Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Hillary's "Gun Summit"

Hillary needed votes in Wisconsin. So, at a rally near Green Bay
at St. Norbert College she spoke about more regulations: on food
safety, and more importantly on private gun ownership. She said
the following in response to a question about the recent massacre
at Northern Illinois University.

“I believe we really should have a summit where
everybody comes together on all sides of this issue"

“Let’s figure out how we can be consistent with the Second
Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, and do more to keep
people safe"

“I think we can do that, but it’s going to require us all to
maybe give a little..."

So, what does Hillary think "a little" is? And how do you think
she'll apply it to private gun ownership in order to stop
massacres in gun-free zones?

The last time she was "in office", her husband (with the help of
a Democrat-controlled Congress) banned thousands of ordinary
rifles that looked evil. Not the assault rifles the military
use, just ordinary rifles. But to make them sound evil, they
were called "assault weapons".

It's already a given that that 10 year ban, which expired 3 years
ago, will be coming back when either Hillary or Obama get
elected. But if she can ban these ordinary auto-loading rifles,
why wouldn't the solution to the gun-free zone massacre problem
mandate a ban of auto-loading handguns? I can't think of a
reason, why it wouldn't. After all, you could probably still buy
a revolver, so it would be "consistent with the Second


  1. Why does it seem that, every time "everyone has to give a little," the only ones who "give" are the law-abiding citizens? With whom does one negotiate in order to get the "other side" in the massacres a chance to "give anything up?" Will the moronic/crazies "come to the table, and talk?"


  2. Paul, "everyone has to give a little" is liberal code for "the other side has to capitulate," similar to "bipartisan" meaning "do what we tell you to." Luckily (I guess), Hillary lost Wisconsin big-time.


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.