Previous Post
Next Post

One of the things gun rights advocates have been consoling themselves with as the anti-civil rights crowd tries gamely to limit Americans’ gun rights is what it could mean for the midterm elections next year. Who could forget how the ’94 Assault Weapons Ban turned Congress on its head, even ousting then-speaker Tom Foley from his until-then safe Washington State congressional seat? And who better to reflect on that electoral bloodbath — and offer a word of caution in the current climate — than the man who really made it happen, former president Bill Clinton . . .

Poor Bill. It’s been hard on him these many years, living with what he did to all those swing district Congresscritters . . . all for the greater good of ridding America from the scourge of black rifles.

“I’ve had many sleepless nights in the many years since,” Clinton said. One reason? “I never had any sessions with the House members who were vulnerable,” he explained — saying that he had assumed they already knew how to explain their vote for the ban to their constituents.

As reports, Bill explained it all for a group of high-dollar Democrat donors Saturday night, telling them they have to understand that they’ll never really understand the world view of members of the genus bitterus clingeri.

“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.”

Fortunately Bill came away from his time in Arkansas with a keen understanding of the kind of benighted “people” who are stuck live there. That and a nasty STD or two.

“A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing,” he told the Democratic financiers. “Or they’re living in a place where they don’t have much police presence. Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.”

Stupid rubes. What they need is their betters to step in and make the important decisions for them. To make sure they don’t hurt themselves. To keep sharp objects and as many things that go bang away from them and in the hands of the cops where they belong.

He did, however, make sure to give his elite audience the benefit of his gun rights abrogating experience before collecting his speaking fee:

Clinton closed his remarks with a warning to big Democratic donors that ultimately many Democratic lawmakers will be defeated if they choose to stand with the president.

“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”

Previous Post
Next Post


    • He couldn’t have learned that much; otherwise, he wouldn’t still be clinging to the mistaken assumption that 2A supporters are all blue-collar, rural conservatives.

      • Wrong. He clearly implies that the only people still clutching to guns are the ones who just eat squirrel and catfish and also probably have a hole dug in the forrest for the fish and game warden.

    • Bill is telling the Left to back off guns. He learned in 94. Good for him. Good for gun owners.

      As far as the religious aspect of the divide between Left and Right, one should read the following book I have in my personal library:

      Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society
      Author: David Sloan Wilson, Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences and Anthropology at Binghamton University
      Publisher: University Of Chicago Press

      The New Atheist types hate him. The Creationist Museum types hates him. He must have something right!

      • He isn’t really telling them to back-off. He’s telling them that they will pay by losing their cushy jobs for standing for what he, and they, feel is right: ridding America of guns.

        He feels the rest of the people he grew up with are beneath him; lesser humans who cannot fathom any other form of life other than living off the land instead of others.

    • He is a skilled politician. He has a very acute sense of smell for whats wafting on the political winds. He is not telling his fired up, anti-gun base not to proceed with their long time agenda. He is telling them to be more discreet about how they present it.

      They think they have us this time and many over-exuberant ones have shown their hand. It seems that they are trying to tone down their open elitism towards regular Americans and obvious contempt for the 2nd Amendment. Its better PR for them to keep pretending (in public anyway) that the 1% is in the same happy family as the rest of the unwashed masses.

      He knows mid-terms are coming ..

      • Spot on.

        He’s not saying “don’t push them over the cliff” he’s saying “stick a rock behind them and gently nudge them into tripping over themselves off the cliff.”

  1. Jesus dude, can you lay of the vitriol a bit every now and then? It’s really getting a little much. I get it, he’s a democrat and you don’t like him. But if you can’t write a piece without succumbing to your emotions maybe you should have handed this one over to someone else to pen.

        • Discourse in nastiness?

          You want nasty? How about the nastiness of all the atrocities of civil war.

          Because that is the end result of these people greatest wish, complete citizen disarmament.

          Getting nasty with words is better than the alternative.

        • Apparently you have not been reading the citizens disarmament articles. The anti-gun crowd does not care about facts or discourse. Cuomo ran through laws without a constitutional 3 day public hearing. CT legislature wants to do the same.

          Discourse can happen when both sides want to talk it out. It is clear from their actions they do not want discourse they simply want to pass laws without dissent.

          When the Gov. Of CT puts together a task force that has ONLY anti-gun groups at the table, that is not discourse that rule by fiat .

          Everyone here would love to have a factual reasonable discussions but it cannot happen when only one side of the argument is invited to the table to speak and the other side is then is then demonized and called nut jobs.

          The discourse you want requires mutual respect and right now there is none!

        • Curzen,
          You must realize the perfidy of this man. In 1998, I confirmed through a friend in military intelligence that the Clinton Defense Dept. had polled the Marines as to whether, if ordered, they would confiscate weapons from citizens. Ninety-eight% not only stated they would refuse the order, but with profanity.
          The fact this man even contemplated, let alone floated such a trial baloon, gives insight into his totalitarian ambitions.

        • Curzen,

          Pay attention. The antis are attempting to disarm us through misrepresentation and outright lies. Personally, I find that offensive. Their hypocracy is matched by their intolerance and willful ignorance. I’ve never bought into the “tolerance” BS, I’d rather have the truth.

        • First of all curzen, compared to our opponents we haven’t even BEGUN to stoop. So stop being a drama queen.

          Second, exactly what dialogue would you like us to have? When one ideology cannot survive without the destruction of the other there isn’t a lot of room for constructive talks. On the whole, they fundamentally disagree both with armed self defense and with an armed citizenry that can oppose tyranny. That type of thinking and that belief structure creates a *pretty* big divide. Which means one “compromise” can only lead to another, and always those compromises mean a loss of liberty never a gain. Well fvck that, fvck them and fvck civility. They’re generally not civil to us so I see no compelling reason to be civil to whiney c0cksuckers who want to dictate how I should live my life and what rights I can and cannot have (although their current pkaybook has despicably manipulated the language to be what I “need” and “don’t need”). Civility is given to those few statists who are actually capable of having a polite, rational discussion and they are few. So when old uncle Bill starts to spout nonsense it is TTAG’s rightful place to call it EXACTLY what it is. This self-censorship nonsense you are championing is a product of social engineering that you have succumb to. Snap out of it and stop allowing yourself to be manipulated.

        • Factual and reasonable only works so much against propaganda, emotion, and lies. Frankly, ya gotta do it ALL against these monsters.

      • I’d rather NOT listen to Oprah. She’s an Idealist and is responsible for giving us some irresponsible people on the tube. She also takes different philosophies and combines them under one name, a name that a portion of those philosophies clash with. Besides, she lives in Chicago.

    • Curzen,

      How are facts about Bill Clinton’s speech and attitude not being cited properly? Bill is still a national and influential (former) political figure even if out of office. Clinton, like Obama, supports a disarmed population dependent on the police-state for their safety and security living in a nanny-state. Clinton, like Obama, is an elitist that looks down upon the masses as children and subjects to serve. I do not understand your comment to Dan.

        • Please look up Clinton’s views, and quotes, on his support for and belief in Marxist Communitarianism.

        • You were simply being asked to explain your position. You reacted in all cases with labeling, insults, and attacking others. Try educating me. Maybe I will change my opinion.

        • I see it as a place to cultivate ideas amongst the like minded. Having had MANY conversations with the opposing side I know them all too well.

          Believe me I reach out to those who are undecided and I help them understand the truth about guns, an armed citizenry and the RTKABA. But I will not pander to every fool who thinks we need to be “civil” when standing up for civil rights especially when pointing out the smug elitism of our opponents. I also have no patience for the army of revisionist twats who gets their knickers in a bunch when soneone says something negative about Clinton. He did *some* good things but he was FAR from perfect and remembering him with a halo around his head is a delusional way to treat the past.

          There is a time for educating and a time for activism. Should african americans in the 60s have been more civil, Curzen? Should John Brown have been more civil? There is no damn difference. Rights and liberties are rights and liberties and they belong to all humans. Those who actively seek to deny liberty to others are not deserving of civility. They deserve scorn and resistance.

