Jump to content

'Of Course not': White House on *new* Obama gun control proposals


Raven_tiger

Recommended Posts

Would the *new* Obama gun control proposals stopped the San Bernardeno Jihadi attack? 'Of course not', said Josh Earnest. But that's not the point of Obama's plan is it? How about outlawing radical islamists. Nice work by the FBI and NSA on preventing this attack. Perhaps the FBI is too involved with taking over police departments.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/03/of-course-not-white-house-spokesmans-surprising-response-when-asked-if-obama-gun-proposals-would-have-prevented-san-bernardino-shooting/

‘Of Course Not’: White House Spokesman’s Surprising Response When Asked if Obama Gun Proposals Would Have Prevented San Bernardino Shooting

Dec. 3, 2015 4:02pm Fred Lucas

3K

SHARES

  • Share This
  • Tweet This



Shortly after the Wednesday mass shooting in California, President Barack Obama called for stricter background checks and banning anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun. However, asked if either of those policies would have prevented the shooting, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, “Of course not.”

According to police, a husband and wife shot and killed 14 people Wednesday at a social service center for the disabled in San Bernardino, wounding more than a dozen others in what appears to have been a planned attack. The alleged shooters, Syed Farook, 28, and Tasfeen Malik, 27, were killed in a shootout with police. A man claiming to be Farook’s father revealed his son was a devout Muslim.

Josh-Earnest-AP.jpg

White House press secretary Josh Earnest (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Shortly after the shooting, while police were still investigating the matter and the suspects were at large,Obama said in an interview with CBS News that Congress should pass laws to enact stricter gun control and ban anyone on the government’s no-fly list from purchasing a firearm.

ABC News reporter Jon Karl asked, “Did he have any indication at that point that, if Congress instituted stronger background checks, it would have prevented this incident?”

Earnest responded, “In this incident, of course not.” :-\

However, the spokesman went on to argue tougher laws would keep guns away from dangerous people.

“But the president is confident, and I think common-sense-thinking Americans are confident, that if there are things that Congress can do to make it harder for individuals who shouldn’t have guns from getting them, then Congress should act and pass a law accordingly, because that law can be implemented in a way that doesn’t undermine the the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” Earnest said.

Karl then asked about the no-fly list proposal: “Any indication at this point that either tougher background checks or doing what the president is proposing with the no fly list –.”

Earnest interrupted, saying for a second time, ”Of course not, Jon.” :-\

“But the point here is that it is common sense that if the government thinks its too hard for you to get on an airplane, then you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun,” Earnest said. “It is common sense. And Congress, for reasons they can’t explain — or at least reasons I haven’t heard them articulate — can’t explain why they haven’t passed that law yet.”

The exchange became tense as Karl followed up: “But the president made these comments specifically when asked about this shooting. So I’m wondering why he kind of immediate fell back to Congress needs to pass more gun legislation.”

“Because the president is determined to ensure that these kinds of incidents of mass shootings aren’t considered routine, and he’s determined to press Congress at every turn to take steps –” Earnest said before being interrupted.

“But you just acknowledged that his proposal wouldn’t have done anything to prevent this incident,” Karl said.

Earnest sternly said, ”Jon we are talking about future incidents.”

GettyImages-499664582-620x413.jpg

SWAT officers enter an area where suspects were believed to be after the shooting at the Inland Regional Center Wednesday in San Bernardino, California. (Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images

“If we want to make it harder to carry out these acts in the future, it’s time for Congress to pass laws that make it harder for people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them,” Earnest continued. “I don’t understand — actually I do understand why it’s controversial. It’s simply because we’ve got too many members of Congress that are terrified of the NRA. Well, right now there are a lot of people across this country that are terrified of a mass shooting.”

Karl didn’t let up, asking, “What is the relevance to what happened in San Bernardino if the provisions you are talking about, as you acknowledged, would have done nothing to prevent this shooting? Why is it part of this discussion?”

Earnest said, “This discussion is about what we can do to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.”

Karl asked, “Shouldn’t the discussion be how to prevent what happened yesterday from happening?” (Bingo, but again that's not part of their agenda)

“That should be part of the discussion as we conduct an investigation and learn more about how these individuals carried out this act and what their motive was,” Earnest answered. “That certainly should be part of the discussion. That’s why we’re conducting an investigation. We are determined to get to the bottom of it. That’s why the president summoned his national security team to come to the Oval Office today to provide him with an update on the investigation. So of course those facts matter and of course we are going to get to the bottom of what happened because we can learn from those facts what additional steps can be taken to prevent this from happening in the future.”

