President Obama was playing politics at the press conference, with his goal of getting some kind of federal mandate or prohibition in dealing with guns. Neither the background check proposal nor the assault weapons ban passed.
He thought he had played his cards well. He even used the Newtown victims’ parents’ testimonies during his campaign for more gun control. Surely then people would be in favor of more restrictions on firearms. At least people would support universal background checks. It was for the Sandy Hook children. How could anyone vote against the Sandy Hook victims?
In his speech, Obama even responded to a comment Rand Paul had made. At a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Senator Paul said that “in some cases the president has used [Newtown victims’ families] as props.”
Obama didn’t like that. Any suggestion that Obama is simply appealing to emotions to advance a political agenda is repulsive.
But it’s been mentioned time and time again that even though Obama has tried using the children of Sandy Hook as the excuse for more government control over people’s self-defense weapons, background checks wouldn’t have prevented Adam Lanza’s murder spree. Even Dianne Feinstein agreed:
“Mr. President, I’m sure background checks will stop many would-be murderers, but they would not have prevented Newtown. The weapons were legally purchased by his mother, and while he was disturbed he had no criminal record or no record of mental illness and would not have been subject to a background check because his mother gave him these weapons. Let me be clear, universal background checks are very important I strongly support them but they would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown.”
First, according to most media narratives, Adam stole the weapons and killed his mother with them. His mother didn’t give her son her weapons.
Second, the gun control fanatics haven’t been campaigning on ways to curb just everyday gun violence, like in Chicago; the “would-be murderers” in Feinstein’s monologue.
If they wanted to curb everyday gun violence, they’d be focusing on handguns and pistols, not semi-automatic rifles. And if they wanted to “do something” about violence in general, they’d “do something” about all those fists and blunt objects on the streets.
But, remember they’re not coming after our guns. Just the ones that create the most carnage in the least amount of time and that look scariest.
So, if some gun-grabbers like Feinstein are acknowledging that passing another law expanding background checks wouldn’t have prevented a Newtown-style massacre, then why are Newtown victims’ families being used to pull Americans’ heartstrings in order to convince us that we need universal background checks?