Bill Clinton's Internal Gun Control Memos Revealed

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The NRA's America's First Freedom magazine has a great article detailing the former Clinton Administrations internal letters and memos with regard to gun control. It lays out the strategies the Clinton Administration was pursuing to reduce legal gun ownership using the Administration's own memos:
http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/ar...clinton-files/

Probably one of the most interesting memos is a January 1994 memo from President Carter's press secretary explaining that gun control was mostly ineffectual ideas that needed re-thinking and that pushing the issue would cost the Democrats control of Congress. Apparently, George Stephanopolous (then working as Clinton's press secretary rather than news anchor) agreed with it and passed it on to Clinton, who ignored it.

This article is particularly relevant given that Hillary Clinton is currently the leading Democratic nominee and is already pursuing policy in line with these same memos.

[Skans]

That was a very interesting article. Watch Hillary Clinton come out swinging hard for gun control - look for some real firebrand speeches from her on this. I don't think she will be able to hold back, regardless of the wise advice from Jimmy Carter.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, if you look at all the warnings that Bill Clinton ignored to come after guns, I'm 100% that Hillary will do the same. Bill still thinks it was worth losing Congress to harass gun owners. That's scary because an anoral Executive who doesn't care about getting re-elected can do a lot of damage to the Second Amendment.

[Skans]

Oh, I think Bill Clinton only cared about getting re-elected. I don't think he cares one way or another about guns. But, at that point in time when he was pushing hard for the AW ban, I believe it was all about shoring up his base or possibly paying his base back for their support. Did he care that he had to throw Democrats in congress under the buss to do it? Heck no! Bill Clinton is a narcissist who only cares about himself and his power.

Hillary is of the same mold. She will do the same thing. You've got to ask yourself: What kind of woman stays married to a man who has repeatedly cheated on her publicly embarrassing her the way the Lewinsky scandal did? I don't think she lives with him; probably hasn't had a thing to do with him as his wife for decades. Why? Power. Why would she jump all over banning guns? shoring up her base. She doesn't stand a chance in the general election without her base throwing big money into her campaign. Losing her base would be a bigger risk than doing battle with the NRA and gun owners.

[Webleymkv]

It is relevant that Hillary's current support for gun control is coming about during the primary rather than the general election. Primaries are typically a time when candidates of both parties pander heavily to their bases in an effort to convince them that they are a true liberal or conservative. There is a large part of the Democratic base that, I suspect, isn't all that enthusiastic about Hillary because they don't think she's liberal enough which is why I think Bernie Sanders is having as strong a showing as he is. While she most likely has enough support from the base to secure the nomination regardless, she may be worried that a large enough percentage of the base may be dissatisfied enough with her to either not vote or cast "protest votes" for a third party candidate to cost her the general election.

Because of this, Hillary probably feels that she needs to shore up her support among the base by reassuring them that she is indeed a true-blue liberal. The best way for her to do this is to "get left" of Bernie Sanders but, unfortunately for Hillary, there are precious few issues where she has the opportunity to do so as Sanders is fairly consistently very liberal. The one issue, however, that Hillary can "get left" of Sanders on is gun control due to his mixed record on the issue. Were she not facing such a far-left primary opponent, I suspect that Hillary would probably try to avoid talking about gun control as much as possible like she did in 2008.

Now, don't get me wrong: I don't think Hillary Clinton is any friend to the Second Amendment. I think that Hillary, as president, would happily sign any new gun control bill that was politically expedient. However, the Clintons seem to be politicians first and liberals/progressives second. What I mean by that is unlike some of the rest of their party, they seem more willing to drop an issue when it becomes politically damaging. Because gun control has been a losing issue for the Democrats for 20+ years (at the national level at least), I don't think that Hillary would be so eager to embrace it had Bernie Sanders and the Democratic base not forced her to do so.

