Image 01 Image 03

White House Spokesman: Surging Gun Sales a Tragic Irony

White House Spokesman: Surging Gun Sales a Tragic Irony

Completely missing the point.

As you may have heard, gun sales are soaring following the terror attack in San Bernardino. In fact, Black Friday saw more applications for necessary background checks than ever before.

According to Josh Earnest, the White House doesn’t appreciate this.

David Rutz reported at the Washington Free Beacon:

White House: Recent Surge in American Gun Sales is ‘Ironic and Tragic’

White House spokesman Josh Earnest called it “ironic and tragic” Thursday that a spike in American gun sales has occurred in the wake of mass shootings in places like San Bernardino and Colorado Springs.

On Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, the FBI did 175,754 background checks, part of the seventh consecutive record-breaking month in gun purchases. Gun rights experts told the Free Beacon that recent terrorist attacks and the Democratic push for more gun control have fueled this surge.

“I wonder if the president feels as if what’s happened may actually be giving motivation or momentum to gun rights advocates rather than his position?” NBC reporter Chris Jansing asked.

“Well, I guess there is some evidence to indicate this,” Earnest said. “The FBI put out information a week or so ago that [on] Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving when many people go shopping, they actually processed the largest number of background checks for gun purchases in history. I described this, I think, at a briefing earlier this week as a tragic irony, that the more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns, and that is both ironic and tragic.

Here’s the video:

Is the White House really incapable of understanding why so many Americans are making an effort to protect themselves?

Before you answer that question, read this story from Jason Howerton of The Blaze:

White House Finalizing Plan to Take Major Gun Control Action Using Executive Authority, Valerie Jarrett Says

President Barack Obama’s advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.

White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review “in short order.” She says the recommendations will include measures to expand background checks.

Jarrett spoke Wednesday night at a vigil for the victims of the Newtown shooting, according to a summary provided by the White House.

After the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, Obama said his team was looking for ways to tighten gun laws without a vote in Congress. White House officials have said they’re exploring closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that anti-gun advocates claim allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.

The American people and the White House don’t seem to be on the same page.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Earlier during the Obama Occupation – people bought guns because they were afraid he would stop gun sales.

Now they buy guns just because they are afraid.

    Ragspierre in reply to MattMusson. | December 11, 2015 at 10:05 am

    This is “ironic and tragic” in the Fox Butterfield sense.

    After years of being shown that the security concerns of Americans mean jack-squat to the Obami, and that magical thinking rules the day, Americans have been doing the logical thing.

    Recognizing and preparing for reality on an individual basis.

    profshadow in reply to MattMusson. | December 13, 2015 at 10:18 am

    What’s to be afraid about? We have guns. And ammo. And neighbors who have guns.
    Heck, in some neighborhoods it seems every blade of grass is armed to the teeth.

“Is the White House really incapable of understanding why so many Americans are making an effort to protect themselves?”

Actually, I think leftists *are* incapable of understanding this.

It’s so natural for us to think “people act on incentives” that we never really stop to spell it out explicitly. But that’s not an idea that occurs naturally to leftists *at all*.

Even something like cigarette taxes — to us that looks like a way to disincentivize smoking. To a leftist it looks like a way to raise tax revenue and punish bad people.

The whole idea of incentives is based in a world-view of individuals and free will and enlightened self-interest. The leftist world-view is instead tribal groups and root causes and whatever moral absolutes are currently trendy.

To a leftist, reacting to gun-grabbing rhetoric by buying a gun is incomprehensible. The President just explained that guns are bad. Why would you want to self-identify as a bad person? People who would do that are probably dangerously insane.

“Ironic”, huh?

You now have a chance to buy a GI 1911, signed into law by Barracula.

Remember folks: gun control talk is boob bait. For Collectivist boobs. There isn’t a chance in hell…

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Ragspierre. | December 11, 2015 at 11:27 am

    I was a bit worried, but if the Administration can get Volokh Conspirator David Kopel aboard, then they are probably decent.

    The sale of the 1911s had essentially been announced a month or two ago, and had been in the works for years. The problem is that there just aren’t going to be nearly enough of them, and a lot of them are likely to be in pretty bad shape. Still, wouldn’t mind getting my hands on one, so working on figuring out how to get into an approved group.

      Do check the requirements. I had to belong to an authorized club, show my drivers license and passport. Plus the background check.
      Good folks working there.
      Picked up a Kimber .22 a while ago. Glad I did, saw it selling for double what I paid a couple years later.

I have my own executive action in the form of a handgun.

I use my executive action wisely and never as a means to control others except when others seek to control me by force.