  2. His warning makes sense – now let us see who is really paying attention if they were all just paying him lip service.

    Why does anyone give him the time of day anymore anyway?

  3. I see this differently. While he is pandering to his audience a bit with the language, I think on the whole he is saying two things…that I agree with.

    1: I you push to pass gun bans be prepared to suffer a political consequence.

    2: Condescending to those that disagree with you is a mistake. It only hardens their opposition, and furthers the urban rural, and red state blue state, divide. He is saying that gun rights people are different from you, but they are Americans and are products of their upbringing just as urban elites are products of theirs. Belittle them at your own peril.

    Not a huge Clinton fan, but I would say these are accurate assessments.

    • Exactly how I read it, too. Just with the typical taxonomy of the common sister-humper thrown in for his audience so they could shake their heads in sad disbelief before writing their checks.

    • I hated Bill Clinton’s time in office, but this is probably the very first time I have to agree with what he said. He is trying to let his fellow dems know that they are going up against a very powerful group of citizens with their anti-gun crap and had best be carefull or suffer the consequences. I don’t like Bill at all, but he ain’t a dummy.

      • I think I agree with the other assessment as well: “Boys, you’re starting to be seen on the radar. Keep your anti-gun agenda so public, and you WILL pay the political price.”

    • I would agree. I also think there are two other possibilities:

      1) He wants to make sure and differentiate Hillary from this Obama push to ban guns so her chances are not ruined before the election even starts in 2016 when it blows up in their faces in the mid terms

      2) He and Obama do not get along, and he wants to show everyone he is smarter than Obama and can say “I Told you so” in two years when the Dems who support this get massacred – but this is also related to Hillary’s running and his desire to take control of the party and be the most influential leader

    • Yes, PkinAZ, yes they do. He’s their original Messiah. Bill Clinton got lifelong Republicans to vote for him – I know more than a few who bought into his version of “Hope and Change” in ’92. He also knows that his liberal plans for the nation were destroyed when the mid-term elections turned Congress back over to the Republicans in ’94. He overplayed his hand with gun control and the sleepers woke up to see him for what he was. For the rest of his Presidency, he had to know that by losing Congress over this issue, he was forever hampered in his policies. Hillary’s Healthcare failure was the biggest loser in that decision.

      I’ll say this for Bill, he’s got the cult of personality all wrapped up and secondly, he’s not stupid. Hollywood feminists got all misty eyed and he got a standing ovation from the Golden Globes crowd when he entered this year. They listen to him and they would be smart to heed his wisdom here if they know what’s good for them. Fortunately, their belief in their superiority of their cause will likely be their undoing – “That’s nice Bill but times have changed. Sandy Hook gave us back the momentum and the polls are all showing we must act.” This is one case where the liberal MSM might actually help us.

      • ’94. He overplayed his hand with gun control and the sleepers woke up

        Yep. It was September, and the election was in November. The Dems got whipped.

        That’s why Obama made an immediate push right after November 2012.

        Unfortunately, most people weren’t voting for Obama, they were just voting against the perceived greater evil of batshitcrazy Right Wing Authoritarians with their State Sanctioned Rape and other control-freak measures.

        Obama has changed that perception. Now he’s the Authoritarian.

        We’ll bounce back and forth between the Leftist Authoritarians and the RWAs a few more times, I reckon.

        It’s like being stuck between a freezer and and oven. On the average, it’s ok. LOL

  4. Sure, things are different now with motivated, angry, and defiant gun-owners waking-up and realizing the dangers we are all in after the November elections and the ongoing tidal wave of gun-grabbing legislation. Yet, the nation’s demographics have changed since 1984 some eighteen years ago. During the last election, none (based on what I’ve read) of the candidates supported by the NRA won their race. How all this will pan out I have no idea.

    • I actually think it is remarkable how well Romney did as a Republican running who had banned guns and had a record to the left of Obama on abortion and guns while Obama ducked the issue and even signed two pro gun bills. Had the GOP nominated someone who was actually pro gun, Obama would not be President. Many of the evangelical and single issue gun voters in rural and suburban areas stayed home. In most of the swing states like FL, VA, OH, etc. we are talking a difference of around 100k to 200k or so which could have been easily met with anti abortion/pro gun people had the GOP not nominated a Mass liberal.

