PDA

View Full Version : Paul Helmke: Bill Clinton On Pragmatism (And Guns) In The Obama Era


.454
02-04-2009, 3:25 PM
Complete article here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/bill-clinton-on-pragmatis_b_163433.html). Have a barf bag ready. Or two.

Guns offer an opportunity to exercise pragmatism in this new political environment. Polling for the Brady Campaign shows - and other public opinion surveys help confirm - the popularity of key gun violence prevention policies that cut across sectional, racial, gender, ideological and partisan divisions. People of goodwill may disagree on gun policy at the margins, but over 80% of Americans do agree that we should require Brady criminal background checks for every gun purchase, and about two-thirds favor restricting access to military-style assault weapons.

These and other proposals are popular, common sense ways to help keep guns away from dangerous people while respecting the Supreme Court's reading of the Second Amendment. They also respect "our common humanity" rather than cater to the interests of a few who want access to firearms with few or no restrictions at all, allowing the easy access to guns that puts everyone at risk.

domokun
02-04-2009, 3:32 PM
:puke:

Biff...
02-04-2009, 3:37 PM
WTF!!! is he talking about. This coming from a person that will have secret service protection for the rest of his life.

SwissFluCase
02-04-2009, 4:17 PM
My BS meter is off the charts. There is one point to remember, though...

During the Clinton administration, there were a lot of articles like this to soften up the 2A supporters. Remember that BS about the "sea change" in gun control opinions in the US? Remember how the Anti's were saying that the US was finally ready for England style gun control?

This is the first wave of the attack. Be prepared for push polls showing overwhelming support for gun control. Be prepared for pundits saying the NRA doesn't matter and has lost its clout. Be prepared for a media campaign to psychologically isolate us so we think we are fighting a losing battle against the majority.

Some of the words in that article were verbatim copy of the words uttered in preparation for the last gun control push. I guess they can't be bothered to write new ad copy. :barf:

Regards,

SwissFluCase

tombinghamthegreat
02-04-2009, 4:25 PM
It looks like the **** storm is starting earlier than expected. :44:

RRangel
02-04-2009, 5:12 PM
It's sort of a good thing the federal AWB is behind us. The U.S. as a whole is smarter now that we have had that experience. Without a doubt it's clear that Paul Helmke is not only a gun fearing chicken little, but him and his gun banning friends are outright liars.

Cypren
02-04-2009, 5:21 PM
It's sort of a good thing the federal AWB is behind us. The U.S. as a whole is smarter now that we have had that experience. Without a doubt it's clear that Paul Helmke is not only a gun fearing chicken little, but him and his gun banning friends are outright liars.

I don't think the country as a whole is any smarter for it. I think if Obama proposes another one, it will get widespread public support. Public ignorance combines with gun-banner willingness to lie through their teeth about crime statistics, weapon capabilities and effectiveness of their policies, and they have a nearly impenetrable shield in the form of the national press, who will parrot the party line with zero fact checking while treating NRA rebuttals like they came from Hitler's own press secretary.

This is not the time to get cocky. Heller was a tremendous legal victory for our rights, but it can all be swept away to uselessness by a Congress and President determined to ignore the Constitution and backed by a worshipful press who won't call them on it and will marginalize as an insane radical anyone who does.

Bruce
02-04-2009, 5:33 PM
My BS meter is off the charts. There is one point to remember, though...

During the Clinton administration, there were a lot of articles like this to soften up the 2A supporters. Remember that BS about the "sea change" in gun control opinions in the US? Remember how the Anti's were saying that the US was finally ready for England style gun control?

This is the first wave of the attack. Be prepared for push polls showing overwhelming support for gun control. Be prepared for pundits saying the NRA doesn't matter and has lost its clout. Be prepared for a media campaign to psychologically isolate us so we think we are fighting a losing battle against the majority.

Some of the words in that article were verbatim copy of the words uttered in preparation for the last gun control push. I guess they can't be bothered to write new ad copy. :barf:

Regards,

SwissFluCase

KNBC ran full auto AK-47 footage when Roberti-Roos was up for voting. Lots of people thought they were banning machine guns!

Dr Rockso
02-04-2009, 6:04 PM
KNBC ran full auto AK-47 footage when Roberti-Roos was up for voting. Lots of people thought they were banning machine guns!
I've seen clips from national news programs doing the same thing. I can understand when local news makes a mistake, but when you have a national program do it it's just willful misinformation.

SimpleCountryActuary
02-04-2009, 8:35 PM
Consider that this dribble is coming from the mouth of the cretin who destroyed hundreds of thousands of wonderful M14 rifles. For a small sum they could have been rendered incapable of fully automatic fire and been sold for millions of dollars to those of us who treasure fine machinery.

Gator Monroe
02-04-2009, 8:50 PM
End of summer (After some more Media Hyped up CCW bathroom incidents and Families and innocent bystanders are killed by suicidal loons) the drumbeat will reach action needed status!

peepshowal
02-04-2009, 9:50 PM
You were right about needing the barf bags.

SwissFluCase
02-05-2009, 10:58 AM
This is not the time to get cocky. Heller was a tremendous legal victory for our rights, but it can all be swept away to uselessness by a Congress and President determined to ignore the Constitution and backed by a worshipful press who won't call them on it and will marginalize as an insane radical anyone who does.

