Ah, rhetoric.

L

LawDog

Staff Emeritus
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000313/ts/clinton_guns_10.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday denounced as ``outrageous and disgusting''
a charge by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that President Clinton was turning a blind eye to gun
control violations so he could exploit the resulting killings for political gain.

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart was responding to NRA executive vice president Wayne
LaPierre, who told ABC's ``This Week'' program on Sunday:

``I've come to believe he (Clinton) needs a certain level of violence in this country ... He's willing to
accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.''

LaPierre added: ``You can't care about stopping crimes with guns and give the country a complete lack of enforcement of the
gun laws on the books, which is what this president has done.''

Lockhart said Clinton would personally comment on the remarks later in the day at a stop in Cleveland where he will discuss
his prescription drug plan.

``The president will take an opportunity to respond to the outrageous and disgusting charges that were raised yesterday by
Mr. LaPierre,'' Lockhart said.

``Having watched smear campaigns and charges hurled at this president for eight years this has reached a new low to
somehow suggest that he advocates and accepts killing of children,'' he told reporters.

``I think the time is now for members of the NRA, for political leaders who are aligned with the NRA, to stand up and
repudiate this kind of rhetoric, these kind of smear tactics or be shown as the kind of organization that the NRA has
become,'' Lockhart said.

Gun Control Push

Clinton is pushing gun control legislation after a string of school shootings, including the case of a six-year-old Michigan boy
who killed a girl the same age with a stolen handgun last month.

The president has called on the Republican-led Congress to mandate a three-day waiting period for gun show purchases,
child-safety trigger locks and a ban on importing high-capacity ammunition clips through legislation approved by the U.S.
Senate last year.

The House of Representatives has passed a less stringent version of the bill, and compromise legislation between the two
sides of Congress has yet to be worked out.

Clinton last week asked the Republican leaders of Congress to find a compromise on the gun control legislation by April 20,
the anniversary of the 1999 killings at Littleton, Colorado's Columbine High School, where two teenagers killed 12 fellow
students, a teacher and themselves.

The NRA has fought hard against elements of the legislation and started running television ads in which its president, actor
Charlton Heston, all but accuses Clinton of being a liar.

``They have no argument anymore ... so they've resorted to a sick attack on the president,'' Lockhart said. ``The president
will say today it's not about him, he can certainly handle Charlton Heston and his gang, but this is about getting something
done,'' he said.

``I haven't seen anything this low in a long time in Washington,'' Lockhart said.

Hmm.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>``I haven't seen anything this low in a long time in Washington,'' Lockhart said. [/quote]

Offhand, Mr Lockhart, I'd say your annual visit to your optometrist is waaaay overdue. :D

LawDog


[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NRA Says Clinton Uses Violence for Political Gain
March 12, 2000 6:05 pm EST

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The leading U.S. gun lobby group accused President
Clinton on Sunday of deliberately failing to enforce existing gun control laws and
of exploiting the resulting violence for political gain.

The comments by a top National Rifle Association official drew a rebuke from the
White House, which said the NRA had a long history of rejecting gun control and
that its views should not be taken seriously in the current debate over new
measures, including a three-day waiting period for gun show purchases.

"I've come to believe he needs a certain level of violence in this country," NRA executive vice
president Wayne LaPierre told ABC's "This Week" program.

"He's willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda -- and the vice
president too, I mean, how else can you explain this dishonesty we get out of the administration,"
LaPierre said.

"You can't care about stopping crimes with guns and give the country a complete lack of
enforcement of the gun laws on the books, which is what this president has done," he added.

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart shot back by referring to a string of earlier gun control
measures opposed by the NRA. The White House has also long denied it has failed to enforce
existing gun laws.

"These are the same people that opposed the Brady Bill ... restrictions on assault weapons and cop
killer bullets," Lockhart said. "Just ask a cop on the street who is on their side. The NRA should not
be taken seriously. They have eliminated themselves from any role in this debate."

