Thursday, December 17, 2015 by Tim Brown
As Barack Hussein Obama continues unhindered by Congress in his crimes against the Constitution and the American people, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was called out by a reporter on Thursday, who pointed out that not one of Barry’s proposals would have stopped any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the united States.
The reporter mentioned Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who stated that none of the mass shootings we’ve had in America would have been stopped with the proposals by the Obama administration. The reporter went on the state that The Washington Post fact checked Rubio’s claims, and lo and behold, he is right.
The reporter having demolished the argument for any type of gun control, something the Second Amendment and the Constitution do not provide authority for representatives to engage in anyway, the reporter asks, “Is that the right approach to this problem?”
Watch Earnest fall all over himself in an attempt to provide an answer.
Without really answering, Earnest stated that the administration has been “pretty direct and up front (insert laugh track here) 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 we have made rests primarily on our concern about national security and careful consideration of common sense,” Earnest added.
Pause for a moment and think about this. Gun violence is not a “national security” issue. It is a criminal issue, period. It is dealt with locally. Second, Earnest is just not being honest. This administration has pushed for illegal, pretended legislation to restrict guns, claiming that it would help stop criminal acts with guns. They failed, thank God!
Third, the only careful consideration and common sense that needs to take place from government is to stop their attempts at restricting people and making them jump through all kinds of hoops in order to exercise their ability to purchase firearms and their right to keep and carry them.
Fourth, if this administration was concerned with national security, they would not have allowed their former Secretary of State to have engaged in illegal activities that allowed Russia to obtain iranium, which they are now supplying to Iran. If the administration was concerned about national security, they would have dealt a lot different, rather than orchestrating the tens of thousands of illegal aliens who came across the southern border in 2014. If the administration was concerned with national security, they would not be bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East, who don’t even qualify as refugees, and dumping them on the cities of America. No, this administration has an agenda, and it is about destroying national security and our nation as a whole.
However, Earnest was not finished. He provided an example of a “loophole,” the no-fly, no-buy nonsense.
“I think it’s common sense, the president thinks it’s common sense and it’s 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 they can resolve such concerns the government has about their potential links to terrorism,” he said.
Again, it’s fine that they “think” this, but it is clearly against the Constitution. Not only is it a clear violation of the Second Amendment, but it’s an even clearer violation of the Fifth Amendment! My goodness, people are not even given due process of law and yet, because the government has “concerns” over ties to terrorism, they are going to deprive people of their rights? Seriously? And just how do people get on that no-fly list Mr. Earnest? Tell us how Pastor Chuck Baldwin could fly into Texas and twelve hours later be on the no-fly list.
What should be done is that if you have evidence that gives you concern about someone’s ties to terrorism, is that you should follow the Constitution and get a warrant to search them or their property. If they are found to have committed some sort of crime, then you should bring justice upon them. If not, then you leave them alone. Furthermore, you have a list! If these people are a danger, why are you not out looking for them, instead of waiting for them to show up at an airport where you will do nothing to them?
No, these measures are not to stop criminals or terrorists. The only people new pretended laws will effect are law abiding citizens. The criminals and terrorists care nothing for the law.
Still, Earnest demands that those on the no-fly list prove their innocence rather than government proving their guilt before they can purchase a gun and calls that anti-American thinking “common sense.” Earnest is just as much a Marxist gun grabber as his boss.
Earnest was challenged to provide any incident that would have been prevented by more legislation the White House backs as the criminals seek to circumvent the law in order to obtain weapons and do what they do. And again, Earnest dodged the question and said that we can’t wait for something to happen to infringe on your rights, um, I mean do something.
Twice, Earnest used a faulty analogy about a person on the no-fly list going into a gun store, purchasing a gun and killing several people, but in nearly each of the instances of mass shootings the guns were stolen or obtained illegally, so what is the real precedent for Earnest to make this claim? Emotion, nothing else.
Yes, my friends, the Obama administration and Congress have targeted virtually every one of the first Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights, only this time, they are attempting to deal proverbially with taking out two birds with one stone, the Second and Fifth Amendments. We can’t let that happen!
The reality is that when it comes to mass shootings, the Obama administration has seen more mass shootings and more mass murders than the previous four presidents combined. It really should cause every American to question the nature of those mass shootings rather than violating the rights of the people that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution.