Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama Hammers McCain on Lobbyists; McCain Fires Back on Ayers
- Obama's Big Cross Kentucky Flier
- Good Morning, 'Sweeties'
- The McCain Lobby Dance
- Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?
- McCain: 'We Are Going to Have to Deal With' Hamas
- Stories From the Near Future
- Welcome to the Show
- Women Threaten Obama Boycott
- Tale (of) the Pin on the Donkey
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Bill: Hillary = RFK, Obama = Gene McCarthy | Main | He Likes Clinton, She Likes Obama »
Gun Control Advocates Call Clinton a Hypocrite
February 05, 2008 8:19 AM
Yesterday we took a look at Sen. Barack Obama's pro-hunter preaching in Idaho, wondering how it fit with a 1996 questionnaire in which he supported banning all handguns. Sen. Hillary Clinton implied Obama was a flip-flopper. (Read more HERE.)
This aroused the ire of some gun control advocates, who pointed out that even if one considers this an Obama flip-flop (and Obama says that questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer), Clinton has made a much more dramatic flip.
In an email to me, Andy Pelosi of Gun Free Kids, writes, "quite frankly, there are many gun control advocates that find it distasteful that Clinton appears to be running to the right of Obama on guns."
Running for the Senate in 2000, Clinton appeared before newspaper publishers in May of that year to say that gun control was part of the raison d'etre for her Senate campaign.
"We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference," she said to the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention in New York. "I believe we need a comprehensive plan to stop gun violence, and it is one of the reasons I am running for the Senate."
Part of this, she said, was a national gun registry.
"We license drivers before they get behind the wheel to make sure they can drive safely," she said. "We register cars to make sure someone is responsible for every vehicle on the road. But we don't do the same for deadly weapons."
But last month she backed off this proposal.
At a Democratic debate in Nevada she said something different.
She said she was against "illegal guns," she said she wanted to get guns "out of the hands of young people," she called for a registry of "felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc" and "we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban."
These are generally the steps supported by the Republican presidential candidates as well. Which is fine - but it's quite different from how she sounded in 2000, when she was calling for far more liberal gun control measures.
"You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms," Clinton said at the Nevada debate, "but I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."
Inquired Tim Russert, "But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?"
"Yes," Clinton said.
Bryan Miller, Executive Director of Ceasefire NJ , writes that "Clinton"s attack (on Obama on guns) is an obvious effort to frighten some with the false specter of gun confiscation under an Obama presidency, a prospect that is clearly not in the cards in this country, whoever is in office."
He goes on: "Clinton's attack is highly ironic, as well, both because she has changed positions on guns even more rapidly than Obama..." He says "there's more than a bit of the pot calling the kettle in Clinton's carefully parsed, but transparent and toxic attack. So, not only is Clinton's arithmetic incorrect as to Obama's so-called 'rapidly changes position,' but her own stated stance on gun regulation has both changed dramatically and done so in a much shorter time frame. No hypocrisy there, right?"
What say you?
- jpt
February 5, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (36)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/25817716
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gun Control Advocates Call Clinton a Hypocrite:
So why do 2nd amendment people forget the words "well regulated"?
Posted by: anon | Apr 14, 2008 10:28:57 AM
The "specter of gun confiscation" is there with Obama and Hillary, they both believe in a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons. That means most handguns, and yes hunters, that shotgun that you hunt duck with or the slug gun you hunt deer with. There may not be immediate outright confiscation, but there will be what is called the "death by a thousand cuts" where it will end up that all you can own are .22 rifles and double barrel shotguns after all the laws go through. Wake up people! Wake up hunters! Obama and Clinton do not believe in the 2nd Amendment in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by: Jon | Feb 26, 2008 7:16:42 PM
America's gun control laws are an unconstitutional (and therefore, illegal) infringement on our Right To Keep and Bear Arms. The BATFE is an unconstitutional (and therefore, illegal) government agency. The enforcement of these illegal laws by this illegal agency or by any other constabulary or court is also a felony. The criminal syndicate masquerading as our government is demonic, murderous and eager to use deadly force against innocent folk. They will continue to try every dirty trick imaginable to disarm you. Do not ever trust these monsters to do what is right, just or moral. They are the enemy of liberty. They are the enemy of America. They are the enemy of YOU.
