On April 20 David Axelrod praised country singer Tim McGraw’s commitment to play a gun control fundraiser for Sandy Hook Promise on July 17.
Axelrod is a former senior adviser to President Obama and the current director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago.
On April 14 Breitbart News reported that Tim McGraw and Billy Currington would be headlining the gun control fundraiser. Currington withdrew from the event two days later, but McGraw and new country artist Chase Bryant remain committed to playing it.
On April 20 Axelrod tweeted support for McGraw:
Gutsy move by Tim McGraw to stand up for Sandy Hook Promise. Is it really inconsistent to own guns AND advocate for steps to protect kids?
Notice–Axelrod’s question contains the assertion that gun control protect kids. This assertion is demonstrably false.
For example, the centerpiece of Sandy Hook Promise’s gun control push is expanded background checks at the federal and state level. Yet no less a gun control proponent than Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV)–the poster-child for gun control at the federal level–admits that expanded background checks would not have stopped the Sandy Hook attack from taking place. This is because Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, stole his guns, not purchase them.
So expanded background checks would not have protected the children in Sandy Hook Elementary, and they will not “protect kids” in future gun-free settings.
Armed teachers and staff could protect kids at schools, but Sandy Hook Promise opposed arming teachers and staff for self-defense when a law to do that was being considered in Georgia in 2014.
So, the answer to Axelrod’s question is “yes”: Yes, it is inconsistent to boast of owning guns the way McGraw does then turn around play a gun control fundraiser that will do nothing to prevent the next Adam Lanza from getting his guns, but which will certainly make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get theirs.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com.