The harsh rhetoric shows how high the stakes are as Clinton seeks to push gun control legislation
after a string of school shootings, including a Feb. 29 incident in which a six-year-old Michigan boy
killed a girl the same age with a stolen handgun.

In a television interview and a rare Sunday speech, Clinton called on the Republican-led Congress to
mandate a three-day waiting period for gun show purchases, child-safety trigger locks and a ban on
importing high-capacity ammunition clips through legislation approved by the U.S. Senate last year.

A less stringent version of the bill passed in the House of Representatives and Clinton said the two
have yet to hammer out a compromise because of pressure from the gun lobby.

"KNEE-JERK NRA REACTION"

"I just think their knee-jerk reaction to any gun safety measure is wrong," Clinton told ABC's "This
Week" program in an interview taped on Friday in which he also accused the NRA of being "ruthlessly
brutal" to gun control advocates.

The president last week asked the Republican leaders of Congress to find a compromise on the gun
control legislation by April 20, the anniversary of the 1999 killings at Littleton, Colorado's Columbine
High School, where two teen-agers killed 12 fellow students, a teacher and themselves."

The NRA has fought hard against elements of the legislation and has begun running television
advertisements featuring its president, actor Charlton Heston, in which he all but accuses Clinton of
being a liar.

"All this sort of wounded rhetoric by the NRA, given how ruthlessly brutal they were to members who
were brave enough to vote for the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban ... these crocodile tears, I
don't think it will wash with the voters. Even with Moses reading the script," Clinton said, referring to
Heston's famous portrayal of Moses in "The Ten Commandments."

The Brady Bill, passed in 1994, required a five-day waiting period for handgun purchasers until it
expired in November 1998 and was replaced by a computerized checking system requiring a
three-day delay in the purchase if a red-flag warning appeared.

Clinton later suggested the conference committee named to work out differences between the
House and Senate versions of last year's gun control bills had not met because legislators feared a
backlash from voters if they killed the legislation.

"Those who don't want any legislation don't want to get caught killing it," Clinton told several
thousand officials gathered for a conference organized by the National League of Cities. "This is
wrong. This is wrong."

The president also lambasted Congress for a failed attempt to block nearly $2.6 million in funding
for a gun buyback program, which gives local authorities money to buy guns with no questions
asked and then destroy them.

[This message has been edited by dZ (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>``I haven't seen anything this low in a long time in Washington,'' Lockhart said.[/quote]

Uh, Joe...what about Monica on her knees and under the desk?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Come on, guys, do we have to drag the Monica issue in every time Clinton is mentioned? Let's look at this issue on its own merits.

La Pierre accuses Clinton of deliberate negligence leading to deaths which can be exploited politically. That's not the same as taking political advantage after the fact, which every politician does. I hope LaPierre can substantiate his charges, or he will do the NRA more harm than good. The public will see him as just another wild-eyed Clinton-flogger.

Mere sequence in time is not proof enough. To say that Clinton's policies were INTENDED to bring about deaths is like saying "The sun came up this morning, and my toast burned, therefore the sun burned my toast."

I am not defending Clinton; I am just saying that, if someone is going to speak against him, they'd better do it with verifiable facts. Look what's happened to all the other people who've tried to shoot him down (metaphorically speaking) with inadequate ammo.
 
It will be interesting to see if LaPierre backs down and appologizes...or modifies his statement he made about the Prez.
 
I've long advocated replacing LaPierre and Heston with people more adept at thinking on their feet, so we can get away from just this kind of thing. LaPierre needs to adopt the TFL motto: Take The High Road. There are plenty of things to attack Clinton on with regard to gun control that could result in slam dunking the president in a very public manner.

I am glad to see the NRA getting in the mix in a more public manner, however.

------------------
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
David, deanf,

LaPierre was only telling the truth. The fact that people are shocked by what he says, just shows how ill informed people are on the gun control issue. While his tactics may turn some people off, it will bring many fence sitters to our side, by reinforcing their own thoughts of what has been going on. If anything, this will allow LaPierre a chance to make some more points on the national news, when before the news media practically ignored him. This is a good thing. It is time to call a spade a spade. Time is running out.