Posted by: T. Irksome | Feb 22, 2008 5:45:20 PM
America's gun control laws are an unconstitutional (and therefore, illegal) infringement on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The BATFE is an unconstitutional (and therefore, illegal) government agency. The enforcement of these illegal laws by this illegal agency or by any other constabulary or court is also a felony. The criminal syndicate masquerading as our goverment is demonic, murderous and eager to use deadly force against innocent folk. They have and will continue to try every dirty trick imaginable to disarm you. Do not ever trust these monsters to do what is right, just or moral. They are the enemy of liberty. They are the enemy of America. They are the enemy of YOU.
Posted by: T. Irksome | Feb 22, 2008 5:21:36 PM
In Israel, gun crime is the lowest in the Middle East and lower than Europe and the U.S. Yet the population has as many guns as the U.S. per person. So where's all the shootings of citizens and murders brought about by personal ownership of weapons? Well, isn't it the liberals who tell us that fewer guns will mean less crime? In fact, the more guns in the possession of citizens, the less crime.
Posted by: Kim Kohl | Feb 7, 2008 12:56:18 AM
Ban Blacks and drugs. Then we will have no gun problem. Other countries have a much larger ownership of guns than this country and no problems like this country. Strange how all the gun and crime problems are in areas controlled by liberal democrats and policies.
Liberals always looking to blame something else than their own policies.
Posted by: true word | Feb 6, 2008 7:06:57 PM
Wow, They just found out shes a hyocrite?
Where has ABC and the rest of the alphabets been for 35 years?
She stands to be the best experienced hypocrite ready to be a tested and fully vested hypocrite from Day 1 upon assuming the job.
My hat is off to Hillary and Bill for succesfully scamming America for 35 years. That is probably 15 years longer than McCain who has Americans believing he is a conservative.
Posted by: carbineman | Feb 6, 2008 4:23:39 PM
We "Failed the War on Drugs" because we failed to fund the battle on mental illness. It was the mentally ill, who were first let out on the street after the passage of the CMHC Act of 1963, that began this nations drug problem as they sought to self medicate their internal demons. Along with the drugs come gun crime as suppliers and dealers cannot sue each other in court. The gun crime we are experiencing is not unlike the gangster violence during Prohibition. However, in the contemporary sense, it has been the lack of funds for community mental centers that has been the direct cause of not only street violence, but of the homeless as well. The CMHC Act needs to be revisited by Congress.
Posted by: Norris | Feb 6, 2008 3:00:31 PM
As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind all that America wasn't won with a registered gun. And that criminals are not stopped by talk, but by FIREARMS. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
YES - Hillary IS a hypocrite - but what politician isn't?
Posted by: Wendy Weinbaum | Feb 6, 2008 1:36:41 PM
The crime problem, violent crime with or without a handgun, is so way out of control primarily because of the failed war on drugs. When you factor out gun crimes in a few inner cities we are not left with a "National" crisis.
What if drugs were decriminalized? I know that is practically taboo to even think it but what unintended consequences of the war on drugs would be eliminated or drastically reduced?
- Gun crime and non-gun crime
- Prison over-population (lower taxes)
- Violent offenders released early from prison due to that over-crowding
- Reduction in size of police forces (lower taxes)
Think of the untapped source of additional taxes on legal drugs.
Under-aged drug use would be illegal under this scenario as it is now. (joke)
Posted by: bandofotters | Feb 6, 2008 1:20:15 PM
i'm pro gun. i have a ccw. if the usa is truely a democracy then why dont we put this issue to a vote? whether or not to disolve the constitution. it seems to me that whether or not to restrict guns should be decided by the people who enjoy that freedom. it makes me sick to see the so called public servants milling away at our rights, their own rights, and for what reason? to protect us from ourselves? to protect us from ghosts and imaginary enemys that they make up? i am a full grown, mature, law abiding adult. i have a fully functioning brain and common sense. my parents taught me right from wrong. i do not need a president whoever it may be that is going to tell me how responsible i am through legislation. the weapons i own, no matter what they look like, will not take a human life unless there is no other choice and that is the absolute last resort. the brady bill should have been called the cosmetic weapons bill and national gun registration is the first step to complete gun confiscation. that's what australia did. and their gun ban has had no definite effect on crime. lets elect a president who wants the usa to be the land of the free
Posted by: josh | Feb 6, 2008 12:50:58 PM
"common-sense gun measures can make a difference" says Clinton. Gun measures are already in place! Having more will do no good. It isn't average Joe Hunter, or the person that goes to the range to to fire off a few rounds that are killing people. It's mostly criminals that already have a police record for violent crimes to begin with. lets stop letting these people back on the street! fire up the electric chair and put it to use. then maybe those who shouldn't have a gun in the first place will think twice about what they're doing. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!. But what about the children that find daddy's gun and hurts himself or somebody else. Simple, every child needs to go through some type of training, whether it be in school or at home. if a child already has knowledge how to handle a firearm then there is less of a curiousity factor that ends up getting little johnny's foot shot off. while the liberals are at it, they should get rid of automobiles as well, because after all, more people die in auto accidents than from shootings.
