Instead of devising a plan to protect future school children from evil attackers, former President Barack Obama and his staff used the Sandy Hook school shooting to carry out a political agenda of disarming law abiding Americans. Staff emails uncovered by the Baltimore Post reveal that the Obama Administration strategically communicated to exploit the Sandy Hook tragedy to push for gun control just 48 hours after twenty children and six school personnel had been massacred.
The emails reveal a telling conversation between U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Chicago’s Mayor (former Chief of Staff for Obama) Rahm Emanuel. They were not about to let this tragedy go to waste. Forty-eight hours after the shooting, the two discussed how best to frame the shooting to push for gun control laws.
Rahm Emanuel had previously succeeded with gun control in the 1990s with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The law instilled a five-day waiting period before anyone could receive the firearm they purchased. The law also imposed federal background checks -- a mere surveillance measure that cannot realistically determine a person’s intention or stop someone from committing violence.
Neither measure provably stopped crime, but did add a false sense of security that the government was somehow curbing gun violence. Just a year later, the law led to the passage of the "Assault Weapons Ban," signed by former President Bill Clinton. The law targeted specific semi-automatic rifles, nicknaming them “assault weapons.” Even though assault is an action, politicians used the word to label specific firearms. The term "assault weapons" was insanely used to define a benign object, an object which requires human intention to operate. The gun ban eventually expired; since then, it has been a top priority for gun-illiterate politicians to re-instate the ban.
The email exchange, reported by the Baltimore Post, shows just how willing the Obama Administration was to exploit a tragedy to push their political agenda. It seems their intention is not to protect schoolchildren, but to exploit the death and sorrow of Americans to promote political ideologies that have no fundamental benefit for saving lives. Using tragedy is a twisted way to achieve political goals, but it was a ploy the Obama Administration used time and time again throughout his presidency.
Here's the content of the email messages, titled “CT shootings"
Duncan: “What are your thoughts?”Emanuel: “Go for a vote this week before it fades. Tap peoples’ emotion. Make it simple assault weapons.”
Duncan: “Yup- thanks.”
Emanuel: “When I did Brady bill and assault weapons for Clinton, we always made it simple. Criminals or war weapons.”
Duncan: “Gun show loophole? Database? Cop-killer bullets? Too complicated?”
Emanuel: “Cop killer maybe. The other no.”
Duncan: “Got it.”
Politicians' manipulative gun-grabbing ploys are putting children's lives in danger
An “assault weapons” ban will not stop the intentions of another killer, who, determined and unchallenged, could go through with his plot anyway, potentially choosing a shotgun, revolver, knife, or even an illegal “assault weapon” he managed to steal. Banning specific guns will never save lives or prevent atrocities such as school shootings because these places are defenseless. It's time to defend these vulnerable places and quit advertising to criminals that they are gun free zones. It’s the human heart, the thoughts of the psyche, and the disturbances within a person that lead to violent intention. This is where society could better address the problem.
Gun-blaming politicians can get in front of the camera all they want, finding ways to emotionally manipulate innocent people into giving away their personal protection, but these political plays have placed -- and will continue to place -- children’s lives in danger. Evil must be met head on, with the threat of force, the threat of deadly accountability. We should make those with evil intentions second guess themselves. Just as politicians are protected by armed men and women, so should schoolchildren be protected, for they are the future.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.