“The American people and the White House don’t seem to be on the same page.”

The Democrats in general and the WH in particular are governing against the will of the people. The difference between this and being “…on the same page” is the difference between lightning and lightning bug (to paraphrase Mark Twain).

The WH wants us to be willing victims begging for our rulers to make safe zones for us. The gun sales can be translated into “pack sand, WH.”

Are they are really that stupid as to not know?

Fire extinguishers – first aid kits- spare tires – a extra can of tuna fish – etc – etc. These are all inanimate objects found in our homes. Merely common objects to be used in case we need them. A firearm falls into the same category. As civil unrest comes in many forms such as riots, active shooters, escaped prisoners, mentally ill homeless folks, and illegal immigrants with evil intent on their minds, I find firearms to be an extension of my first aid kit. First aid for my self and my family and secondly to help my neighbors and my friends.

The president (small p on purpose) and his minions seem to believe that people buying firearms have criminal motives on their minds when purchasing a firearm. I don’t think survival or saving somebody’s life is a criminal act under any circumstance.

We have two daughters, two son in laws and ten grand children. I have in the past taught them about firearms and will continue to do so well into the future. The same as we teach our kids to swim, ride bikes, and to drive a car.

The little P president and his ignorant minions can go HELL.

    Valerie in reply to Rick2guns. | December 11, 2015 at 10:10 am

    I know people that don’t even bother to teach their children to swim, something I view as an easily acquired, lifelong, lifesaving skill.

    You can imagine their reaction to guns.

There used to be an attitude of self-reliance in America. The Left has been trying for the last century, with considerable success, to snuff it out. But it isn’t dead yet and maybe we can turn things around a bit and teach people to rely on themselves and their family, friends, church and neighbors rather than government. And yes, their firearms as well.

The founders really knew what they were doing. The First and Second Amendments are truly what makes America great. Let us make sure we hang on to them.

The real irony is that a man whose job it is to lie professionally is named “Earnest.”

    TX-rifraph in reply to Obie1. | December 11, 2015 at 11:30 am

    The “Josh” part comes first.

      Milwaukee in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 11, 2015 at 1:17 pm

      Naturally. “I’m just kidding.” and “I’m just joshing you.” are almost synonymous. So “Josh Earnest” is “I’m just kidding you, really.”

      I suppose this isn’t the place, with violent and separatist rhetoric being tossed about, to remind you. There was once a joke about the two maggots. They were fighting in dead sincerity. They were fighting in dead purposefulness. or something.

Leftists have always thought the correct response to Islamic terrorism is to disarm citizens, bring more Muslims into the country, change our ways to accommodate the demands of Islam, and clamp down on criticism of Islam.

In other words, leftists think the correct response to Islamic terror is to do exactly what the jihad (in its various forms) is intended to accomplish: to make us all “submit” to the dominance of Islam.

THAT is ironic and tragic.

And it doesn’t help when non-leftists, too, repeat the self-serving statements of Islamic apologists (“Only a tiny percentage of Muslims are violent! The rest of us are tolerant!”) — thereby helping lull us into complacency about the aggression at the very heart of Islam and the ongoing submission by our own so-called leaders.

    iowan2 in reply to Radegunda. | December 11, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    “only a tiny percentage are violent” I refuse to parse that, except to say we start with 1,600,000,000 when figuring the exact number of Muslims out to kill us. 2%? that’s a small percentage, right? = 32,000,000 souls out to kill us

    Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | December 11, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    I’ve been wondering who keeps popping in to down-vote my rational, informed comments about the reality of Islam — its core teachings, its bloody history, its ongoing jihad (by various means, of which terrorism is only one) to force the whole world to “submit,” its approval of deception to gull infidels, etc. But I’ve got my guesses.

    So, to the down-voter: Whitewashing Islam won’t change the facts about Islam’s core teachings and reprobate exemplar, or its aggressive historical trajectory, or today’s intensifying jihad, or the accelerating hijrah into Western nations, or the violence that Muslims have brought into formerly safe cities, or the OIC/UN project to criminalize criticism of Islam worldwide (i.e. to globalize the sharia code on “blasphemy”), or the naive and/or treacherous policy of Western governments to import more Muslims and submit to Islamic demands.

    These are all facts, and they’re not refuted by any Muslim propaganda document, or by anybody’s nice Muslim friend who says he hates the “radicals,” or by ignorant remarks to the effect that “Christians are just as violent.”