Posted by: Mike | Feb 6, 2008 11:36:46 AM
Sally,
I'll give you the truth and path way to make the world better and it doesn't take a crystal ball, you only have to pull you head out of the ground and look around.
Politicians , mainly dems, need to find a better scape goat than law-bidding 2nd amendment supporters. We are not the problem. We need to focus on the actually problem: Criminals & the legal system. To many judges are giving harden, habitual offenders little more than a slap on the wrist. If more states adopted Florida's "10-20-life program", that would be a good start.
If you look at the crime statics for the countries that recently outlawed handguns / firearms in the last decade (UK, Canada, & Australia) you will see a horrifying trend. The UK alone has seen a rise of violent crime by almost 300 plus percent. Contrast that with some U.S. cities, say for example Kershaw, GA that passed a law back in 82/ 83 that all HOH (Head of households) must own a firearm, and since passing that law has enjoyed a homicide free record for the past 25 YEARS , it's easy to see why we are sensitive to the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: Esabacz | Feb 6, 2008 10:17:07 AM
Yeah, they can come and take my guns. But first, they have to take the ammo. One round at a time. At 2750 feet per second.
Posted by: Bo Cappella | Feb 6, 2008 9:53:53 AM
'Flyover' intelligent comment is to equate Cheney's hunting accident with the 2nd ammendment...
So by that logic one could state that one would rather hunt with Cheney than ride in Kennedy's car...
Posted by: Jasper | Feb 6, 2008 9:24:10 AM
A politician can say that they are 'Pro-Secondament' but then quietly appoint anti-gun judges to the Supreme and lower Federal Courts. When the court decisions envitably come down as being a 'collective-right' the so-called 'Pro-gun' politician can just say "Well I thought it was an individual right, but now you see that the courts (whome I packed - shhh!) tell me its actually a collective-right. How about that! Darn! Sorry folks, turn them in!"
Posted by: David M. Bennett | Feb 6, 2008 8:57:35 AM
That means that both Clinton and Obama aree lying in the Second Amendment issue and proves that those two mindividuals are not fitted to take office. Every gun ban law are proven to be a proportional failure because they never stemed violent crime. The majority of criminals are not using guns. We Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. That individual and fundamental right not only give us the right to own guns but also the right to protect oursleves, our families and our homes.
Posted by: Jay | Feb 6, 2008 8:25:41 AM
What the Democrats mean when they say they believe in the 2nd amendment is that they believe in the National Guard having guns. Of course, the media never prods these liars to explain their interpretation of the 2nd amendment: individual rights or collective. Go figure...!
The right belongs to the people since we the people are the Militia and are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by ourselves and of the type in common use at the time as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v Miller (1939).
Obama is a board member of the Joyce Foundation, a rabid anti-gun organization that openly promotes gun bans and confiscation.
Posted by: JMullen | Feb 5, 2008 8:27:12 PM
"(and Obama says that questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer"
present votes
missed Iran vote in senate
"boneheaded" to be invloved with rezko with his home purchase
take responsibility obama
Posted by: mbqbsi | Feb 5, 2008 2:25:36 PM
Ban minorities and liberals with guns. PERFECT SOLUTION.
Posted by: Dr MESS | Feb 5, 2008 12:36:03 PM
oldgaman When did the republicans debate and name call?
Drugs and bad education is the cause of crime.
Simple solution to stop drugs that is CLOSE THE BORDER!!
Look at history people - Hitler's first step was to remove guns from the individual citizens and have them registered the same goes true for the socialist countries.
Posted by: spock | Feb 5, 2008 11:17:21 AM
Worf you are so right, the reason being though is because they do not like education, they are owned by the teachers unions the Democrats that is, and the less history and education someone has makes them dependent on government and the libs who believe in socialism. And low education leads to high crime.
Posted by: spock | Feb 5, 2008 11:10:05 AM
Where and when did you run a story on Obama about his misleading comments regarding gun control? I was on you site all day yesterday and I saw nothing negative about Obama. I never do when it comes to media reporting unless it's hidden at the back of the newspapers or under a non-divisive headline that takes several links to find on a web-site. I will be voting for Hillary Clinton today and I think a great many other folks will be doing the same thing - the media will try to cover their backsides again when the numbers come out tomorrow in support of Clinton, but those of us who vote with common sense and not because of the emotion generated by media hype know better.