[Skans]

There is a large part of the Democratic base that, I suspect, isn't all that enthusiastic about Hillary because they don't think she's liberal enough

No, I just think she is seen by Democrats as weak, very weak. She's an opportunist who doesn't hesitate to jump on the gun control bandwagon because her trusted handlers tell her that will get her higher in the polls. Hillary is easily manipulated and she is being manipulated by her party-line handlers. If she had any strength at all, she would take the bold position of declaring "no more gun laws" and embrace a semi-auto AR-15 rifle as "America's Rifle". That would rock her world and show people that maybe she really can think for herself. It might even get her more free air time than Trump. But, Hillary, she is just too weak to do this; she always has been and always will be.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

There is a large part of the Democratic base that, I suspect, isn't all that enthusiastic about Hillary because they don't think she's liberal enough which is why I think Bernie Sanders is having as strong a showing as he is.

The observation about democrat primary voters is spot on. As much loyalty as her husband earned in the party by outmaneuvering repubs, his whole DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) effort, a move to win back Reagan democrats, was loathed by ideologues. He is revered amongst democrat partisans for his efficacy.

Skans, I wouldn't underestimate HRC. As brilliant and talented as WJC was, she may be smarter and more driven, though less adept at winning voter affection. I don't believe for a moment that she is easily manipulated. If she were that susceptible to handling, she wouldn't have left a trail of disasters from filegate and the HilaryCare commision to her most recent foreign policy record in her wake.

As someone who has worked and written against their role in politics, I would warn against underestimating them.

[jtmckinney]

I remember an interview with Bill C a couple years after Gore lost and he lamented about how unjustly his actions on gun control were viewed and how Gore suffered from them and cost him the election. Sounds like from this article Clinton didn't get near as much gun control as he wanted.

HRC going after gun control the way she is doesn't make any sense. Everything she has said lately is going to be brought back up when general election time comes. Of course Democrats going after gun control the way they are after a terrorist attack also doesn't make any sense.

I wonder if Democrats realize how strong the head winds are going to be in the Presidential election and are wanting to be able to blame their loss on gun control instead of how their handling of the economy or foreign relations or terrorist.

Maybe in 2018 or 2019 Hillary or Bill will give an interview much like the one Bill gave after the Gore loss.

We can hope!

[Skans]

As someone who has worked and written against their role in politics, I would warn against underestimating them.

I don't underestimate her intellect or her ability to be manipulative herself. I just don't think she has been up against someone like Donald Trump who wouldn't hesitate to exploit her very real and very fragile weaknesses. I also don't think she knows how to go on the offensive very well. Hillary has built a very fragile glass house around herself and guards it with an arsenal of political correctness to hurl at anyone who tries to break it. The fact is, Trump thrives on making personal attacks -they are by no means off limits for him, and the deeper and more personal, the better from his perspective. I don't think Ted Cruz will go there; but Donald will trek deeply where no candidate has gone before on this.

With terrorism and gun control, she had the opportunity to distinguish herself from Obama. But, she hasn't! She has doubled-down on the same policies and mistakes as the current administration. This sure makes the Republicans look far more "progressive" (in the classical sense) than the Democrats who keep towing the party line.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by skans

I just don't think she has been up against someone like Donald Trump who wouldn't hesitate to exploit her very real and very fragile weaknesses.

Let's recall that she hasn't been up against any political opponent except Rick Lazio (Spencer's run had little chance), BHO (against whom she lost), and Sanders, who doesn't actually oppose her.

I agree that she hasn't demonstrated her own, free standing political strength; she hasn't needed to.

Originally Posted by skans

Hillary has built a very fragile glass house around herself and guards it with an arsenal of political correctness to hurl at anyone who tries to break it.

That PC arsenal is formidable though.

Originally Posted by skans

I also don't think she knows how to go on the offensive very well....The fact is, Trump thrives on making personal attacks -they are by no means off limits for him, and the deeper and more personal, the better from his perspective. I don't think Ted Cruz will go there; but Donald will trek deeply where no candidate has gone before on this.

