TOP TEN MISSTATEMENTS MADE BY OBAMA IN HIS RESPONSE TO OREGON SHOOTING
On October 1, 2015, the nation witnessed another tragic shooting — this one at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon.
The President shortly took to a national platform to address the killings.
This should have been an opportunity for the President to unite a grieving nation. But instead, he chose to foment division. He even bragged that it was right for him to politicize this tragedy.
Over and over again, on nationwide television, the President misled the American people in an effort to further restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans who have done no wrong.
But to the President, we say: Shame on you, for leveling so many false accusations about guns and crime in America.
Here are the Top Ten misstatements he made during that nationwide address.
1. “Earlier this year, I answered a question in an interview by saying, ‘The United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense gun-safety laws — even in the face of repeated mass killings.’ And later that day, there was a mass shooting at a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. That day!”
Not enough gun control? Mr. President, it is insane to expect criminals to obey “common sense” gun control laws. They don’t obey gun restrictions any more than you heed the “shall not be infringed” limitation in the Second Amendment.
But not enough gun control? Look at the recent University of Chicago Crime Lab study which found that very few criminals get their firearms from “gun shows or through the Internet” or from “a licensed store” — but rather, they get their guns “on the street.”
Criminals don’t obey the laws. The gun restrictions you are pushing only end up infringing on the rights of the law-abiding.
As for the “repeated mass killings” you referenced, all but two public mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in a gun free zone. Perhaps you didn’t realize that your reference to the Lafayette, Louisiana, theater shooting was another case in point.
And by the way, you should note that the Louisiana shooter passed a background check before purchasing his firearm — as did the Umpqua shooter, who ALSO passed background checks in purchasing his firearms.
So how are more background checks going to make a difference, when they are doing nothing to stop killers like the ones in Louisiana and Oregon? The one thing background checks do accomplish is register law-abiding gun owners, as seen here and here.
2. “We talked about this after Columbine and Blacksburg, after Tucson, after Newtown, after Aurora, after Charleston.”
Mr. President, you just listed another set of gun free zones where law-abiding citizens were PROHIBITED from carrying firearms.
The only exception was the Tucson shooting — which, as referenced above, was one of only two public mass shootings (dating back to 1950) that did not occur in a gun free zone.
Hence, the overwhelming majority of public mass shootings occur in places where guns are outlawed, and yet criminals disregard those bans.
But in regard to the shootings you just mentioned, please explain what gun control law would have prevented the above shooters from getting their firearms, given the following scenarios: Columbine (guns were illegally acquired); Blacksburg, Aurora and Charleston (shooters passed background checks); and Newtown (gunman stole his weapons).
3. “It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.”
Somebody who wants to get a gun will get one. Look at our nation’s capital, which has some of the toughest restrictions in the country on legally purchasing and carrying guns. And yet, according to the FBI’s list of 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, they had the highest murder rate in the nation.
Guns are EXTREMELY difficult to obtain legally in DC, and EXTREMELY difficult to carry legally. (Most recent reports indicate that fewer than 50 people in THE ENTIRE CITY are permitted to carry concealed.)
Of course, you’ll say that criminals in DC just get their guns from places where guns are more easily available — like Northern Virginia.
But if that’s the case, then please explain why Fairfax County — which has twice the population of DC, and where civilians can easily carry guns legally — has a murder rate that is 20 times lower than that in the District. And Arlington, which is just across the river and where guns are also easily obtainable, the murder rate is 40 times lower than DC’s.
4. “And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.”
Well, if you won’t listen to common sense from the American people, then listen to the police. Almost 90% of our “first responders” say that these types of incidents would be prevented if the potential victims were armed.
And by a two-to-one margin, police favor concealed carry over expanded background checks as the best method of preventing “large scale shootings in public.”
5. “We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws — including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.”
First, our God-given rights don’t depend on polls. The Declaration of Independence says that people are “endowed by their Creator” with unalienable rights. In other words, law-abiding individuals can’t have their rights diminished, limited or restricted in any way by government.
And the Second Amendment makes the same point, stating that our right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” So our rights don’t hinge on polling, any more than our First or Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights do.
Having said that, the polls contradict each other. A recent CNN poll says that almost 60% of respondents don’t think that expanded gun control laws (including expanded background checks) will prevent criminals or the mentally ill from getting firearms. And a majority of respondents in a recent Pew Poll oppose additional gun control.
Overriding the Constitution, based on cherry-picked polling, would be as valid as forcing a President to step down because a poll shows him to only have 40% or less of the public support.