’d out?
I guess the local merchants of liberty will have to rely only on Christmas to drum up business.
Can’t wait to see the December / year-end numbers:
Are you referring to the anticipated gun-control EOs? Did something happen on that front?
AND-I just watched Bury Soetoro brag about what a great year he had…hey RF do a story on the BS investigation of Smith & Wesson…backdoor gun control?
“White House Press Secretary Admits Gun Control Would Not Have Stopped Mass Shooters”
Hail, king of the obvious.
Good to see sir smug squirm a bit. Not the most artful dodge either.
His middle name should be “Dis”.
Soooo…the White House says that after the San Bernadino Terrorist attack that we need to ban anyone who is on the No-Fly list from being able to purchase a firearm until they can prove to the government they are not a terrorist? Let me get this right…they can’t get any major gun control legislation to stick so they are reaching for anything they can get traction with, so they attempt to dredge this whole no-fly list BS that nobody from the Obama administration has spoken of since Sandy Hook to give it one more go? Not to mention that they believe anyone on the No-fly list should not be able to purchase a gun, BUT they are more than free to board and train, bus, or cruise ship. This administration is betting on the fact that Americans are just plain stupid and will sign off on anything if they link it to terrorism.
So we are doing something which didn’t work in the past in the hopes that it might work in the future.
When it doesn’t work (which history shows it won’t) then we will, of course, need to do something else too.
This doesn’t seem like a very efficient way to solve problems…
When pushed, the PR flack’s forced to admit that he knows of no mass shooter who was on the “No Fly, No Buy” list.
A solution in search of a problem.
Of course the White House will put the entire NRA and the entire Republican Party on the No Fly No buy List as due process just literally flew out the window.
F-ck that guy! Anyone who craps on the 2nd Amendment is a communist.
He’s not just crapping on the second.
So he starts with he knows their is no piece of legislation that will prevent all mass shootings.
Then goes to argue for legislation that will prevent no mass shootings.
Because common sense? Seems more like common delusion, maybe common group think?
Looks like earnest isn’t being earnest again. Dodge the question again and again and keep talking about the no fly list, eh?
I guess if the new Refugee Immigrants from the Middle East have been vetted by the State department as to having no ties to terrorist activities then they should be allowed to purchase and carry firearms.
However, if they should not be allowed to purchase and carry a firearm then maybe they should NOT be allowed into our country.
That guy,,,, always smirks, always condescending. Boot licker.
I think earnest should continue his mockery of the presidency by posing and advertising for Star Wars on the tax payers time. DBag Cretin.