The proportion of voters who will not vote for someone they see as sharp tongued or vindictive is quite high. This is especially true amongst repub voters who can bring a sensitivity about a candidate's breach of ettiquette. Leaving aside any of the details of the man's life, the verbal aggression you frame as an asset will be viewed as a boorish quality by significant portions of repub voters.

Trump also has a quality of being sharp tongued, but not actually sharp in his analysis. This may go over well in the tri-state area as a sort everyman trait, but it may not travel well.

Originally Posted by skans

With terrorism and gun control, she had the opportunity to distinguish herself from Obama. But, she hasn't! She has doubled-down on the same policies and mistakes as the current administration. This sure makes the Republicans look far more "progressive" than the Democrats who keep towing the party line.

I believe that she understands the values and preferences of those who support her and are likely to vote for her. She will not distinguish herself from BHO on 2d Am. rights because the body of voters on whom she can count wouldn't want her to.

Recall that WJC, despite his DLC lip service, never went out of his way to alienate the left half of the spectrum of his support either and even tried to bring the democrat party along on entitlement reform and NAFTA.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by jtmckinney
HRC going after gun control the way she is doesn't make any sense. Everything she has said lately is going to be brought back up when general election time comes. Of course Democrats going after gun control the way they are after a terrorist attack also doesn't make any sense.

I honestly don't think Hillary would prefer to beat the gun control drum right now, I think she feels as though her hand is being forced by Bernie Sanders. Honestly, I don't think Hillary is at all in the position she'd like to be, and tried to maneuver herself into at the beginning of the Obama administration.

It seems very obvious to me that Hillary has been planning on another presidential bid ever since Obama's election in 2008. I think the reason that she took the position of Secretary of State was because she was banking on Obama's domestic policy being the most controversial. By getting out of the senate, she was able to escape having a voting record on controversial legislation like the ACA (which I think she knew was coming in one form or another) thereby insulating herself somewhat from the fallout without alienating her base by opposing it directly.

At the time, I suspect that she thought foreign policy would be relatively uncontroversial so Secretary of State allowed her to escape a voting record on Obama's domestic policy while still maintaining a high-profile public position and name recognition. Unfortunately for Hillary, Obama's foreign policy has proved to be just as controversial as his domestic policy and she is right in the middle of it.

Because she's so weak on foreign policy due to thinks like Benghazi and the long-term results of the so-called "Arab Spring," she finds herself having to fall back onto domestic policy and, in order to avoid alienating her liberal base, embrace the very same policies that she originally tried to avoid having to take a position on.

[Tom Servo]

That's scary because an anoral Executive who doesn't care about getting re-elected can do a lot of damage to the Second Amendment.

Ms. Clinton is laboring under a very dangerous misconception. She thinks gun control has become a safe (or perhaps winning) issue upon which to campaign. There are several problems with that.

The first is that she's misreading public opinion. The social media/HuffPo echo chamber claims widespread public support for gun control measures. Outside a vocal minority, that's not true. We wouldn't be seeing record spikes in gun sales, elected law enforcement refusing to enforce new laws, or politicians being recalled from office if they were reading things right.

The second is that this isn't 1994. The internet has given gun-rights advocates a visible, effective platform to communicate with each other and with the general public. Twenty years ago, gun control advocates were able to make headway by convincing a few news anchors we needed to ban "assault weapons." Those anchors were the only voice the general public heard. That's just not true anymore.

The internet has also allowed people to interface with their lawmakers more efficiently. Those lawmakers pay attention to their electronic correspondence, and they're able to easily tally what percentage of their constituents support or oppose gun control. On that score, we come out ahead.

This leads us to problem number 3: congress itself. They know which way the wind is blowing, and they're not (with exceptions from the usual states) going to anger their constituents by supporting unpopular new laws.

She can propose all sorts of things, but I don't see her getting much done in this political climate.