Let's get this straight, Clinto doesn't give a darn about ANYTHING except pushing his agenda at any cost. Any means to an end, right?

As much as I like the guy, Heston can give great speeches and is more likeable, but he can hardly think on his feet.

Joe
 
LaPierre's point about the Clinton Administration's needing violence for political gain had also occurred to me, and frankly I believe it. I don't know how else to explain the discrepancy between the Administration's ceaseless drumbeat for additional gun laws, coupled with its lax enforcement record.

But was LaPierre wise to level this charge, or was Heston wise to more or less call Clinton a liar? I'd say probably not for three reasons. First, the media will use LaPierre's and Heston's statements as an excuse to attack the NRA just as the White House will. Even if Clinton said nothing at all, the NRA would still lose the PR battle due to the media's anti-NRA prejudice. Second, name-calling the President of the U.S. is usually counterproductive. Of course, many of us know perfectly well that Clinton is a smooth, accomplished, and frequent liar who has disgraced his office. But IMHO most Americans rally around any President, however unworthy he may be. Third, Clinton is just too slick and too aggressive for such tactics to be effective, as his counterstatements already suggest. IOW, if it pays to fight fire with fire, then the NRA should fight slick with slick, but this is not happening that I can tell.

Anyway, I sure hope that the NRA doesn't back down or apologize! If it's gone this far, it needs to stick to its guns!

Just my $0.02.

------------------
"The eye of television is drawn to violence as the normal eye is drawn to the light in a jewel."--Larry McMurtry.

[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
Did anyone hear what Rush, Liddy, North, or any of the others had to say about this today?

Sorry, I'm a day sleeper.

Joe
 
David, what LaPierre said is what we've all been saying for a long time: the anti's, led by Clinton, cannot successfully propose new gun control legislation until there's an outrageous killing. Isn't that, if not 100% factual, certainly an accurate assessment?
And we know that Clinton waited 7 years before agreeing to spend money on programs like Project Exile. We also know that almost nobody is prosecuted for violating the Brady Law. LaPierre is going to be on more shows because of these statements and, if he can articulate this positions well, it will be to our advantage. Clinton _has_ lied about the number of felons stopped by Brady, about the "13 children a day," about the effectiveness of the assault weapon ban and countless other gun issues.

We've been on the ropes too long. It's time to hit back.

Dick
 
It seems to me that he expressed an opinion that most gun owners seem to have. It also seems that the NRA is damned if they say anything that is a "safe" position by members or non-members who own guns, and then when they finally express their frustration and outrage they are damned by having "said the wrong thing".........Im glad to see them speaking out.....WE, the gun owning citizens of this country helped to deliver a rather large defeat to bill clintons' congress, he hasnt forgotten and will do all he can to destroy us--its his mo. I sincerly hope that we stay on the attack, although we will have to be carefull, this bozo's allies buy their ink by the barrel...fubsy.
 
nralife:

Neal Boortz (Neal Boortz Web Site) had this to say in today's Nealz Nuze:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>DO THE DEMOCRATS NEED VIOLENCE?

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre asked the question on ABC's "This Week" news show. He said, "I've come to believe he needs a certain level of violence in this country. [Bill Clinton]'s willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda--and the vice president too. I mean, how else can you explain this dishonesty we get out of the administration? You can't care about stopping crimes with guns and give the country a complete lack of enforcement of the gun laws on the books, which is what this president has done."

Don’t look now, but the numbers back up LaPierre's comments. Statistics from a nonpartisan research center at Syracuse University show that federal prosecutions of firearms law violations have plunged 44 percent during the Clinton-Gore administration--from an all-time high of 9,885 in 1992 to 5,510 in 1998.

You gotta ask ... are Bill Clinton and the Democrats using high-profile gun-violence cases to promote their own agenda to disarm the American people? Do they turn a blind eye to their own ignorance of crime statistics and their administration's abysmal prosecution record? Do they need a "certain level of killing" in order to move this agenda forward?

