Clinton on gun control:

1. 93

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   He warns that Deomcrats will lose if they stand with Obama on gun control measures. Do Bill's remarks surprise you?
   
   "Clinton closed his remarks with a warning to big Democratic donors that ultimately many Democratic lawmakers will be defeated if they choose to stand with the president."
   
   http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/b … 86443.html

   replyreport
2. 59

   Waldo Numblyposted 11 years ago

   Clinton is a realist.  The issue of gun control may be more passionate than even abortion; many view gun ownership as a symbol of safety and independence, ergo, a symbol of the American experiment itself.  Clinton knows that an incremental approach is much more palatable than broad-sweeping, knee-jerk reaction type policies.  Obama will soon be a lame duck, but his comrades in congress need to get re-elected.

   replyreport
3. 96

   wildernessposted 11 years ago

   Although I disagree with gun control in general (while accepting that it is good and necessary in specific areas) I find it interesting that an ex president finds the political strength of his party more important than the lives of the people.
   
   That's sad, just as the comment from Waldo that the proper method for gun control is to take rights little by little, to work on it for years by demanding a little more "compromise" each year rather than reaching an acceptable compromise and letting go of it.  It's the way of our politics now, but still very sad.
   
   I know I'm hijacking the thread somewhat, habee, but our political structure and leaders are in such need of change!

   replyreport
4. 69

   Teddletonmrposted 11 years ago

   habee, it just seems to me.
   The whole gun control issue is boring; the problem is not with the tool, rather the fool that uses the thing. Until the powers that be, get off the political correct kick of demonizing gun owners in the U.S. and find reason to help disturbed people that strike out against a society in a violent way. Things will not change.
   Folks that are hell bend on terrorizing a society will find a way, fly a plane into a building, park a truck full of explosives inside a building, or poison the communal cool aid.

   replyreport
5. 61

   tammybarnetteposted 11 years ago

   Habee, After reading the article I understood that Clinton wasn't telling him to back down only to recognize the passion of a different generation, his, towards gun ownership. In essence, he is warning that this is something that needs awareness, and as we have seen here, so many believe that this is the beginning of a government take over, a way of slowly taking away rights, etc. When Obama spoke he reminded many of the letter Reagan sent to congress in 1994, asking them to bam assault military weapons. I believe the media has incited a riot in the conservative half of this country and that we the people as well as the career politicians have no idea how to see an idea without reading something cynical, even conspiratorial, into the language.

   replyreport
6. 93

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   I think Clinton is more of a pragmatist, while Obama is more of an idealist. Also, as Clinton stated, he understands the gun culture better because of his years in Arkansas.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      tammybarnetteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree Clinton is a pragmatist, not sure that I see Obama is an idealists, only more caring towards humankind as opposed to popularity or political correctness. I believe Obama would like to truly "fix" what is "fixable" rather than maitain status quo...

      replyreport
      1. 54

         whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         He could start with unemployment, it seems to be the exact same as when he took office.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            tammybarnetteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            http://www.bls.gov/
            7.8%...Seems we are climbing out of this depression, slowly but surely

            replyreport
         2. 61

            tammybarnetteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            http://money.cnn.com/data/us_markets/
            Dow, S&P 500, close at 5 yr high...recovery?

            replyreport
7. 45

   Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago

   I think that as long as people refuse to sit down and learn what an assault weapon is we will ever get away from what Clinton projects.
   As long a people think that assault weapons are somehow guaranteed and are just like other firearms we will not make progress.
   The most clear term for such weapons is "bullet hoses". It is descriptive. Nobody argues of their right to a nuclear weapon or poison gas, or private ownership of a fighter plane with weaponry. People have to get their minds wrapped around the fact that an assault weapon is indeed in the same category, it indiscriminately takes lives, the gun itself does and the person operating it cannot control each projectile with the proper precision. It is actually a small weapon of mass destruction in the private sector. (of course it has a proper purpose in the hands of military -- which is to lay a barrage during a tactical assault) And by the way I do not want tanks in every driveway either.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You don't know what an assault weapon is obviously, and no the gun does not kill indiscriminately.

      replyreport
      1. 45

         Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Read my hubs on assault weapons you will learn that I know exactly what I am talking about. An expert trained and experienced with such a weapon in live action may be able to control the weapon properly. The normal marksman cannot control the directionality of fire well enough to be discriminate. That weapon is not designed for that use. So the weapon itself is a problem, not just the wingnut who fires one.

