On Wednesday, the Toomey-Manchin background check amendment failed to garner the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate. A very angry President Barack Obama used a press conference as an opportunity to try to shame and belittle those who dared exercise their right to cast their vote according to their conscience, accusing them of willful lying in the name of fomenting false outrage and fear among Second Amendment supporters.

Because, apparently, conservatives are so stupid that they can’t realize the difference between legitimate threats to the Constitution and fearmongering by special interests. And no one but conservatives would misrepresent the truth in order to manipulate the emotions of voters, right Mr. President? Wrong. The reaction by Obama and his gun-control cronies was utterly filled with outright lies, hypocrisies and straw-man arguments. Let’s examine them:

Hypocrisy No. 1

The Senate somehow distorted the rules in the vote. Cloture is a process that is used all the time. Since 1975, all cloture votes require a three-fifths majority, or 60 votes, in order to pass. The vote was 54-46. It failed by six votes: end of story. No distortion, no manipulation. If the president is so concerned with violation of Senate voting rules, perhaps he should direct his attention towards the number of procedural laws broken by voting on a bill that hasn’t been written.

Hypocrisy No. 2

Ninety percent of Americans supported the legislation. The results of a public opinion poll should not be extrapolated and assumed to be indicative of the entire American voting public. This is so wholly fallacious it barely merits mentioning. Besides, as I recall, President Obama, at the time of passage of your health care bill, a majority of the American people — 75 percent — opposed it. I don’t remember you or your supporters stopping and voting with the American people. This is not a democracy; mob rule does not decide public policy.

Hypocrisy No. 3

After the vote, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned that opponents of gun control are “not powerful enough to withstand the money” he’s going to “throw” at their districts. Wait a minute, aren’t liberals opposed to Citizens United specifically because they don’t like the idea that wealthy private individuals could influence politics? The National Rifle Association — which has millions of dues-paying members — is nothing more than an evil cabal; but Bloomberg cares about people, so it’s okay for him to openly try and manipulate local politics. Oh, sorry. I forgot lobbying — otherwise known as speaking out for your interests — is only evil when right wingers do it.

Hypocrisy No. 4

The idea that “nothing but politics” influenced this vote, that no one who is opposed to gun control legislation has a rational, meaningful argument, is utterly offensive. How dare you try to put parameters around how I think? You who are always lecturing about how important diversity and acceptance is. This is not a monarchy, and dissidence is not treason. Differing opinions, by merit of being different from the majority party’s, ought not be demonized. The presidency is not a bully pulpit.

Besides, several other amendments — including one that would have expanded the criminal background check system, which was supported by the NRA and sponsored by Ted Cruz no less — failed to pass. Why is there no outrage over this or the other amendments that didn’t pass and had bipartisan support? Could it be because they don’t fit into the narrative where Republicans only care about special interests and not dead children? Or maybe it’s because that might expose the Obama administration’s failure to prosecute people who have broken the current gun laws?

This notion that some sweeping piece of legislation will be worth it if it saves “even one life” is inherently un-American. Emotionalism is not meant to be the basis of policy, hence the existence of the legislative process. Security is not guaranteed by the federal government. As Thomas Jefferson so wisely said, “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.”

Katherine Revello is a second-year journalism and political science student.