    Some of the most emphatic voices against Islam are people who grew up in Islamic societies, either as Muslims are as infidels among Muslims. Some of these people say that we’re naive about Islam; that we don’t understand how dangerous it is; that it really is based on hate; that ISIS is a perfect embodiment of pure Islam.

    Ignoring those voices and continuing to appease Islam is a way to promote what may turn out to be the worst catastrophe in the history of civilization.

      alaskabob in reply to Radegunda. | December 11, 2015 at 2:48 pm

      “Radical Islam” is really the portion of Islam that fails to follow the commands of the Koran and to follow the life practices of The Prophet (PBUH or else). Of course “peace” can mean many things as we found out in the Cold War and the delusional blindness of the Left to not parse the differences. There are only two houses..dar al salaam and dar al harb. One doesn’t have to read through the whole Koran to get its point. All one has to do is read the “last chapter” of it “revealed” in Medina to know the bottom line.

      Ragspierre in reply to Radegunda. | December 11, 2015 at 3:01 pm

      Maybe it’s people like me, who deplore your religious bigotry and preaching.

      People like Andy McCarty.

      Or people like Mark Steyn.

      Or even people like “Barry”.

      “I’m willing to bet I have more muslim friends than anyone commenting here, having traveled and worked in numerous muslim countries. My friends are all very peaceful and kind people. They are also a minority, and will tell you exactly that.”

        randian in reply to Ragspierre. | December 11, 2015 at 3:08 pm

        Since the Quran commands Muslims to lie to infidels, and commands Muslims to show friendship to infidels outwardly but never inwardly (“We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them”) how can you tell they’re really peaceful?

        Do they give money to Islamic charities? Most of them are fronts for various terror groups including the Muslim Brotherhood. Money for Jihad is one of the explictly permitted purposes for Islamic “charity”.

        Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | December 11, 2015 at 8:53 pm

        Your haven’t refuted a single thing I wrote. Shouting “bigot!” and saying you know some nice Muslims doesn’t do it. I’ve known nice Muslims too.

        A nice, tolerant Muslim is someone who doesn’t take Islam very seriously, as some former Muslims have pointed out.

        A nice, tolerant person cannot take seriously the idea that a warrior named Muhammad was “the perfect man” and example for all — because he launched many wars of conquest; took many sex slaves; ordered people to be killed for ridiculing him; participated in beheading people who would not submit to his claim to prophethood.

        You can call it “bigotry” to say that isn’t a great example to follow. I call it moral clarity.

        If you can find Muslims who say that Muhammad was not a perfect man — and therefore it should be okay to criticize him — they would overwhelmingly be considered “blasphemers” and “apostates.” And Islam commands that apostates and blasphemers must be killed.

        Andrew McCarthy understands that Islamic terrorism derives directly from the Islamic “holy” books and Islamic law. Islamic doctrine dwells obsessively on hatred of “infidels.” It commands Muslims to participate in compelling “infidels” everywhere to “submit.”

        I have said before that many people born into Islam may have a conscience and try to be decent people. But that doesn’t negate the plain facts of what Islam teaches, or what Islamic conquests have done to one society after another over the centuries.

        In Western societies, Muslims may appear to fit in fine when their numbers are small, but as they become more numerous, they apply more pressure on the rest of us to change our ways. They have taken over whole neighbors or suburbs as effectively Islamic territory, and have harassed non-Muslims into leaving.

        Shouting “Bigot!” won’t change the observable facts — such as Muslims marching on the streets of London with placards saying “Behead those who insult the prophet” or “Islam will rule the world.”

        Shouting “Bigot!” won’t change the agenda of the Islamic pressure groups that are busy working to spread a totalitarian Islamic dominance over every society on earth.

        But I’m sure it makes you feel superior.

        Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | December 11, 2015 at 9:08 pm

        Before 9/11, I had at worst a neutral view of Islam — despite the Islamic terror attacks that had already occurred, and despite my awareness of a long history of Islamic conquest and centuries of harassment of Europe’s frontiers.

        After 9/11, I starting educating myself about Islamic doctrine and practice. My emphatically negative view of Islam today is based on KNOWLEDGE, not bigotry. And it doesn’t mean I hate everyone who happened to be born into Islam.

        (BTW: Mark Steyn has warned about the ongoing demographic conquest of Western societies by Muslims with a hostile ideology.)

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 11, 2015 at 11:38 am

According to a government study produced by an arm of the DOJ, in the year 1997 only 0.7% of the convicts sitting in state prisons who used a gun in the commission of their crime bought the firearm at a gun show. In 1991, it was roughly the same, at 0.6%. See Table 8 in this link:

So Obama wants to give a sop to his far left, anti-gun, base by issuing an executive order to fix what is not, in reality, much of a problem. But it has a lot of ideological and emotional appeal to anti-gun kooks.