Based on this response, Karl asked, “Does the president believe that tougher background checks would prevent terrorist incidents?”

Earnest repeated his answer three times.

“It could. It could. It could,” Earnest said.

“How so?” Karl asked.

“It’s a hypothetical,” Earnest said. “But it could.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites





There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

Yes , there is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

Nothing about home defense, target practice or hunting

The govt ( and obviously its employees ) want nothing of the public having a grasp of what this line means. The very LAST thing they want anyone thinking about is armed uprising over a tyrannical govt. Which is what started this country in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

Not many of them do. Automatic or select-fire weapons manufactured after 1986 cannot be sold to citizens without an FFL or manufacturer's license. The ones manufactured prior to that are NFA weapons, and their rarity makes them cost prohibitive. If I hadn't inherited them, I wouldn't have bought one. For example, a legally transferable select-fire AK-47 starts around $30,000.

A nationwide "assault weapons" ban is not likely to pass, and there is no need for it. Semi-automatic AR's and AK's are big business, and they're also well-loved by the many more people that own them and do not use them to commit murder or intend to. That's a large and well-funded demographic. The compromise I suggested yesterday of adding semi-automatic "assault weapons" to the NFA is probably the most likely to pass. It doesn't eliminate them, but it does make them more difficult and time-consuming to obtain. The following link breaks down the process for buying a suppressor, but it is identical for the purchase of any NFA item:

http://www.silencershop.com/how-to-buy-a-silencer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

There is no need for the government to meddle with a freedom that's guaranteed by the constitution. Uncle Sam's nose has no business in my gun safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with assault rifles being available to the public. I do feel that there should be tighter regulations though. It is sort of messed up that people on terrorist watchlists can purchase these type, or any type gun for that matter. We are in quite a predicament here in the US.....Most people do not trust the democrat proposals to help the situation at all, and if the more trusted republicans offer a proposal, its like political suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with assault rifles being available to the public. I do feel that there should be tighter regulations though. It is sort of messed up that people on terrorist watchlists can purchase these type, or any type gun for that matter. We are in quite a predicament here in the US.....Most people do not trust the democrat proposals to help the situation at all, and if the more trusted republicans offer a proposal, its like political suicide.

The question is who is on the terrorist watch list? What are the parameters? Who makes that decision? Our Attorney General said today that she would prosecute anti-muslim speech if it could lead to violence. It is too subjective. Based on that she could add those people to the terrorist list. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with assault rifles being available to the public. I do feel that there should be tighter regulations though. It is sort of messed up that people on terrorist watchlists can purchase these type, or any type gun for that matter. We are in quite a predicament here in the US.....Most people do not trust the democrat proposals to help the situation at all, and if the more trusted republicans offer a proposal, its like political suicide.

The question is who is on the terrorist watch list? What are the parameters? Who makes that decision? Our Attorney General said today that she would prosecute anti-muslim speech if it could lead to violence. It is too subjective. Based on that she could add those people to the terrorist list. Right?

Ive never thought of it that way, its a very good point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

Nothing about home defense, target practice or hunting

The govt ( and obviously its employees ) want nothing of the public having a grasp of what this line means. The very LAST thing they want anyone thinking about is armed uprising over a tyrannical govt. Which is what started this country in the first place.

America's regulated militia on display...

CUXJM9kUAAA-uA-.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the *new* Obama gun control proposals stopped the San Bernardeno Jihadi attack? 'Of course not', said Josh Earnest. But that's not the point of Obama's plan is it? How about outlawing radical islamists. Nice work by the FBI and NSA on preventing this attack. Perhaps the FBI is too involved with taking over police departments.

http://www.theblaze....rdino-shooting/

‘Of Course Not’: White House Spokesman’s Surprising Response When Asked if Obama Gun Proposals Would Have Prevented San Bernardino Shooting

Dec. 3, 2015 4:02pm Fred Lucas

3K

SHARES

  • Share This
  • Tweet This



Shortly after the Wednesday mass shooting in California, President Barack Obama called for stricter background checks and banning anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun. However, asked if either of those policies would have prevented the shooting, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, “Of course not.”

According to police, a husband and wife shot and killed 14 people Wednesday at a social service center for the disabled in San Bernardino, wounding more than a dozen others in what appears to have been a planned attack. The alleged shooters, Syed Farook, 28, and Tasfeen Malik, 27, were killed in a shootout with police. A man claiming to be Farook’s father revealed his son was a devout Muslim.