  5. Quote…Fortunately Bill came away from his time in Arkansas with a keen understanding of the kind of benighted “people” who are stuck live there. That and a nasty STD or two.

    Mr. Zimmerman, as someone who has lived in Arkansas most of my life I find it hard not to take those remarks a little personal. Can you not express your dislike of Bill Clinton without a jab at the people who just happen to live in the state where he honed his political skills? And by the way, I could live practically live anywhere I want but I’ve traveled all over and Arkansas suits me fine, hell I can get a 32 oz Big Gulp just about anytime I want one.

    I’m proud to live in NW Arkansas, the custom 1911 capitol of the world more precisely. Like most states there are good and bad, in the NW we suffer because this is a Republican area so Democrats, Clinton especially, punish us every way possible for not supporting them. Like many states the urban population have the numbers and control the politics most of the time.

    I know how Bill Clinton operates very well, I don’t like him, never will, I lived thru him as Attorney General and Governor. I do have to give him credit as a politician, he is one of the best ever. He never forgets a name, he has that charm that causes people who don’t agree with him to like him anyway. For sure every thing he does has a political reason behind it. He is nothing like Obama, they are both liars but Clinton does it with a smile and velvet touch, Obama hits you with brass knucks and doesn’t care if you like it or not. Chicago versus Southern politics I suppose.

    • Clinton is nothing if not a master politician. Like him or not, you have to admire his skills in that area.

      And I’m not sure how you could have read anything I wrote as a swipe at Arkansas or the people who live there. Bill was doing that enough for everyone. I live only one state up, after all.

    • Hmm. Dan was translating the President’s remarks and cutting through the condescension. He was not saying anything negative about Arkansas.

    • Perhaps the “strike through” edit was lost in translation?

      I think the intent was to reflect Dan’s interpretation of Bill Clinton’s true feelings toward his homeland rather than his own.

    • I’m also from Arkansas (originally). I didn’t see Robert’s remark as a slight. Rather, it was a facetious remark. The implication was that it was CLINTON treated Arkansans as benighted.

      I went to undergrad at U of A in Fayetteville. 🙂

  6. Yeah, you ignorant hicks, you don’t know no better than to defend yourselves against violent crime. We should be like the very intelligent bradys who just swim in the water & let a shark take one every once & awhile. What happened to feinswine, not a peep lately, Randy

  7. Like Crunkle-r, I’ve suffered under Clinton for a long time, too, and I’ll be glad to provide a translation of Clintonspeak:
    “Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said.
    Translation: ‘You are superior to these rubes, but don’t speak to them condescendingly. Act as though there may be some merit to what they’re saying, albeit wrong.’
    “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.”
    Translation: ‘They live in God-forsaken backwoods hell-holes, unlike us enlightened gifted people who live in a civilized, cultured society. Fortunately, I was smart enough to rise above these hayseeds & escape it.’
    “A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing,” he told the Democratic financiers. “Or they’re living in a place where they don’t have much police presence. Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.”
    Translation: ‘They people have no lives, unlike us whose mere presence on earth they should be thanking us for. And the idiots don’t live in gated communities with armed guards keeping out the riff-raff. And they’ve been brainwashed into believing nonsense like the 2nd Amendment.’

    • i guess you read what you want, because i think alot of people are looking to get pissed off.

      first off, as you’ve all noted, the man is a master politician and you give the crowd what you want. i, personally, don’t see a single slight towards country people, but the basic statement of, “their mindset is different than your mindset, and to condescend it is to anger it.”

      but, you guys go looking for words to anger up your blood. it’ll help blind you to the fact that the spearhead of the worst AWB to happen yet just told the people who do listen to him it was a bad idea. this is a big piece of news, why would you try to use it as a wedge between the people he has influence on and you?

      gun owners really are our own worst enemy.

  8. Unlike Obama Clinton learned from mistakes seems Obama is too stupid. I think though many House Dems knows the truth and so do many Senators which makes any ban suicide to vote for.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here