Bill Clinton comment on VT and gun control

[stormspotter]

Bill Clinton comment

He's just pandering for support for Hellary. If they get in again it will be an attack from all sides.

 

[robvious]

yes, it was a mental health problem. Now the gun grabbers will just declare
anyone who owns a firearm as crazy.....simple, clean and doesn't touch the
second amendment at all.....it is just a health issue.....scary thought.

 

[otasan]

Really

I'm no Bill Clinton fan, but I have to admit that my opinion of him went up a little bit tonight. He was just on the Larry King show. Larry asked him a straight question and Bill gave a straight answer (something ol' Bill's not always been known to do).

Larry asked if the VT tragedy indicated a need for stricter gun control laws. Without hesitation, Bill said no, the VT tragedy was a mental health failure and not a gun control failure. He stated that he favors a 3 day waiting period, but promptly acknowledge it would have made no difference in the VT shooting. No mention of high-cap mags or gun bans at all.

It was about the closest thing to a common-sense statement on a gun issue I've heard from a liberal in a long time.

Read R. Emmett Tyrrell's Clinton Crack-up before giving Bubba OR Bruno any credibility.

 

[Augustus]

He is a convicted perjurer! Do you really believe anything he says?

 

[jfh]

Actually, I have a prediction here--

and that is we are now starting to see the shape of the forthcoming 'national debate' that will come out of this incident in our politics.

What we will be treated to now is a vigorous debate on the mental health 'restrictions' that should be implemented for common-sense gun control.

There are plenty of preceding comments here identifying the political nature of how the Democrats will use this tragedy. Generally, I think those observations are correct--the more restrictions / more laws game for guns won't play anymore, and Democrats can probably win in '08 if they don't shoot themselves in the foot (otherwise known as playing to the center.)

It's a perfect debate for Republicans / conservatives, too--because, after seven years of neocon-big governmentism from GWB & group, they can play to the individual liberties game. There's an awful lot of Republicans who are afraid of the impact of their brand of conservatism on the public perception over the last eight-ten years, and they need a way to play a hot topic to differentiate themselves as 'conservatives' again.

In this version, the Dems get to offer funds (source unknown) to the States, etc., to be able to update their MH databases and get it over into NICS. The Repubs get to thunder about privacy and cost, and sound much more conservative than GWB and crowd. In the end, after polling shows the way, a bill is passed to give more funds to the States for database updating, and everyone can take credit.

It's a win-win for both sides--activate the bases, sway the middle, and get money to stay in office. Doesn't matter who wins.

 

[joab]

Prolly double talk again. Remember, this is the guy that tried to "get the camel's nose under the tent" for a sweeping gun ban starting with the '94 AWB.

But we have to look at the bigger picture

With this comment from Bill and Kerry's comment it should be obvious that we are making our point
Gun control costs elections
If we don't let our guard down we have the upper hand and can now start pushing to end these ineffective laws that have cost lives and very well may have cost the lives of some of the students at VT.

It took Luby's to get CCW passed in Texas, how many more people will have to die before we are allowed to protect ourselves

 

[bogie]

I think that one of the things that needs to get hammered right now is nationwide CCW for sworn law enforcement (yeah, it'd be nice for everyone, but let's fight one little battle at a time, okay?).

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I think that one of the things that needs to get hammered right now is nationwide CCW for sworn law enforcement (yeah, it'd be nice for everyone, but let's fight one little battle at a time, okay?).

Didn't "we" already get that?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Years ago James Wright and Peter Rossi (Chapter 11 in Under the
Gun (Aldine, 1983)) did a detailed analysis of two polls, one for
NRA by Decision Marketing and one for HCI by Caddel Research
(I am quoting from memory here). Wright who had specialized in
demographics research showed that the reporting was slanted:
that the actual unbiased analysis of the poll questions--allowing
for leading questions--proved that the actual position of 80%
of the respondents was two fold:
1) Most believed in a right to own a gun for all lawful uses.
2) Most supported regulation to prevent criminals or the unfit
from legally acquiring guns.
3) Most were opposed to bans or undue restrictions on the lawabinding.

Perhaps we have seen a realization that more restrictions on guns
are not the answer to the problem and are not suppported by
most people.

 

[Joe Demko]

It doesn't matter whether Bill Clinton personally really believed what he said. What matters is that he, and Giuliani and many other antis, have been beaten down sufficiently that they actually find it necessary to make statements like this.

Remember: They don't have to believe the way we want them to; they only have to vote the way we want them to.

 

[Autolycus]

I think that one of the things that needs to get hammered right now is nationwide CCW for sworn law enforcement (yeah, it'd be nice for everyone, but let's fight one little battle at a time, okay?).