Josh-Earnest-AP.jpg

White House press secretary Josh Earnest (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Shortly after the shooting, while police were still investigating the matter and the suspects were at large,Obama said in an interview with CBS News that Congress should pass laws to enact stricter gun control and ban anyone on the government’s no-fly list from purchasing a firearm.

ABC News reporter Jon Karl asked, “Did he have any indication at that point that, if Congress instituted stronger background checks, it would have prevented this incident?”

Earnest responded, “In this incident, of course not.” :-\

However, the spokesman went on to argue tougher laws would keep guns away from dangerous people.

“But the president is confident, and I think common-sense-thinking Americans are confident, that if there are things that Congress can do to make it harder for individuals who shouldn’t have guns from getting them, then Congress should act and pass a law accordingly, because that law can be implemented in a way that doesn’t undermine the the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” Earnest said.

Karl then asked about the no-fly list proposal: “Any indication at this point that either tougher background checks or doing what the president is proposing with the no fly list –.”

Earnest interrupted, saying for a second time, ”Of course not, Jon.” :-\

“But the point here is that it is common sense that if the government thinks its too hard for you to get on an airplane, then you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun,” Earnest said. “It is common sense. And Congress, for reasons they can’t explain — or at least reasons I haven’t heard them articulate — can’t explain why they haven’t passed that law yet.”

The exchange became tense as Karl followed up: “But the president made these comments specifically when asked about this shooting. So I’m wondering why he kind of immediate fell back to Congress needs to pass more gun legislation.”

“Because the president is determined to ensure that these kinds of incidents of mass shootings aren’t considered routine, and he’s determined to press Congress at every turn to take steps –” Earnest said before being interrupted.

“But you just acknowledged that his proposal wouldn’t have done anything to prevent this incident,” Karl said.

Earnest sternly said, ”Jon we are talking about future incidents.”

GettyImages-499664582-620x413.jpg

SWAT officers enter an area where suspects were believed to be after the shooting at the Inland Regional Center Wednesday in San Bernardino, California. (Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images

“If we want to make it harder to carry out these acts in the future, it’s time for Congress to pass laws that make it harder for people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them,” Earnest continued. “I don’t understand — actually I do understand why it’s controversial. It’s simply because we’ve got too many members of Congress that are terrified of the NRA. Well, right now there are a lot of people across this country that are terrified of a mass shooting.”

Karl didn’t let up, asking, “What is the relevance to what happened in San Bernardino if the provisions you are talking about, as you acknowledged, would have done nothing to prevent this shooting? Why is it part of this discussion?”

Earnest said, “This discussion is about what we can do to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.”

Karl asked, “Shouldn’t the discussion be how to prevent what happened yesterday from happening?” (Bingo, but again that's not part of their agenda)

“That should be part of the discussion as we conduct an investigation and learn more about how these individuals carried out this act and what their motive was,” Earnest answered. “That certainly should be part of the discussion. That’s why we’re conducting an investigation. We are determined to get to the bottom of it. That’s why the president summoned his national security team to come to the Oval Office today to provide him with an update on the investigation. So of course those facts matter and of course we are going to get to the bottom of what happened because we can learn from those facts what additional steps can be taken to prevent this from happening in the future.”

Based on this response, Karl asked, “Does the president believe that tougher background checks would prevent terrorist incidents?”

Earnest repeated his answer three times.

“It could. It could. It could,” Earnest said.

“How so?” Karl asked.

“It’s a hypothetical,” Earnest said. “But it could.”

I have to see this video...this transcript is better than Monty Python....someone tell Ernest that "simple contradiction" is not an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

It's called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Rights exist whether 50%+1 of the population deem them necessary or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

It's called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Rights exist whether 50%+1 of the population deem them necessary or not.

Cool then rocket launchers for everyone! Hellfire missles too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

It's called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Rights exist whether 50%+1 of the population deem them necessary or not.

Cool then rocket launchers for everyone! Hellfire missles too.

They're covered by the NFA. If you can find anyone selling them, they are indeed legal to own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

It's called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Rights exist whether 50%+1 of the population deem them necessary or not.

Cool then rocket launchers for everyone! Hellfire missles too.

Ya know, in case you have a pack of pesky elephants on your land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

I have said this a thousand times. Ask Strych. I've qualified expert on the M2, 240, AT4, M16, and the Mark 19, and sharpshooter on the m4 so it's not like I'm scared of these weapons. I just don't understand why Anericans need assault rifles when shotguns and handguns would be more ideal in home defense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

I have said this a thousand times. Ask Strych. I've qualified expert on the M2, 240, AT4, M16, and the Mark 19, and sharpshooter on the m4 so it's not like I'm scared of these weapons. I just don't understand why Anericans need assault rifles when shotguns and handguns would be more ideal in home defense.

