For those that say that President Joe Biden’s regime isn’t coming for your guns, I have a bridge to sell you. If only incrementally, the Biden regime looks to be absolutely coming for your guns — in clear violation of the Constitution — based on false narratives set up by leftist politicians and their propaganda arm, the elitist media.
In case you missed it, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a reporter asking whether Biden will be issuing any executive orders on gun control.
Psaki got straight to the point.
“Yes,” Psaki said, which was the only word in her reply.
Only when the reporter asked about a timeline as to when the president might be signing those edicts did Psaki expand in the only way Psaki knows how to — vaguely.
“I can’t give you an exact timeframe, in part because I have to go through a review process,” Psaki said.
Here's a video tweet of Psaki's abbreviated response:
“I will note that when the president was the vice-president in the Obama-Biden administration, he helped put in place 23 executive actions to combat gun violence," Psaki continued, as reported by The Blaze. "It's one of the levers that we can use, that any federal government, any President can use to help address the prevalence of gun violence and address community safety around the country.”
Maybe Psaki shouldn’t be so quick to tout the “successes” of the Obama administration's gun control measures and instead focus on the results of the previous assault weapons ban that the president himself spoke about last week.
“We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again,” Biden asserted, according to Politico. “I got that done when I was a senator. It passed. It was the law for the longest time. And it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again.”
Ironically, The Washington Post (WaPo) gave a claim from former President Bill Clinton claiming that “there was a big drop in mass shooting deaths” during the previous "assault weapons" ban “Two Pinocchios” on their fact-check scale, meaning that there were “significant omissions and/or exaggerations” along with “some factual error” involved.
The DiMaggio study cited by Clinton’s spokesman appears to be missing many cases and mislabeled some weapons. Clinton’s case appears to become stronger when high-fatality (six or more) shooting incidents are studied, such as by Klarevas, compared with the more common four deaths or more. Duwe’s research, which adjusts for population and also looks at five-year moving averages, suggests only a slight dip during the ban.
It’s surprising that WaPo actually noted “the more common” metric of a mass shooting counting when there’s “four or more” deaths. Clinton used that more specific metric of six or more deaths so that the number would favor their narrative.
One thing that doesn’t work in Biden’s or Clinton’s favor is that the actual numbers never lie.