Carney: Pointing out that Obama's proposal wouldn't have stopped Alexis is a "cop out."
White House demands gun grab White House admits would have made no difference
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
I seriously questioned whether they would get on this wheel again. It went nowhere after Sandy Hook, and it was so transparently opportunistic . . . you can only pull this crap so many times before the public starts to catch on, right?
Shows what I know. Here we go again. Harry Reid, who put the ziggy on the Senate vote last time because he knew it was a sure loser, is once again making noises about scheduling something, while the media plies him with strategic advice disguised as questions. Video from CBS:
Speaking of the media, they’re beclowning themselves with record intensity this time, and no one more so than CNN. Not only do they nightly put Piers Morgan in front of their seven viewers, but claimed in a Chyron during Anderson Cooper’s show (h/t to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air) that Alexis had used an “AR-15 shotgun,” which would be a neat trick, since no such weapon exists.
But nothing beats the shamelessness of the White House itself, which is so eager to change the subject back gun-grabbing that it is scandalized when you point out Obama’s proposals would have done nothing to stop Alexis, just as they would have done nothing to stop Adam Lanza.
Carney blamed congressional Republicans for blocking the background check legislation, accusing them of bowing to special interests.
“When you vote against 80 or 90 percent of the American people, when you vote against the majority of your constituents at the behest of a narrow special interest, you are serving that special interest, not your constituents,” he said.
Carney acknowledged that a stronger background check system would not have stopped the Navy Yard shooter, Aaron Alexis. However, using that fact to dismiss background check legislation would be a “cop out,” he said.
Got that? Proposing legislation that solves nothing is brave and courageous, while pointing out that it’s a waste of time and completely ineffective is a “cop out.” Come to think of it, this was Obama’s argument on Syria too, wasn’t it? Launch an “incredibly small” attack that leaves Assad in power and changes nothing of substance on the ground, and don’t try to tell him the action is symbolic and fruitless. We must act.
It’s worth remembering the real policy aim for the left in this. Anything that expands federal power, creates an excuse for new departments and agencies, opens the door to more federal oversight (especially databases) - the left is for it. That’s what’s really behind the we must act impulse, because it always creates new things to do for the political and bureaucratic classes.
We’ll wrap up for now with Dick Durbin, who was in rare form: “We can protect the right of law-abiding Americans to use guns in a responsible way for hunting and self-defense, but we have to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them—felons, the mentally unstable, who can’t be trusted to have a firearm. But today we pause and reflect on the lives lost. I hope the lesson is learned.”
Did you know the Second Amendment specifies hunting and self-defense as the only legitimate reasons for owning a gun? Neither did I. But anything is possible when Dick Durbin starts running his mouth.