I have too Jeff and I know how effective they are in mowing down large groups of humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

I have said this a thousand times. Ask Strych. I've qualified expert on the M2, 240, AT4, M16, and the Mark 19, and sharpshooter on the m4 so it's not like I'm scared of these weapons. I just don't understand why Anericans need assault rifles when shotguns and handguns would be more ideal in home defense.

So YOU want to decide how others can defend their home / business ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

I have said this a thousand times. Ask Strych. I've qualified expert on the M2, 240, AT4, M16, and the Mark 19, and sharpshooter on the m4 so it's not like I'm scared of these weapons. I just don't understand why Anericans need assault rifles when shotguns and handguns would be more ideal in home defense.

So YOU want to decide how others can defend their home / business ?

Im using common sense. Are you going to be using front and rear aperatures in the dark and are you going to have time to turn the CCO on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

I have said this a thousand times. Ask Strych. I've qualified expert on the M2, 240, AT4, M16, and the Mark 19, and sharpshooter on the m4 so it's not like I'm scared of these weapons. I just don't understand why Anericans need assault rifles when shotguns and handguns would be more ideal in home defense.

I have too Jeff and I know how effective they are in mowing down large groups of humans.

I would consider shotguns more effective at mowing down large groups of civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

I have said this a thousand times. Ask Strych. I've qualified expert on the M2, 240, AT4, M16, and the Mark 19, and sharpshooter on the m4 so it's not like I'm scared of these weapons. I just don't understand why Anericans need assault rifles when shotguns and handguns would be more ideal in home defense.

I have too Jeff and I know how effective they are in mowing down large groups of humans.

I would consider shotguns more effective at mowing down large groups of civilians.

I would agree if everybody was in a 10x10 hut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most every freedom guaranteed by the Constitution also has limitations.

Freedom of speech does not grant me the right to yell "Fire" in a theater or to slander someone.

Freedom of religion does not give me the right to practice human sacrifice or polygamy in this country.

Freedom of the press does not protect the press from prosecution for libel or for revealing top secret national security information.

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure hinges on someone's definition of what "unreasonable" means.

Already we accept the idea that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give me the right to have nerve gas, weaponized anthrax, or nukes in my basement (even though all of those might come in handy in resisting a military coup or totalitarian crackdown). We also already recognize some restrictions on firearm acquisition, like waiting periods and background checks for firearms bought at commercial outlets. If we as a nation decided to strengthen the existing background check/vetting/registration process or that assault weapons and/or large capacity magazines fell under the same category as homemade nukes or other WMD's, I don't think that would be a grave constitutional crisis, just an extension of things we already do under the Constitution. I'm not saying that we necessarily should or shouldn't, just that it would not violate the Constitution or be the end of our democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most every freedom guaranteed by the Constitution also has limitations.

Freedom of speech does not grant me the right to yell "Fire" in a theater or to slander someone.

Freedom of religion does not give me the right to practice human sacrifice or polygamy in this country.

Freedom of the press does not protect the press from prosecution for libel or for revealing top secret national security information.

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure hinges on someone's definition of what "unreasonable" means.

Already we accept the idea that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give me the right to have nerve gas, weaponized anthrax, or nukes in my basement (even though all of those might come in handy in resisting a military coup or totalitarian crackdown). We also already recognize some restrictions on firearm acquisition, like waiting periods and background checks for firearms bought at commercial outlets. If we as a nation decided to strengthen the existing background check/vetting/registration process or that assault weapons and/or large capacity magazines fell under the same category as homemade nukes or other WMD's, I don't think that would be a grave constitutional crisis, just an extension of things we already do under the Constitution. I'm not saying that we necessarily should or shouldn't, just that it would not violate the Constitution or be the end of our democracy.

This. Well said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for Americans to own military assault weapons. Period.

I have said this a thousand times. Ask Strych. I've qualified expert on the M2, 240, AT4, M16, and the Mark 19, and sharpshooter on the m4 so it's not like I'm scared of these weapons. I just don't understand why Anericans need assault rifles when shotguns and handguns would be more ideal in home defense.

So YOU want to decide how others can defend their home / business ?

Seems that way doesn't it. he has a habit of telling others what they should do or believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...