         replyreport
8. 61

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   I seriously doubt Clinton is correct. He's obviously having a senior moment! Most people are in favor of more extensive background checks and other items proposed by the POTUS. And to bail on an issue as important as this, just to get re-elected, marks a sad day for this great country!

   replyreport
9. 69

   Teddletonmrposted 11 years ago

   I believe it important for the anti-gun people to understand, the pro-gun thing, is not purely a conservative republican issue. Actually, there are just as many or more Democrats in the U.S that keep and bear arms.
   I believe that is the point Mr Clinton is trying to communicate. Guns are as much a part of the American culture, as is the republic. Attempting to devalue the rights of American’s, as many believe provided by the second amendment to our constitution weakens the common man’s ability to defend the republic for which it stands..

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      True. My liberal/Dem pals have guns, and they want to keep them.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      tammybarnetteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, I live in TN, lots of hunting and fishing activities here, as well as, just for plain protection. But, I do not own an assault weapon so I am not worried, my guns are safe

      replyreport
10. 69

    Teddletonmrposted 11 years ago

    Bullet hoses, really. Unless a person passes, the background check for a class three weapon required to own an automatic weapon.
    The typical over the counter purchase of a so-called assault rifle, requires the user pull the trigger for each round fired regardless of magazine capacity.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I quit responding when they prove my original statement.

       replyreport
    2. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That is not an assault weapon you speak of. It is just one step ahead of a childs mock up. It is a silly no account weapon for make believers and pretenders. If it is not fully automatic it is not an assault weapon.

       replyreport
    3. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Buddy, what do you call a projectile dispellation with no clear guidance as to the recipient? Assault weapons can produce 30 rounds of single deadly projectile in about 45 seconds. Do you think that has a societal purpose. Or is it just cool like some movie, so I damn well have a right because Rambo does.  You folks are spewing not thinking.

       replyreport
11. 60

    SpanStarposted 11 years ago

    I have a lot of respect for Mister Bill Clinton however I do not agree that not discounting pro-gun supporters is the real issue.
    
    I have often read some people talking about gun violence especially in America as if it is a new thing. Unfortunately we Americans have been sitting on our hands while American citizens are constantly being murdered continuously by guns-(I said by Guns-not by human thoughts, not by some unknown to known phenomenon, but by the fact that one has picked that gun up and used it.)
    
    When any society places principles, practices, procedures before the lives of others than that has become a sick society. The American Constitution states "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union" we cannot form a more perfect union if people's lives in fear of their life because there are those among us who enjoy playing with guns. We cannot form a more perfect union if the children we demand go to school lives are threatened by guns. A union generally means I don't get to do everything I'd like to do, it means I have to make some sacrifices for the whole.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Not in this case, Union has entirely different meaning.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       Waldo Numblyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       How would the founding fathers respond to the concept of punishing the masses for the actions of a minute demographic?  A handful of video-gaming druggies, who were raised in a vacuum of television and computer screens, neglected by parents, are flipping out and performing intermittent copy-cat mass shootings.  These little freaks are driving the policy of an entire nation.  Do we really want this paradigm to thrive?  With or without guns, they will find a way of hurting themselves and others.  Change the paradigm.  Change the culture of parental neglect.

       replyreport
12. 89

    GA Andersonposted 11 years ago

    Here ya go Habee, let me see if I can trim the sails and work the rudder to help get your thread back on track.
    
    The issue is not the details of gun control, or even the pros or cons. The issue at hand is the emotional strength of gun control as an issue
    
    With regards to being a "moral man," (is that an oxymoron?) - I have some serious issues with Clinton. To me, he seems to view rules and ethics as conveniences. But... as a very smart politician, that does understand and empathize with the average citizen, and really does have the best interest of our nation at heart - I give him high marks.
    
    So, to your point. I think he is right. I think he is very aware that most of today's politicians are very out of touch with the "Average Joe, (or Jane)" American citizen, and he is offering this warning to help his party.
    
    I think he understands that this issue is so basic that "ram-through" tactics, such as those to pass Obamacare, will backfire and hurt the Democrat party - his party.
    
    
    GA

    replyreport