Words to live by. We are winning the fight, but have not yet won. We can't let our guard down, or we will lose. We really shouldn't put all of our eggs in the Heller basket. We need to stay active on all fronts.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

jacques
02-05-2009, 11:41 AM
Coming straight from the Brady Campaign, this is what you should expect. That web site is worse than the Enquirer. Propaganda at it's finest

GrayWolf09
02-05-2009, 11:57 AM
The Brady campaign is in favor of gun control. Wow, that is news!:kest:

6172crew
02-05-2009, 12:36 PM
Military assaults rifles have been banned since 1934 clown.

7x57
02-05-2009, 1:06 PM
Military assaults rifles have been banned since 1934 clown.

No. Taxed since 1934 (at a ruinous quasi-ban rate for 1934, but they forgot to update for inflation :-), and no more registerable since 1986, but still not banned.

Or perhaps you were asking about California, not the United States? :-)

7x57

6172crew
02-05-2009, 1:29 PM
No. Taxed since 1934 (at a ruinous quasi-ban rate for 1934, but they forgot to update for inflation :-), and no more registerable since 1986, but still not banned.

Or perhaps you were asking about California, not the United States? :-)

7x57
You cant have a new machine gun, period. You cant apply for a tax stamp on a M4 unless you are .gov. My M16 was made in 1986 after an amnesty for a law made in the 30s. They are in fact banned. Even if you live in another state your not going to get a tax stamp on a new machine gun.

Librarian
02-05-2009, 1:50 PM
You cant have a new machine gun, period. You cant apply for a tax stamp on a M4 unless you are .gov. My M16 was made in 1986 after an amnesty for a law made in the 30s. They are in fact banned. Even if you live in another state your not going to get a tax stamp on a new machine gun.

"banned" is what the British and Australians got.

Since transfer, possession and use are not forbidden, full auto weapons in the US are not "banned".

Not that there's a lot of practical difference to someone who does not have one and wants to get one - that limited supply of pre-1986 weapons becomes smaller as they age and wear, and more expensive.

yellowfin
02-05-2009, 2:05 PM
I wonder if someone or a group of us could pool money to buy one of the big news outlets as they're going belly up. Lots of big name newspapers are supposedly on the rocks, so what would happen if someone or a group of someones bought them and turned them pro 2A, pro constitution, pro middle class real American instead of the leftist shills they are now. It seems the left doesn't care about profits, they want influence; what would happen if their priorities land their papers penniless and we can buy them up for a song?

Cypren
02-05-2009, 2:45 PM
I wonder if someone or a group of us could pool money to buy one of the big news outlets as they're going belly up. Lots of big name newspapers are supposedly on the rocks, so what would happen if someone or a group of someones bought them and turned them pro 2A, pro constitution, pro middle class real American instead of the leftist shills they are now. It seems the left doesn't care about profits, they want influence; what would happen if their priorities land their papers penniless and we can buy them up for a song?

As much as people on the Right would probably like to believe the news media are all dying due to their Leftist slant, it has more to do with their business models having been outmoded by the Internet. The Orange County Register, for example, is one of the most reliable libertarian-conservative newspapers in the country, in a county that's a Republican stronghold, and it's still in deep trouble. Purchasing a newspaper to change its slant wouldn't restore it to health.

DDT
02-05-2009, 5:10 PM
+1

The Internet and not just bias is killing the old media.

6172crew
02-05-2009, 7:01 PM
"banned" is what the British and Australians got.

Since transfer, possession and use are not forbidden, full auto weapons in the US are not "banned".

Not that there's a lot of practical difference to someone who does not have one and wants to get one - that limited supply of pre-1986 weapons becomes smaller as they age and wear, and more expensive.

You and I cannot buy a new machine gun, they are banned from civilian sales. Only .gov and cops can get them. Just like the Colt AR15 is banned in CA, the cops can have but you cant unless you already had one but its stilled banned from sales to you or I.

If you try to buy, transfer or posses a FN P90 you will be denied because they are banned to you and I.

Librarian
02-05-2009, 9:32 PM
You and I cannot buy a new machine gun, they are banned from civilian sales. Only .gov and cops can get them. Just like the Colt AR15 is banned in CA, the cops can have but you cant unless you already had one but its stilled banned from sales to you or I.

If you try to buy, transfer or posses a FN P90 you will be denied because they are banned to you and I.

We're using both "ban" and "machine gun" in different ways.

A "ban" means You Can't Have It. As I said, England and Australia have bans.

California's 'assault weapon' law is a 'slow motion ban'. Possession and use is legal, but transfer in state is not. If it were to continue long enough, essentially all of the owners of registered 'assault weapons' prior to 2006 will die off, and their weapons will at least go out of state. If you're not the Owner Who Registered It, You Can't Have It.

Though arrived at by different paths, both the expired Federal 'assault weapon' law and the 1986 FOPA (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html) law are/were NOT bans. Existing weapons were 'grandfathered'; they can be transferred and owned and possessed and used - You CAN Have It, but You Can't Buy New Ones.

Those two laws are more like 'supply freezes'.

It's certainly true that I (and, I infer, you) cannot have a post-1986 machine gun. In that sense, post-1986 machine guns are banned. But if either of us can afford one (and if California would allow) we could buy a pre-1986 machine gun. Machine guns, as a class, are not banned.

The distinction is only interesting when trying to talk about laws.