Bug
Lv 7
Bug asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 7 years ago

Why do people still believe Clinton is responsible for the "gun free zones" on military bases?

I see a lot of cons here blaming Clinton for the "gun free zones" on military bases. Unfortunately, it's not true.

Department of Defence directive 5210.56 is responsible for that, and it was issued in February 1992, and was considered "effective immediately" for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Bill Clinton was not President in 1992.

Here it is:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pd...

So why do right-wingers still cling to, and loudly proclaim, this proved lie, over and over and over?

Update:

@Uncle Pennybags: Your post is non-sensical. Libs aren't "good" with anything you mentioned and never have been, but cons have been, until Obama came along, that is: Cheney "deficits don't matter"; Patriot Act STARTED the spying; the Iraq "surge", Gitmo, etc....

The first step to solving a problem is admitting it: I'm still waiting for cons to start calling it the "Bush weapons ban". I won't hold my breath.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Sarah
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Lack of personal responsibility on the part of republicans.

    President H.W. Bush Enacted Military Base Gun Regulations In 1992, A Year Before Clinton Took Office. As The New Republic explained, a 1992 Department of Defense directive established the rules limiting firearms on military bases to "qualified personnel," issued under former President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney:

    [T]he impetus for the Army regulation was, in turn, Department of Defense directive 5210.56, which was issued on February 25, 1992, and was considered "effective immediately" for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Clinton, of course, did not take office until January 20, 1993. So if we're going to blame a former president for a mass murder ... see how ridiculous this all is?

    What's more, that directive--signed by Donald J. Atwood, George H. W. Bush's deputy secretary of defense--was by no means a "ban" on firearms at military installations. It explicitly authorizes DOD personnel "to carry firearms while engaged in law enforcement or security duties, protecting personnel, vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners," and simply aims to "limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. [The New Republic, 11/17/13]

  • 7 years ago

    OK. Let's end the George H.W. Bush Ban on soldiers carrying guns on base.

    Unlike you Libs, something magically doesn't become good with us just because our guy is the one who did it. You know, like Obama and high deficits, domestic spying, Surge, Gitmo, etc.

    UPDATE: Nonsensical? So where the hell is all the outrage we should be seeing here on YA about this stuff from Libs? Because I sure as hell remember seeing it when Bush was President. Now Libs like you remain silent about it, or even defend Obama doing worse!

    Open your eyes and look around. Show me the questions asked by Libs complaining that Obama still has Gitmo open, or ran 4 consecutive years of TRILLION+ deficits. Where's the hand-wringing questions from Libs worried about our lost privacy rights due to domestic spying?

  • justa
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    They have no regard for truth or honesty here, most of them are trolls who enjoy getting people annoyed.

    The rest do nearly nothing but spout what they hear on FOX in the morning.

    Besides, as far as they are concerned no Republican is responsible for anything. And given the results of last years congressional record of least active congress ever, they may be right on this one.

  • REJJI
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Just like they like to blame Obama for the economy going down the drain. How quickly people seem to forget - but to their convenience.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    You have to remember their sources are Faux news, and Rush, and his ilk. Lots of opinions, but not a whole lot of truth behind them. They don't bother to check other sources because they want to believe what these "trolls" tell them.

  • 7 years ago

    Cons only believe political facts when they look good for them.

  • 7 years ago

    Nice link. When have facts or documented evidence ever been an obstacle for conlogic?

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    You really are trying to get me to say they are the "r" word, aren';t you??

    LOL!

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Republicans believe nearly any lie they hear if it disparages a democrat.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    right-wingers always lie, and point fingers when all they have to do is look in the mirror to see the person responsible

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.