Interesting if true


November 3, 2007, 11:27 PM
BELLEVUE, WA – A report in Thursday’s edition of The Hill suggests that Hillary Clinton supporters have little or no understanding of either the First or Second Amendments, after a Clinton backer reportedly said in a conference call that NBC’s Tim Russert “should be shot” for asking tough questions, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Reporter Sam Youngman noted that the woman who made the suggestion quickly acknowledged that she “shouldn’t say that on a conference call.” This conference call was in reaction to Clinton’s bungled performance Tuesday evening in a Democrat candidates’ debate.

“Incredible,” observed SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “This unidentified supporter of candidate Clinton – whose extreme anti-gun record is well known – would misuse a firearm to silence a journalist, simply because he did his job and put a politician on the spot with her own words. What a remarkable comment to come from the mouth of someone who is most likely an ardent supporter of restrictive gun laws.

“The most telling thing about Youngman’s revelation,” he added, “is that the woman didn’t immediately withdraw the suggestion, she merely admitted that she shouldn’t be talking about murdering Mr. Russert in a public forum. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton’s attitudes about private firearms ownership are based on her knowledge of her own supporters, at least one of whom probably should never be allowed near a firearm, especially if she is anywhere near Tim Russert!

“Frankly,” Gottlieb said, “we are more disappointed than surprised at this remark, because it has long been a trademark of the so-called ‘progressive Left’ that it not only is intolerant of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, it has zero tolerance for opinions and news with which it disagrees. And these are the people supporting Hillary Clinton.

“Candidates for high public office, and especially the presidency, will occasionally stumble,” Gottlieb said. “Ultimately, they will stand or fall on their own words and beliefs, and whether their supporters like it or not, it is the duty of journalists like Tim Russert to bring out the best, and sometimes the worst, from a politician. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. He should get a medal for that, not a bullet.”


< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >
Copyright 2007 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959


One wonders as to the ladies position on GUN CONTROL

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting if true" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
November 3, 2007, 11:43 PM
I don't think this is a big deal. In fact I think the SAF writing a story about it is about as stupid as the stuff that comes out of the Brady Campaign (maybe not as bad, but it's pretty stupid).

A stupid comment was made by somebody who was acting brainless. I don't for a second believe that the guy really intends to have anybody shot... and the reason that nobody said anything other than, "You shouldn't say that on a conference call" is that it was obviously understood to not be taken seriously.

It was a poor choice of words, and an unwise thing to say at all - but to take it so literally and seriously is quite frankly - stupid.

Some people just say stupid things without meaning them, and I firmly believe that was the case here.

For the record, I despise Clinton - but let's not go down this road.

November 4, 2007, 12:14 AM
I think the comment was based on the idea that traitors are traditionally punished severely (e.g. firing squad). As an MSM flunkie, Russet was supposed to shill for Hillary. To the extent that he embarassed her, a Hillary operative would regard him as a traitor.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting if true" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!