Once again the Liberal/Left is showing its bad manners and sneering at those who disagree with the party line. And the party line is GUN CONTROL. AND BY GUN CONTROL WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS GUN CONFISCATION.
Barack Obama has discovered a secret weapon that will stop terrorists in their tracks: More gun control.
No, really. It’s true.
During a press briefing Thursday, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocey asked White House spokesman John Earnest if the President really believes that “common sense gun laws” – or “gun control” as the rest of the world knows it – would really have any impact in stopping a terrorist attack.
With only a two-second pause – likely to swallow what ever common sense he may have – Earnest responded unequivocally: Yes.
Peter Doocy: “President Obama yesterday jumped to say that this mass shooting means it’s time for commonsense gun laws. Does the President really think that common sense gun laws would deter terrorists now that he has admitted that these two may have been terrorists?”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest: “Yes. The president believes that passing common sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns, makes the country safer.”
Of course, this was an insane response, so Doocey tried to give Earnest the opportunity to walk it back.
Doocy: “But so the president thinks that when there are potentially two terrorists sitting around planning a mass murder they may call it off because President Obama has put in place common sense gun laws?”
Earnest: “Well Peter, we’re still learning of the precise motives of the individuals who carried out this heinous act of violence yesterday. One thing we do know, is the four fire arms they were wielding we’re legally purchased under the laws in place now. That’s a fact. So, that might lead some to conclude that we should have made it a little harder for them. Would that have changed the entire outcome? We’re still investigating the situation but I guess the question is, why wouldn’t we? Why wouldn’t we make it harder for them? What’s the explanation for that?”
I know in their little brains, liberals think gun control will actually deter crime, but I had no idea they actually think radical jihadists would reconsider a terrorist attack because there’s an assault weapons ban in place or a tax on ammunition.
If that were the case, wouldn’t you see fewer terrorist attacks in states that have more gun control, like New York and California?
So in order to further the cause of gun confiscation the Left went on a rampage to discredit Republican prayers as an insufficient solution to the problem. Liberals don’t care about tactics, they just care about results. So if they feel a need to get nasty, to personally attack, to slander, lie, cheat or defraud – they do it. All for the cause, their sacrosanct ideology that is never wrong.
You’re doing it wrong.
Long before the blood was mopped up, before police issued the all-clear, before the motives of the shooters were known and the names of the dead were released, before you had any idea how the murderers in San Bernardino obtained their guns — or their bombs — you knew exactly what this story had to be about: gun control.
In this, of course, you weren’t alone. Countless media outlets and pundits lunged for their security blankets. As of this writing, the day after the slaughter, CNN and MSNBC are still making this all about gun control, as best they can. President Obama, who always slow-walks any admission that Islamic terrorism is involved in an Islamic terrorist attack, once again leapt into the breach to make this about gun control, even as bullets were still flying.
On Wednesday, even as the atrocity unfolded, thousands — perhaps millions — of people offered their “thoughts and prayers” to the victims and their families.
A handful of smug liberal ghouls, hungry to turn the shooting into a partisan feast, decided that the Republican politicians offering their thoughts and prayers were liars. The Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten declared on Twitter: “Dear ‘thoughts and prayers’ people: Please shut up and slink away. You are the problem, and everyone knows it.”
Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress spent the evening insinuating that any Republican offering thoughts and prayers was bought off by the National Rifle Association.
And you got caught up in this frenzy of sneering sanctimony and condescension. So you ran the front-page headline “God Isn’t Fixing This,” alongside statements from House Speaker Paul Ryan and various Republican presidential hopefuls offering their prayers.
I’m sure you thought this was all so terribly clever.
Wrong. It was disgusting and sophomoric — and journalistically dubious. You literally had no idea whether the gun-control policies you prefer would have prevented this attack. Such laws clearly wouldn’t have prevented the numerous pipe bombs the attackers had prepared. You had no clue if this was a jihadist attack, which would diminish the relevance of gun control. (Paris has very strict gun laws. As does California, by the way — and even stricter pipe bomb laws.)
GOP hopefuls weren’t “preaching about prayer.” They were offering their prayers (just like President Obama did the next day). If this had been an earthquake, would you reject prayers while survivors were still being plucked from the rubble? Would you denounce anyone who refrained from touting their preferred building code legislation?
It is no great insight to point out that prayerful statements can be platitudinous. So what? Most of us aren’t really expecting a serious answer when we greet someone with “How are you?”
Just because good manners can be trite doesn’t mean they’re not good manners.
Good manners are a sign of respect. And offering one’s prayers to those suffering is a far more meaningful sign of respect than saying “How are you?”
More important: For some people — a great many people, in fact — those prayers were sincere. You would be among the first to denounce a Republican for questioning the religious sincerity of, say, President Obama. But you preen in self-congratulation disparaging the faith of politicians simply because they disagree with you. Worse, you make it less likely they will listen to your arguments. So what was the point? To get high-fives from people who already agree with you? How courageous.
We hear so much editorializing these days about the coarsening of our culture and the excesses of political polarization. I think that’s overdone. But you should probably hold off joining that conversation for a while, given that you politicized respectful prayers for the dead just to score some cheap points.
Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.): “We need something more [than thoughts and prayers], we need action.” In sum: Only Congress, not God, can solve mass shootings.