Bill Clinton Warns Against Going for Guns

page: 1
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+8 more 
posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”


He spent a good chunk of this 40 minute speech trying to convince the Dems to back off and that by making it an issue they jeopardize gaining grounds with any other issue such as immigration reform and economic reforms.


While some polls show that the public by-and-large supports several proposals for increased gun control, Clinton said that it’s not the public support that matters — it’s how strongly people feel about the issue.

“All these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues,” Clinton said.



And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress.
Clinton: Dont Trivilaize Gun Culture




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Did it devastate all the republican senators that voted for the Assault Weapon ban too?


Eight Democratic Senators voted NO against the AWB Amendment in 1993, and that NO vote included BOTH of Nevada's Democratic Senators - Reid and Bryan. Ten Republican Senators voted YES on the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Amendment in 1993 and attached it to the hugely popular Crime Bill that was passed into law in 1994 by a Senate vote of 95/4/1 that included 40 Republican Senators voting YES. This AWB ban terminated on September 13, 2004.


www.nodc.us...

edit on 22-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Passion for the 2nd amendment sets off an entire review of the constituition. A revival of patriotism much diffrent from the type of patriotism seen after 911.
edit on 22-1-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


I dont know. Every article or report just highlights the 54 D seats lost. I'll keep looking.

The first thing to ask is if those 40 R's were from places like CT, CA, NY. Because those R's would basically just be D's of a different color.
edit on 22-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


He said to back off? Without having the actual speech to confirm it sounds more like he said to be respectful when dealing with people in the gun culture. He also said


Clinton said that an National Rifle Association lobbyist threatened him over his veto in the state house, saying that the group would cause problems for his upcoming presidential campaign in rural states like Texas.
“Right there in the lobby,” Clinton said. “They thought they could talk to governors that way.

Read more: www.politico.com...


Earlier this month he said this on high-capacity magazines




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


I had to look up text for the video:


"Why does anybody need one of those things that carries 100 bullets? The guy in Colorado had one of those," continued Clinton, referring to a mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., last year. A gunman opened fire on a movie theater there with a military-style assault rifle and numerous high-capacity magazines, killing 12 and injuring 58 more. "Half of all mass killings in the U.S. occurred since the assault weapons ban expired."


That was January 9th

His speech in front of donors was January 19th.

Wouldnt be the first time a politician catered his message to the audience.

The question is why would he rant against magazines at the Consumer Electronics Show then tell a bunch of donors in front of the Obama National Finance Committee to back off?

Why would he be talking about any of this as CES? That doesnt make any sense.

Off the top of my head I'd guess it's that more people will watch CES clips. More of the public. While it's mostly insiders and rich folk that would be attending the latter event.

So push one agenda to the public and another to the people who write your checks.
edit on 22-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Hes a politician, if he said water was wet Id start looking up definitions of wet and who was making money from the public knowing it.

These people dont speak from the heart or even the mind, its either who is paying or who is listening that dictates what they say.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Well, he is correct! The mouth-breathing dolts who vote for this will have shortened careers! Sensible gun control is one thing - like simply enforcing existing laws! But what is being pushed now is unacceptable to a MAJORITY of Americans. The polls will show in 2014 just how unpopular this initiative is.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Bill is a savvy politician. If any politician knows what you can and cannot do and still keep your job it’s this man ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Ms Lewinski!"
).

Dems take heed!! If Bill says it won’t fly then you KNOW you’re in trouble!!



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Terms and Conditions of Use:


15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.
edit on 22/1/13 by JAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Hes a politician, if he said water was wet Id start looking up definitions of wet and who was making money from the public knowing it.

But you'd be alright with his stance if he was anti gun or for banning "guns" (firearms), huh?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Hes a politician, if he said water was wet Id start looking up definitions of wet and who was making money from the public knowing it.

But you'd be alright with his stance if he was anti gun or for banning "guns" (firearms), huh?





Clinton is still for a ban on "assault weapons" but since he knows the gun culture he has a more nuanced view on the issue.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Clinton is still for a ban on "assault weapons" but since he knows the gun culture he has a more nuanced view on the issue.

Oh, i agree. Clinton is much more realistic in his views about that. I was addressing a reply to the poster about their stance on "gun control".



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Hes a politician, if he said water was wet Id start looking up definitions of wet and who was making money from the public knowing it.

But you'd be alright with his stance if he was anti gun or for banning "guns" (firearms), huh?


LMAO

Nope, the exact same thing would apply.
If he gives a speech about gun banning my guess would be the audience were SH parents or similar.

You may agree with what politicians say but its always a safe bet to assume they are not saying what they actually believe



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
You guys are re arranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic.....
The gauntlet has een well an truely thrown at your feet.....
There will be NO respite in the push for tighter and more regulations governing firearms .....
Evntual bans are comming, there is no IF but only WHEN......
The way things stack up, the goverment will have its way using psywar and coersion.....
Dividing the people against each other, then forcing a compromse solution on both sides.....
The goverment has been usurped by madmen who will stop at nothing.....



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


That is true. In USA that? Nuts.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
You guys are re arranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic.....
The gauntlet has een well an truely thrown at your feet.....
There will be NO respite in the push for tighter and more regulations governing firearms .....
Evntual bans are comming, there is no IF but only WHEN......
The way things stack up, the goverment will have its way using psywar and coersion.....
Dividing the people against each other, then forcing a compromse solution on both sides.....
The goverment has been usurped by madmen who will stop at nothing.....


There's been madmen tossing gauntlets at our feet all along for a couple hundred years or more now. So far so good...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 

“Right there in the lobby,” Clinton said. “They thought they could talk to governors that way.


'Thought' ???, Mr. Clinton?

No, they did talk to governors that way.

That is the way of freedom. Like it or not... Mr. Clinton.

edit on 22-1-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yep Clinton remembers what happened after the last assault rifle ban, they won that battle and lost in the next election big time.

It set the Dems back years.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Originally posted by stirling
You guys are re arranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic.....
The government has been usurped by madmen who will stop at nothing.....

The people are in a complete mind control induced stupor...

They STILL can't see beyond the fact that everything they are being told is a lie.

Your post only having one star while others have 5 or 6 is a sad indicator that this is in fact true.

History repeats itself, history is a LIE.






top topics



 
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join