Q.E.D.

M

munir

New member
"LaPierre just said in a public forum what the majority
of the people have been saying privately for a very long time."

I really expected about the responses I got. No big deal.

The essence of my comment is really summed up by that
quote. If you really believe that a "majority of
the people" believe that Clinton accepts a certain
level of violence in order to facilitate his political
aims, I think it behooves you to explain how he
was elected. Twice. Is it perhaps the case that
a majority of your buddies believe that, but a majority
of the American people do not? One of the characteristics
(to my mind) of fringe groups is that they tend
to end up only speaking to people with whom they
agree, further partitioning themselves from mainstream
politics. It seems to me that Clinton's two presidential
victories require some explanation from those who
believe that they speak for the majority, but
keep
losing elections.

I know the general fringe reponse to this is "But
elections only represent the people that vote,
and all of the people who didn't vote agree with
me, and therefore I'm right!"

The reasonable response, "How do you know that all
of the people who didn't vote agree with you?"

The answer must be, "I just know."

Come on, if the majority of the people had agreed
with you, would Clinton have been elected even
once?

I don't really have any clue as to the size of
the NRA any more. Do more people belong to the NRA,
or vote for Clinton?

I repeat, "Grow up NRA. This is a democracy, not
kindergarten."



------------------
ahlan wa sahlan
PCV Yemen 1984-86
 
Well, OF COURSE most people don't think Clinton is willing to see people die to further his political agenda. Most people don't think, period. Not about politics, anyway.

Look, it's now generally accepted that Clinton's bombing of that pharmeceutical plant in Sudan was purely political; The "evidence" that it was manufacturing nerve gas turns out to have been so much hot air. Think nobody died as a result of that bombing? Either directly by the bombs, or indirectly because of shortage of important drugs it used to produce?

QED yourself: Clinton is willing to undertake actions which result in foreigners dying, for his own political purposes. Whether he's willing to see Americans die to advance his political agenda is therefore at least arguable. It's a claim which can be defended, with logic and facts.

But do most people agree with this reasoning? No. Most people wouldn't go down this line of logic if you tried to drag them kicking and screaming, because the conclusion is unpleasant, and the human ability to avoid thinking about unpleasant things is virtually unlimited.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Clinton did`nt enjoy a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections.The most he ever got was 42%.A majority of the people who voted,marked someone besides Bill Clinton on their ballot.
 
munir - Correction, this is a republic not a democracy. There is a significant difference in that our Republic is based on a set of citizen's rights guaranteed by our Constitution. In a democracy, majority rules and no one is guaranteed any rights except that which is determined by the majority at that particular time. In our Republic, the majority does not have the luxury of denying rights guaranteed by the Constitution to a particular group simply because that group is a minority one. Understand the difference?
 
It's true that Clinton never won a majority, which is the only thing that's starting to convince me that maybe I ought to vote Bush and concentrate on local offices for Libertarians.

But Munir is right. I didn't see his original comments, but I live on a college campus. Let me tell you one more time, among the most educated people in America, we're a tiny minority. I am absolutely convinced of this. If it were not true, then a voting bloc the size of the NRA ought to be an even bigger factor than it is.

However, Munir, more and more people are waking up. Whether it will be enough is anybody's guess.

Now, there is one area in which I think you're a little fuzzy. When LaPierre said that Clinton could have had his bill but blocked it to save the issue for Gore, that IS the opinion of the majority of politicians. I haven't seen one yet who was willing to deny that accusation outright. They simply don't have a problem with it because to them it's part of the game. Just like I believe the majority of people do think that Clinton is a liar, since the majority of students and faculty at my liberal college will admit that. They just don't care.
 
Oops! This was really supposed to be a continuation
of a discussion under the "N.R.A. Lays Responsibility
for a Killing on Clinton". That may explain the
missing context. My only argument was that saying
that Clinton (or Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford...)
was willing "accept a certain level of killing"
in exchange for pushing his political agenda
was "fringe group" politics, mainly palatable
for the "black helicopter crowd." By contrast,
I completely buy the analysis (espoused by Don Gwinn)
that Clinton's desire to compromise on the gun control
bill is influenced by his belief that this will
be a very strong issue for Democrats this fall.
To me, there's a heck of a lot of difference between
attributing to Clinton the role of a wily Democratic
politician, who is wrong on this particular issue,
and making him some kind of evil monster.

I think that it's reasonable to believe that Clinton
is a moderate to liberal Democratic politician
who sincerely beleives that more controls on the
manufacture of handguns will result in fewer handguns
being used in the commmission of crimes.
He's wrong, but I don't think it's because he's
a commie lackey or some kind of evil monster.

In fact, the biggest concern for me is that if Clinton
thinks that stiffer gun control is going to be
a big win for the Democrats this fall, he's probably right.
The man had a lot of faults, put he strikes me
as an extremely adept political operator. I don't
think that he's often wrong when he's reading
the political winds. For example, allowing the
Republicans to shut down the government, which
was I think the turning point of his presidency,
was a brilliant calculation. He went into that
confrontation a weak president, and came out unbeatable.
I think both sides agree with the political acumen of that move.
So it scares me that the thinks that stiffer gun
control is a good issue for Democrats. Entirely
aside from the correctness of the issue, the man
is almost always right about how the issue will be
perceived by the majority of the American people (or
at least the majority of the the American people
who vote).

My orginal concern is that "fringe politics" comments
from Mr. Pierre, while extremely popular within
the NRA, only hurt the cause of gun owners in the US.
If you mention the NRA any non-gun owners (and many
gun owners), the only thing they ask about is the
"jack booted thugs" remark, and then laugh and ask
if UN controlled gangs in L.A. are really about
to help Chinese troops take over the country.
People know that George Bush (not a liberal democrat)
resigned his lifetime membership over that remark.
Calling any agency of the US government "jack booted
thugs" sounds like wacky paranoid politics.

The big concern for me, as a shooter, is that as
the NRA makes wacky political statements, it becomes
more marginalized. But there really is an issue here.
I believe that there are people who really do want
to confiscate handguns. As the NRA marginalizes
itself into militia movement, we may lose some rights.

I wonder if there is a gun owners group out there
that has not yet blown its chance of persuading
mainstream polticians (Democrats and Republicans)
of the error of their ways?



------------------
ahlan wa sahlan
PCV Yemen 1984-86
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top