Skip navigation
sponsored by 

MTP Transcript for April 22, 2007


< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >

MR. RUSSERT: Terrible, terrible week in this country. One of the reactions in Washington was a discussion of gun control. A subdued discussion, I might add. Here’s the poll of the American people by the Associated Press. “Do you support a presidential candidate who favors stricter gun control?” More likely, 55; less likely, 32. Look at this breakdown by party: Democrats 69-to-21, 21, Republicans, less likely, 50-to-34; independents, 50-to-34. And yet neither party seemed to be very enthusiastic this week, Jon Meacham...

MR. MEACHAM: Mm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...about gun control. Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, this is an article from Newsday, the Long Island newspaper. “[Rudy] Giuliani this week issued statements on gun control and late term abortion that differ sharply from his previous positions, opening him up to ‘flip-flop’ charges by activists. The gun control switch seems particularly stark. As New York mayor, Giuliani didn’t just support tough controls—he became former President Bill Clinton’s go-to Republican to lobby a GOP Congress to back an assault weapons ban.

“Later, Giuliani joined a lawsuit against gun makers and called for a ‘uniform law passed by Congress’ to regulate handgun ownership.” That’s not part of his agenda now.

MR. MEACHAM: No, and I think you saw what the Democrats—there was a lot of kind of deafening silence, in a way, on the gun issue most of the week. You know that in 1994 the Republican blowout was to some extent, and in some quarters, blamed on the crime bill, on President Clinton’s anti-crime legislation. I know that people close to the Gores blame the loss of Tennessee in 2000, and therefore the loss of the presidency, on the gun issue. And so I think the Democrats are very touchy about this, and the Republicans are, rather predictably at this point, playing, playing to the base. It’s an inevitable conversation that comes up after one of these horrible things. We have a piece in Newsweek this week by Mike Bloomberg, who is, argues, “Let’s enforce what’s on the books. Let’s crack down on illegal guns.” And I think you’ll see more of that moderate Bloomberg-Schwarzenegger wing of politics taking the lead on this.

MR. RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin, in fact The Washington Post reports this:

“With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls, the” NRA “has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill.

“Multiple gun control measures were introduced after the Columbine High School shootings eight years ago, but the NRA helped thwart them all, then helped defeat Vice President Al Gore’s 2000 bid for the White House,” as Jon mentioned. “With that in mind, Democratic leaders are anxious to bring the NRA aboard as they try to respond to this week’s shootings.”

And I refer to you these comments from senior Democrats. Charlie Rangel of Harlem, “It’s a regional thing. It’s a cultural thing.” Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, “The states are dealing with gun issues. We tried it,” “it didn’t succeed.” Lloyd Doggett of Texas, “Unless we get some” kind of “leadership from the White House, we’re not going to take this kind of political damage bringing up something that would never become law.” Clearly the Democrats are saying, “Hold off on gun control.”

MS. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: You know, it seems to me, though, that the Democrats are misreading history when they blame the 2000 election on gun control strength, and when they blame 1994--it’s true that some people claim that, but there were a lot of other reasons why the Democrats lost in ‘94, a lot of other reasons why Gore lost in 2000. We make a narrative sometimes that’s based on something too simple. Also, the Democrats want those mountain states where they had hunters who won.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

But on the other hand, there’s an even deeper threat in the country today which is the desire for the country to overcome polarization. And I think the first Democratic candidate who can speak on both sides of this issue empathetically, understanding that freedom desire that’s been part of our Second Amendment from the beginning, but the need for security on the other side, and figure out how to—I think you’re right (points to Jon Meacham), a moderate approach. They can’t just be silent about this, this has been one of their issues. They’ve got to take some sort of leadership.

MR. DAVID GREGORY: Tim, you know, there’s, there’s a political point here, and I heard a commonsense approach. Something like this happens and you can see some laser-like areas where they can focus. Keeping guns out of the hands of those who are mentally unstable seems like an obvious area to bring in the NRA, to bring in the public policy folks, politicians. Another has to do with the political, which is get the NRA and the White House on board to sort of bring something up so it doesn’t play to all the polarization on this issue. Where it gets more difficult is to sort of engage both parties on these issues and say, “Is there a way we can, we can have this debate in a more reasonable way that is not so polarizing, that speaks to the availability of guns, that speaks to these ammunitions clips where you can, you can fire off 15 shots at a time and create this kind of carnage without getting into the familiar, entrenched areas?”

MR. PETE WILLIAMS: There’s ample reason to think, actually, that the existing federal law did clearly sweep up this gun purchase. But the Virginia state law was not in conformance with the federal law. Virginia’s law didn’t capture sufficient numbers of people who were mentally unqualified to own a gun. The sobering thing is, as defective as the Virginia system is, it’s considered the best in the country among the states in terms of looking at mental health records.

MR. RUSSERT: And Colonel Massengill seemed to indicate that it—he’d like to look at that loophole.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right, well, the Virginia attorney general’s office is already looking at whether the Virginia law needs to be changed.

MR. RUSSERT: Pete, a big decision in the Supreme Court about abortion rights. Explain it.

CONTINUED
< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >

Sponsored links

Resource guide