This is his idea of “governing”.

    But…but..”if even one life is saved….”

    I once asked a sincere gun control advocate,”if it were found that all drive by shootings occurred in Chevrolet Camaros…..if we banned Chevrolets would the drive by shootings end.” She said “yes”.

      MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to alaskabob. | December 11, 2015 at 1:11 pm

      I know you are joking about the “but if even one life is saved” thing, but it needs to be said that since 99% of the guns used in crimes are not bought at gun shows, the criminals have lots of alternative sources for guns. It is unlikely any life will be saved by the EO. The criminals who want a gun and can’t get one at a gun show will steal one, buy one legally, but one illegally on the street, or whatever. The practical effect of the EO is that it will restrict the liberty of law abiding people and have no effect on people who use guns to commit crimes.

        I should have (sarc)’ed my first statement, but everyone reading this knows that tired expression is overused if not irrelevant.

        There are not any “loop holes” as the gun control crowd claims.

        There is, however, the black market. Oh… can’t buy a semi-auto at the sporting goods store… how about this real AK-47 instead for less money and untraceable? Need some grenades or an RPG… step right up. The cartels would pick up the slack with heavier weapons just like organized crime has done with booze and drugs.

        Being in medicine, I have said that, “liberty like good health, once lost, is hard to regain.

    a) Who would be required to obey his executive order?
    b) It is not a law or regulation, so how could a citizen be charged with a crime?
    c) Would an EO be enforced through a court order of some type?
    d) Would the IRS enforce the royal decree?

      Milhouse in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 11, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      Executive orders are not laws. They are instructions from the president to his employees. Only federal employees are required to obey them, and failing to obey them is not a criminal offense. They cannot be enforced through court orders or the IRS.

      The linked article on which you appear to be commenting doesn’t say what this hypothetical executive order would do, so it’s impossible to answer your question on how it would be enforced. But pretty much the only thing it could possibly do is to instruct federal employees to use their existing powers in a more restrictive way, that when they have discretion to approve or reject an application they should always reject it, or something along those lines. 0bama simply can’t change existing law by executive order. That isn’t in his power.

        mariner in reply to Milhouse. | December 11, 2015 at 2:11 pm

        0bama simply can’t change existing law by executive order. That isn’t in his power.

        He can, for example, order regulators to pressure banks to close accounts of people who lawfully buy and sell firearms and ammunition.

        At that point, what difference does it make that he hasn’t changed the law?

          Milhouse in reply to mariner. | December 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm

          He can only do that until people notice and start pressuring the banks in the opposite direction. Note that the regulators can’t order the banks to close the accounts.

      This is exactly where Obama got his butt in a sling on the executive orders for the DREAMers
      First. Executive order is lie perpetuated by the media, Obama just sends a memo to the Dept in charge, to write the new rules and regulations. A power congress has ceded to the bureaucracy.
      The problem develops because, while the agency can write the new regulations, the law requires submitting the regulation and then taking comments for several months before they can be enacted. Obama’s minions have been ignoring the waiting period and the public comment period.

        Milhouse in reply to iowan2. | December 11, 2015 at 2:34 pm

        This is very different from the DREAM situation. In that case he ordered his employees not to take action. He can do that. But he can’t order them to take actions that aren’t in their legal authority.

          Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | December 11, 2015 at 5:17 pm

          Yes and no. The attempt to make the families of the “dreamers” non-removable ran afoul of the APA in the 5th Circuit. The Administration tried to implement it through essentially mandatory prosecutorial discretion mandated from the top. Which, of course, is ludicrous – how can it depend on discretion, when it is accomplished by removing discretion from those who usually utilize it? In any case, the 5th Circuit has maintained the injunction against this (nationally), and the Administration has petitioned for Cert. They claim essentially that it is nothing more than an executive action. The appeals court didn’t buy that, and faulted them for not bothering to go through the APA required notice and comment.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 14, 2015 at 2:44 am

          If the administration were simply refusing to remove them, the lawsuit would probably have been dismissed. What makes it viable is that the administration is issuing them with cards documenting that it has no intention of removing them, and telling everyone to treat these cards as evidence of legality. A decision not to enforce the law doesn’t change the law. When Whitey Bulger had the FBI’s permission to kill people with impunity, that didn’t make his murders lawful; it merely made them safe. Similarly, a person isn’t legally here just because he is in no danger of being deported.