Why not just fight for national CCW reciprocity and shall issue in all states instead? Why give a priviledge to one group of people? There is a bill in Congress that would grant national reciprocity but nobody wants to support it.

And Derek Zeanah is correct, we did do that. Its called HR 218 or LEOSA.

 

[baz]

For all of those seeing the dark side in Clinton's comment, I find it a good sign that Democrats are running scared on this issue, and that only the nutjobs like McCarthy and the Brady Bunch are willing to use this event as a call for more gun control. Sure, I wouldn't trust Bill any further than I can throw him (how's he doing on his diet these days?), and the same remark out of Hillary's mouth wouldn't make me trust her either, and definitely wouldn't cause me to vote for her, but the fact that most dems are afraid to use this tragedy publicly to further their statist agenda shows that momentum is on our side right now.

Having said that, and having personally worked with BC in a former lifetime, I would be inclined to think that BC was sincere in making that remark. I rarely ever questioned his sincerity. His problem was that one could never be sure what he was going to be sincere about from day to day.

 

[30 cal slob]

Cigars, anyone?

 

[deltacharlie]

Don't believe the forked-tongue

As soon as "stricter mental health laws" are enacted, one of the criteria for declaring someone insane will be "Do you want to own a gun"
Answer yes and you will be carted off.

An extreme example but they (the left) know that a blatant assault on the 2A isn't working. They are looking for other avenues to persue, stringent EPA standards, social engineering, higher taxes on imports, higher taxes/prices on raw materials (lead, copper), raise the price of an FFL to an insane level and (now) more narrowly defining good mental health.

This is a war of attrition and those of us who love freedom are beset on all sides.

 

[lance22]

His remarks reflect on Hillary

Hillary is running for Prez. What he says is a reflection upohn her.

If the Hillary/Obama (prez/vice prez) ticket gets voted in, they will change their true colors will once again fly.

 

[bogie]

Actually, the democratic party is realizing that a portion of their platform equals unelection...

And if we can CONSISTENTLY get them to shy away from it, so much the better. We just have to keep at it. Right now, they don't wanna touch it. Maybe in a year and a half, after Hillary gets in office, she won't want to touch it, because she'll be worried about re-election... May have to worry in her second term... Or maybe by then they'll have gotten so USED to avoiding the topic, or may have actually moved over to siding with self-defense.

Remember - the rabid antis are a relatively small number. Most folks who we see as antis are essentially fence-sitters who lean toward what they see as "safety," because of ignorance. A LOT of those folks just leaned toward self-preservation...

We need to keep at it.

 

[Clipper]

He's just under orders from the BOSS not to crap in her voter pool...

 

[Young gun]

Maybe it was a politically motivated answer to help his wife...

But maybe now that he is "out" of politics (if only in the sense he no longer campaigns for or holds an office) he doesn't have to pander to liberal democratic voters. Maybe THIS time he actually said what his common sense told him...

Which would still make him a lying gun grabber, who bans guns to win votes. All i'm saying is he's lied so much in the past who knows what he really thinks.

 

[MD_Willington]

I agree with young gun...

He's saying it to help his wife out...

 

[bogie]

And the fact that he _IS_ saying it means something. Something we cannot waste.

Guys, he may have been 90% against us, but let's USE the 10% that's for us...

 

[romma]

Just remember, if all these anti-gun go back on the words they speak now like former president Clinton, and John Kerry, they will eat crow with all the electronic media files out there. So if they want to get behind us now, we will have plenty of reference if they change their tune later...

 

[buzz_knox]

Didn't "we" already get that?

Well, "we" supported it and helped get it enacted. Immediately thereafter, "we" got shafted as the groups saying they would help get national CCW reform using the LEO reform as a starting point went silent or came out against CCW.

 

[buzz_knox]

Just remember, if all these anti-gun go back on the words they speak now like former president Clinton, and John Kerry, they will eat crow with all the electronic media files out there. So if they want to get behind us now, we will have plenty of reference if they change their tune later...

The same thing will happen there as happened with the Dems saying it was undisputed Iraq had WMDs. The "evidence" will be glossed over, ignored or spun to get the finger pointed away from the Dems and back at whichever group they are opposed to.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Well, "we" supported it and helped get it enacted. Immediately thereafter, "we" got shafted as the groups saying they would help get national CCW reform using the LEO reform as a starting point went silent or came out against CCW.

Well, some of "we" <ahem>, might have suggested that that's the way it would come down. They needed our help, but didja really think police chiefs in general support CCW? They're like mayors from what I can tell, rather than like cops.

 

[trailgator]

"I think he just wants to sleep in the White House again."

I think history will show that Bill isn't real picky about where he sleeps.