Josh Earnest: ‘Of Course’ Recommended Gun Controls Wouldn’t Stop a San Bernardino

2
Share
White House press secretary Josh Earnest speaks during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014, where he spoke about the shootings in Canada and answered questions about Ebola. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
White House press secretary Josh Earnest speaks during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014, where he spoke about the shootings in Canada and answered questions about Ebola. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

During the active shooter massacre by a terrorist on Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for stricter gun control. Two issues he specifically mentioned were tougher background checks and banning anyone on the no-fly list.

Wednesday evening, when White House press secretary Josh Earnest was asked if these policies would have prevented the San Bernardino shooting, Earnest said, “Of course not!.”

When Earnest addressed the news corps after the shooting, Jon Karl, reporter for ABC News 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.”

Jon Karl

He then argued it was common sense legislation and won’t affect the Second Amendment. However, it will if it doesn’t include due process as has been suggested in the past.

“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 said 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.”

It should be mentioned that when a background check is initiated, the federal government reviews the application, including those on the no-fly list, and they decide, not the gun salesman. Also important to note is that intelligence sources view the list as a “joke.” Even the LA Times did a piece bashing it.

Karl then asked, “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 used his stern voice, ”Jon we are talking about future incidents.”

“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.”

The administration wants centralized control over everything and they don’t like the Second Amendment. They never let a good crisis go to waste.

Karl asked the question all Second Amendment supporters want to know, “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?”

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

Karl, never one to shirk an exchange, then asked logically, “Shouldn’t the discussion be how to prevent what happened yesterday from happening?”

“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.”

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

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

“How so?” Karl asked.

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

You are all too stupid to know the answer to that, it’s not that they don’t have one of course. If it wouldn’t stop San Bernardino, why would it stop future attacks? Seems like a simple question.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has determined that Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the two shooters, legally purchased two of the weapons at a gun shop in Corona. Two others were legally purchased and given to him by a friend, federal officials said Thursday.

In most other mass shootings in recent years, the perpetrators also purchased their weapons legally through licensed firearms dealers.

Earnest also got his dig in about the GOP, falsely claiming they are terrified of the NRA. The NRA represents the people not themselves.

The White House wants stricter gun control for gun control’s sake and not because it will have any effect whatsoever and the mass shootings are being exploited for that purpose.

I wonder if he has communist posters hanging all over his house like the last White House press secretary.

Source: abc news

Share

2 COMMENTS

  1. “…individuals who shouldn’t have guns from getting them…”

    (…and WE get to do the determining of who those individuals should be. Little by little, we’ll get around to determining those pesky patriots and resistant liberty lovers as individuals who shouldn’t have guns. Eventually.)

    The Constitution did not authorize you to arbitrarily determine who can or can’t have rights. In fact, clauses added to earlier drafts of the 2A were scrapped PRECISELY because of EXACTLY THAT.

Comments are closed.