Bill Clinton: Do Not Patronize Gun Owners

[Theb]

Former President Bill Clinton warned a group of top Democratic donors at a private Saturday meeting not to underestimate the passions that gun control stirs among many Americans.

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said.

“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things,” Clinton said. “I know because I come from this world."

Clinton dedicated a substantial portion of his 40-minute address before a joint meeting of the Obama National Finance Committee and a group of business leaders to the issue of guns and gun control, saying that it was a test-case for President Barack Obama’s grass-roots movements. (POLITICO was given a transferable ticket by an invited member of the committee.)

“The way the Obama campaign won Florida, won Ohio, won this election by more than projected was the combination of technology, social media and personal contact,” Clinton said. That’s “the only way that our side will ever be able to even up the votes in the midterms and as these issues come up, really touch people and talk to them about it.”

(PHOTOS: Politicians speak out on gun control)

Obama begins his second term facing an uphill battle on gun control — an emotional, divisive and difficult issue that the cool and pragmatic Obama would usually avoid.

Obama took 23 executive actions this week to curb gun violence, but his key proposals will need a vote from Congress to become law. With a GOP House unlikely to take up any new gun control measures — and even some Democrats expressing wariness — his only recourse is to make his case directly to the public.

Clinton said that Republicans have been struggling in presidential politics since 1992 — noting that 2004 was the only time a Republican has won the popular vote in more than 20 years. But, he said, the party has been successful in energizing its supporters for midterm elections.

“You have the power to really democratize America,” Clinton said. “You can do it on immigration reform, you can do it on these economic issues. You can do it on implementing the health care bill.”

But, Clinton warned, the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states — and simply dismissing pro-gun arguments is counterproductive.

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.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ocrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443.html


Two good points from probably the most popular living Democrat:

Being condescending to people you don't understand is not productive, particularly when it comes to guns. (it is fun though)

You can probably conduct a poll after any mass shooting and get a majority of the respondents to say they support more gun control, but will they come out to vote based on new gun legislation? Because the people that oppose that legislation definitely will.

 

[OrByte]

Always nice to hear Clinton's opinion.

He makes sense.

 

[hal2kilo]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ocrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443.html


Two good points from probably the most popular living Democrat:

Being condescending to people you don't understand is not productive, particularly when it comes to guns. (it is fun though)

You can probably conduct a poll after any mass shooting and get a majority of the respondents to say they support more gun control, but will they come out to vote based on new gun legislation? Because the people that oppose that legislation definitely will.

Gun control is a long-term loser for the Democratic party. I wish everyone would take a chill pill and STFU. As Clinton said above it's not the number but the passionate furver that will drive these people to the polls.

This is just stupid politics.

 

[Throckmorton]

Great, now let's start with not pretending the assault weapon ban makes any sense and does anything more than anger people "we" don't like.

 

[Lemon law]

While I agree that Bill Clinton makes sense, IMHO, the NRA makes no sense either.

Nor will we find any sense from legislators who oppose guns, as a knee jerk reaction, when they understand nothing about why Americans have "legitimate" rights to own guns for hunting reasons if nothing else. As its absolutely futile to expect legislators who totally understand nothing about firearms and their legitimate uses, to ever have any hope that set of gun ignorant legislators to come up with any sensible compromise.

But still in the land of dumb, dumber, and even dumber, I maintain its the NRA that is the group most crusing for a brusing in a new era when irrational gun violence is becoming almost a twice a day occurrence.

As the NRA with a membership of less than five million member in a nation of 310 people somehow claims to be the third rail of America politics. When the NRA commands membership of less than 1.6% of the US population.

As 404 NRA claim to be a third rail of American politics no longer found. Maybe the grey panthers of the Aarrp can claim to be a third rail, when they have 10X or 15X more membership. As the NRA with less than 2% is outnumbered by over 50 to 1 and is the enemy of US legitimate gun owners like me.

 

[OrByte]

When people think that the solution to gun violence is MORE guns...I have to question the motives.

For the NRA, the motives are simple...money. They use Constitutional rights as a shield better than anyone but the simple fact of the matter is no constitutional rights are being harmed...they just want people to think so.

 

[Doppel]

but will they come out to vote based on new gun legislation? Because the people that oppose that legislation definitely will.

Exactly. Gallup finds gun control is low on the national agenda of people's interests. However, among gun owners it's certainly going to be higher. It's like banning motorboats. Do you give a crap? Do most people? No, but any party endorsing that is going to make enemies out of any motorboat owners.

Clinton thinks his party's support of the AWB cost them a lot of seats in the next election. It may be a lesson the dems need to learn again. I can see some of the "gun grabbers" in these forums haven't learned it.

lemon law you have some good points, but one you're not possibly making is in your own stats: you state NRA's membership is low and it is relative to the population. Only a small percentage of gun owners are members, and thus there is a huge population of non-NRA gun owners who still don't want their guns controlled. Again back to Gallup, any politician looking to put forward gun control right now better be damn sure he knows what he's doing because support for it is not high, and expending political capital on silly and patently worthless things like a ban to the size of one's magazine, or a particular class of weapon responsible for a couple of percent of killings is political suicide.

They use Constitutional rights as a shield better than anyone but the simple fact of the matter is no constitutional rights are being harmed...they just want people to think so.

If it were that simple there wouldn't be literally millions who do see their constitutional rights being harmed.

 

[OrByte]

If it were that simple there wouldn't be literally millions who do see their constitutional rights being harmed.

It is that simple. Millions of people are being told that their rights are being harmed.

But yet you don't see anyone taking arms out of peoples possession do you?

 

[waggy]

as a person i did not like Clinton. As a President i think he was great.

 

[WackyDan]

It is that simple. Millions of people are being told that their rights are being harmed.

But yet you don't see anyone taking arms out of peoples possession do you?

Plenty of people proposing exactly that including politicians. Limiting access, banning, are fundamentally the same as taking them away. It performs the same effect as confiscation, just slower over time. Hence why we won't accept grandfathering what we already have.

 

[Doppel]

But yet you don't see anyone taking arms out of peoples possession do you?

Apparently confiscation was actually in the first draft of NY's new gun law, so pretty darn close to taking them out.

That aside, NY (and possibly the federal gov, if it can get passed) has lowered magazine capacities (a crime now to have a 30 round mag when it was not before), which lower's a weapon's effectiveness, and have banned the sale of certain new guns.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But yet you don't see anyone taking arms out of peoples possession do you?

If you keep your eyes closed you don't.