In a progressive society, faced with the decision to be a victor in confrontation using a gun versus being a victim to show solidarity with pacifism, the Left wishes you to go to the ultimate safe space…a cemetery.

Their mantra…” Through individual weakness we have community safety, through individual helplessness we have community security.”

“After a spate of house fires, ironically sales of fire extinguishers and smoke alarms are surging.” Sorry, not seeing the irony.

Increased gun sales are a responsible response to the current reality. The gov promises to keep everyone safe. The public is now waking up to the fact that keeping us safe has to fall on our shoulders. The gov can’t possibly keep us all safe from everything and it shouldn’t try to convince anyone that it can. Further, this administration has deemed us all expendable while it panders to foreign invaders. In essence, we have all been living under a false sense of security and have allowed tyranny to control us.

Bought stock in Sturm Ruger earlier this week…thanks Obama!

“Note that the regulators can’t order the banks to close the accounts.”

They don’t have to. They just have to threaten their banking license if they don’t.

First, self-defense is a moral right, and it is still a legal right.

The fine art of risk management, nuances of human rights, and principles that are internally, externally, and mutually consistent eludes Mr. Pro-choice in Chief et al.

“the more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns, and that is both ironic and tragic”

Sales are up because people have no faith in Obama’s counter-terror policies. And I’m being generous in assuming he even has one.

[and why does this site only allow me to do partial cut n pastes? I had to go back and copy 4 segments of that quote just (4 times)just to replicate it here, very very annoying]

    gulfbreeze in reply to Fen. | December 13, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    Apparently it’s not this site that’s doing it. I’m able to cut/paste unlimited amounts of text within articles/posts/replies. I can even cut/past multiple posts/replies. In short, I can cut/past the entire page or any part of it. Check your operating system or versions of it (running Windows 8 on desktop/phone platforms here).

Before you get too panicked here, keep in mind that the Administration has limited room to interpret the appropriate statutes, because they were written fairly tightly (see 18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 – FIREARMS, and in particular, 18 U.S. Code § 921 – Definitions). So, for example, they can’t just announce one day background checks for any transfer, including loaning guns for a short period of time, because the instant background checks only apply to “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer” (18 U.S. Code § 922(t), also see 18 U.S. Code § 921 – Definitions).

Before 9/11, I had at worst a neutral view of Islam — despite the Islamic terror attacks that had already occurred, and despite my awareness of a long history of Islamic conquest and centuries of harassment of Europe’s frontiers.

After 9/11, I starting educating myself about Islamic doctrine and practice. My emphatically negative view of Islam today is based on KNOWLEDGE, not bigotry. And it doesn’t mean I hate everyone who happened to be born into Islam.

This shows how ignorant they are. You already CANNOT buy gun online. Not directly, you can order and pay for a gun online but it must be shipped to a federally Licensed Firearms dealer to make the transfer after the background check.

Actually, the probably do know this they are just lying to try to get unknowing people in the public riled up.

    gulfbreeze in reply to TeeJaw. | December 13, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    “You already CANNOT buy gun online. Not directly, you can order and pay for a gun online but it must be shipped to a federally Licensed Firearms dealer to make the transfer after the background check.”

    As a blanket statement, this is not correct, any more than as a blanket statement stating “it is legal to buy any gun online from anyone” would be correct.

    Given the host of federal/state/local regs concerning firearms sales, not limited to the firearms themselves, the sellers and buyers themselves…including their locations, applicable shippers, etc., one could say it is prudent/wise to ship a firearm to an FFL dealer to complete an online sale. And as such, many sellers and online firearm marketplaces mandate an FFL dealer-involved transaction.

    But to say it is impossible to conduct and structure any legal online sale of a firearm between “private sellers” (without FFL dealer involvement) is not correct.

    For proof, just Google the terms “proposal require firearm sales through ffl” (without quotes) and you’ll see many jurisdictions trying to mandate private firearms sellers/buyers (including online) to use FFL dealer-involved transactions. Such proposals prove that not all current private firearm transactions require FFL dealer involvement.

It isn’t irony, it is that more people are cashing their Reality Checks when it comes to Obama and his crew.

The irony is that if Obama left things alone, there wouldn’t have been so many sales of firearms.

But then, I’m guessing Obama, mastermind that he is, wants every citizen armed against invasion…an invasion he is enabling.
Yeah, that doesn’t make sense either.

Liberals…their hubris will eventually, I hope, be their undoing.

Side note:
Anyone know where I can get that 22MM ammo that CNN was posting about? Dang, .86 inches across! And of course, the firearm for that caliber.

Or was it .22MM? You know…as small as the point of a needle?