RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
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 | Share | User Comments (36)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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
Post a comment