Posted by: Mary | Feb 5, 2008 11:02:38 AM
Let's face up to the facts. We have hundreds of laws on the books to deal with criminals. Those preaching gun control would do better to preach criminal control. The laws already exist to deal with the problem. Why are they not enforced? Anyone committing a crime with a gun should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Slap them down fast and hard. I'm sick of all the criminal rights crap. What ever happened to the law abiding citizens rights? We should be able to expect criminals to be punished and kept off our streets. Insted most criminals are back on the streets before the police officer can get his paperwork finished. We need to take action against the criminal NOT the law abiding citizen. I refuse to surrender my CCW license. Then I would be at the criminals mercy and we already know they don't have any mercy for thier victims.
Posted by: Action Jackson | Feb 5, 2008 10:55:12 AM
Funny how its only where Democrats and Liberals live the crime rate is through the roof. Now they blame the 2 admendment for the crime rather blame their owm policies.
Posted by: Worf ddk | Feb 5, 2008 10:37:40 AM
Liberals are bragging about the crack they used and defending its use. They don't realize that drugs are the #1 reason of crime. I have no problem against some juvenile drug experimentation. But ask people that live in areas infested with drugs why the cops can't stop the crime. Its not guns its drugs. No wonder Obama has all these drug induced drunken movie stars supporting him. Kennedys are included on the drunken drug heads.
Posted by: Smoke Crayola | Feb 5, 2008 10:23:36 AM
Funny how Republicans can't have a debate without hateful name calling. Young kids carrying guys in school and playgrounds is a serious problem in protecting our kids. True, upbringing and home environment is the cause, but keeping guns out of the hands of these kids is our responsibility. Has nothing to do with anyone having a gun at home for protection or to hunt. Altering your position in an 8 year period is not flipflopping. I would be more concerned with Obama never taking responsibility for anything that reflects badly on him. He won't have a "present" button in the White House if he gets there.
Posted by: oldgaman | Feb 5, 2008 10:22:59 AM
Gee, but the anti-gun libs from California, Pelosi, Boxer, etc want to take my guns away, but happily carry their CCW and their families? Guess that is equal rights in the their views. Are the other States the same?
Posted by: Maverick | Feb 5, 2008 10:11:15 AM
Obama wants to allow only the Goverment police to own and carry guns. Democrats are bad news for liberty. Get rid of the drugs and you will get rid of 99 percent of the crime. And most of this crime takes place where Democrats rule the cities
Posted by: John Wayne | Feb 5, 2008 10:09:21 AM
Make a list of guns and people who own them, make a list of fat people and smokers, and make a list of those who drive fast, or call in sick when they are not, a list of the infertile and the fertile, ones who wear glasses and skip voting, heck lets make a list of who you vote for and rank your dna against Hillary’s for disbursement of benefits. Make a list of restaurants that serve the obese and heart patients. Register those with a big toe smaller than the next.
Not until we have a list of every behavior will democrats be satisfied. Then what?
Posted by: flyover | Feb 5, 2008 10:04:30 AM
Since it's the Second Amendment that gives VP Cheney the right to go hunting and shoot his hunting companions in the face, I have to admit my support for this part of the Constitution as long as it's interpreted the way that Cheney does.
Posted by: chuck | Feb 5, 2008 10:01:30 AM
I will keep my weapons by force before I allow the Constitution to be further damaged
Posted by: Patriot2008 | Feb 5, 2008 9:59:52 AM
Guns are not the problem.
I am for Obama.
Posted by: J. Perez Acosta | Feb 5, 2008 9:57:19 AM
I am an Independent Liberal-
I believe in the Second Amendment, and I tell the truth.
Since you, Ben Franklin & Spock, have a magic crystal ball that gives you almighty truth and knowlege in knowing everything-
Why not save us all these petty comments, and justy go ahead and tell the rest of us how to make the world a perfect place.
And when your done, I'd like to borrow your crystal ball.
Posted by: Sally | Feb 5, 2008 9:53:02 AM
When is a liberal telling the truth about anything. All liberals want to take away guns. Drugs are the reason for high murder and crime rates in liberal controlled cities and they can't even control that.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | Feb 5, 2008 9:40:53 AM
First of all for any of the libs to say they believe in the 2nd amendment is a lie. So what else is new.
Posted by: spock | Feb 5, 2008 9:31:09 AM
Post a comment