You bet your fanny they do.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000312/pl/clinton_guns_10.html
[/quote]

Neal is a small-l liberatian talk show host in Atlanta who is now in national syndication. Very pro-2nd, anti-government, especially lying government like we have in the White House.
 
Regarding whether LaPierre went too far in accusing Clinton of intentionally exploiting violence by not taking steps to reduce it: LaPierre was asking a valid question: "How else do you explain the near complete lack of prosecutions" (paraphrasing), when the administration does in fact have enormous discretion to allocate or not allocate enforcement resources, and they in fact have an abysmal record in prosecuting crimes committed involving guns. So the question is valid. As far as being an error of logic, well if you were to ask "How else do you explain my toast being burned, besides the fact that it happened right after the sun came up?", I would quickly reply "It's your defective toaster, man". Clinton has no such legitimate reply to the question posed to him.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
Besides being the truth...has anyone thought why LaPierre said it? Because, the NRA is being demonized in an ever increasing frequency.

NRA plays by standard rules of etiquette and civility...demonized.
NRA doesn't defend itself against those attacks....more demonization.

Point is..NRA can do nothing and be demonized. NRA could totally disband and would still be demonized.
I, for one, am damned pleased that LaPierre and Heston are taking the gloves off, just as the Demos have for years. I am sick of the lies passed off as truth, I am sick of being considered some sort of sociopathic degenerate by the leeches of this society. I am damned sick of it all. This is a fight for our very liberty and birthright. You don't play nice in these kinds of fights...the Demos and liberals sure don't. This is a war and you fight to win or you surrender and hope for crumbs.

We all know damned well both Heston and LaPierre said the truth. Live with it and fight, you sure won't get any bennies or brownie points from the anti's as long as you resist.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
For the past eight years the Democrat party has been led by warped and disaffected people who project all of their own personal miseries on the USA. Sanity is a threat to them. Peaceful, law-abiding people have no "issues" requiring government intervention, and are beyond the comprehension of someone like Hillary Clinton.

Mature adults need very little indeed from government. Democrats, to stay in power, must promote an activist government. The people who need the intervention of the state are by definition dysfunctional.
It is in the interest of the Democratic Party today to promote psychotic levels of social pathology to keep themselves in power.

So, yes, the current administration does find a peaceful, mature populace a menace.

Yes, the President benefits from lunatic levels of violence and the tragedy associated.
It gives him something to do.

People who require the agony of others in order to function are generally considered psychopaths.
What do we call them when they take over the country?


------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
The bottom line: Gun owners/NRA are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Since we're "damned" anyway, I say the time to fight back is NOW! I've had it with the PC/socialist crowd, and the slimy tactics they've employed (and gotton away with) for over a decade.

Stick it to 'em, loud and long. Publicly. Voluably. "In your face". Start immediately, and DON'T STOP. Don't fall for that "it's a sickness" crap! That's just another tactic of the socialists! Give it right back to 'em, but twice as much. No quarter.

LaPierre and Heston: go get 'em boys....
 
Dennis,

Like I keep saying, there's no middle anymore. The boundaries of debate are all defined by the Left. It's like playing a football game where the goal-posts keep moving and every down is fourth and ninety-nine.
No modus vivendi is possible.
They want to eat us, but they want us to cook ourselves first. They do this by trying to paralyze us by making us feel guilty for telling the truth.
We must throw off this externally imposed, irrational guilt, recognize sadists for who they are, and either remove ourselves from their presence, or confront them when we can't escape.

Negotiation is useless these days. Haggling is no longer an issue of price, but an issue of payment. No compromise is possible in such a case.
Outrage and indignation are the only appropriate responses.

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
 
Dennis,
Thanx for the link, but I was blocked by WebSENSE. I'll try it at another computer tomorrow.

Where's Barry Goldwater now that we need him most?
Sniff.

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top