Reagan pro-AWB


PDA






morganm01
August 4, 2004, 10:53 AM
In 1994, former President Ronald Reagan, supporting the ban when it was making its way through Congress, wrote, "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

Never heard that one before. From the San Diego Union Tribune.

If you enjoyed reading about "Reagan pro-AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Patent Works
August 4, 2004, 11:00 AM
In 1994, former President Ronald Reagan, supporting the ban when it was making its way through Congress...

"November 5, 1994

"My fellow Americans, I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease....

"Sincerely, Ronald Reagan"



Note the dates, and that close friends have since commented how RR was noticeably affected in the year before his announcement.

Henry Bowman
August 4, 2004, 11:26 AM
Yes, this was extracted from a sick old man by Sarah Brady using the "my husband took a bullet for you and is now a half-wit" card.

Don't Tread On Me
August 4, 2004, 11:28 AM
I dismiss all this crap from the left, the liberals, the socialists and the anti-rights anti-gunners.


This is nothing more than divisionary "divide and conquer" tactics.


They want to say "see one of your great ideological leaders, conservative, republican wants AW banned too"

as if that means everyone should want the same, or as if we should draw a line of reasoning from authority.


Authoritarian thinking is prevalent in radical islamic groups, not in America. We don't think something is morally right because 1 man says so.



When these types of articles or statements come out, dismiss them - as they accomplish nothing but to propagate the notion of division and similation between their anti-gun stances and those who are politically affiliated with most gun-owners.



Just tell them since (IF) supported the AWB, Brady bought her son a rifle. Same thinking.

Ransom
August 4, 2004, 11:52 AM
Let this be a lesson. Just because you might have republican senators dont assume they are automatically against the ban. An afwul lot of conservatives have seemed to compromise some gun rights lately. Write to everyone.

MP5
August 4, 2004, 12:48 PM
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,571498,00.html
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=110-06172004
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=105-07062004
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usguns053881936jul05,0,7332146.story

Though, as always, note the sources. Caveat lector.

DonP
August 4, 2004, 01:33 PM
All of a sudden the lefties have found something about Reagan they like.

I thought this was the same guy that "put the homeless and mentally ill on the streets" and "ran some secret wars in South America". Isn't he the same guy that supposedly "sold the poison gas to Huessein" too.

Why, that totally imnpeaches his credibility, so according to leftist doctrine we shouldn't listen to anything he says.

Using the death of a President, who has not been able to explain or correct himself for over 10 years, to further your own personal goals and failing organization (and paycheck) has to be the lowest form of life.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 4, 2004, 03:09 PM
Let this be a lesson. Just because you might have republican senators dont assume they are automatically against the ban.

Actually, we don't have to assume anything because we know exactly how they voted on March 2, 2004.

Eight Republican Senators supported the ban:
Chaffee, Collins, Dewine, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Smith, Snowe and Warner

The remaining 43 Republicans opposed it.

Six Democrat Senators opposed the ban:
Baucus, Feingold, Landrieu, Miller, Nelson (NE) and Reid

The remaining 43 Democrats supported the semi-auto ban.


As for Reagan, this is pretty much old news. Likely they are trying to buy some immunity for Kerry on the gun issue since the NRA successfully split the union vote over guns in 2000 and their own latest poll shows union members more opposed to renewal of the ban than NRA members. Reagan wrote the letter in July, four months before he wrote the letter announcing he had Alzheimers.

FeebMaster
August 4, 2004, 03:19 PM
Is this somehow shocking? Reagan was a gun grabber long before he ever became president and banned the civilian production of machine guns.

Kharn
August 4, 2004, 04:05 PM
From what I understand, Reagan was decieved by the Brady's into writing that letter. He trusted them enough to write the letter on blind faith that they were doing the right thing, but when he later saw what his letter supported he was quite displeased and their relationship was soured forever.

FeebMaster:
Reagan also asked the NRA what he should do about signing the FOPA, they told him to go ahead and do it, their legal department would get the ban struck down in a matter of months.

Kharn

Ransom
August 4, 2004, 04:17 PM
Khar,

If these are his actual words:

"While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

I dont see how he could be much tricked. I can understand if they then used his words for their own political gain or something like that but it seems, if those are his words, he did in fact support the AWB.


I honestly wouldnt be suprised since most conservatives abandon this particular issue and drive towards the middle. "We support gun owners but we dont like assault weapons blah blah blah" becomes the mantra.

RobW
August 4, 2004, 05:34 PM
Just a reminder: Politicos are politicos. Ask anyone of them to tell you the difference between an automatic and a self-loader and you'll get "ahhh, umm, we have to care for the chiiiillldren and if only ONE child...blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda...).

The sad thing is, the incompetence they show in this topic is the same incompetence they show with economy, military, homeland-security... you name it.

POLITICOS ARE A CLASS THAT CARE ABOUT NOTHING BUT THEMSELVES! Yes, there might be some newbies, thinking they can change something to the better. They will be brought in (corrupt) line or never re-elected.

Just an observation not only valid in the USA, but all over "Democratic" Europe.

Guess, why the former Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl (a staunch conservative), was good friend with Bill Clinton (a staunch liberal).

Crooks love Crooks!

FeebMaster
August 4, 2004, 05:49 PM
Kharn: Reagan also asked the NRA what he should do about signing the FOPA, they told him to go ahead and do it, their legal department would get the ban struck down in a matter of months.

I'm sure Reagan really needed the encouragement before signing more gun control. As for the NRA, we're going on 219 months, now. Just how many months were they talking about?

Bartholomew Roberts
August 5, 2004, 09:09 AM
I honestly wouldnt be suprised since most conservatives abandon this particular issue and drive towards the middle.

Exactly how do you arrive at the conclusion that 8 out of 51 = most?

Blue Jays
July 14, 2005, 04:22 PM
Hi All-

I've tried a variety of searches to determine President Ronald W. Reagan's stance on RKBA and gun control both before and after the assassination attempt on his life.

This is needed for a discussion that I'm having with a hardcore liberal in my family who is trying to manipulate my admiration for President Reagan to redirect the conversation. Any help or definitive sites that illustrate his views would be extremely helpful.

~ Blue Jays ~

Cosmoline
July 14, 2005, 04:25 PM
The Gipper was no friend of the RKBA. When he was Gov he was responsible for enacting **********'s first statewide anti-gun laws. IIRC it was in reaction to armed Black Panthers appearing on the legislature floor to make a complaint :D

Flyboy
July 14, 2005, 04:55 PM
Just goes to show...people with organic brain damage support Brady!

Rebar
July 14, 2005, 05:04 PM
It must be pointed out - it was the republicans who put in the 10 year sunset on the AWB, without which it would still be the law of the land.

TheOtherOne
July 14, 2005, 05:19 PM
It must be pointed out - it was the republicans who put in the 10 year sunset on the AWB, without which it would still be the law of the land.I heard that the sunset clause was the only way to get it passed in the first place. So if republicans put it in, wouldn't that mean we have them to thank for giving it a good push through for 10 years?

And even if the NRA was pushing him it was still Reagan's own signature that made the new machine gun ban official when he signed the law.

They are all against us. In the end, Republicans and Democrats aren't that different.

rock jock
July 14, 2005, 05:25 PM
In the end, Republicans and Democrats aren't that different. You're right, in the sense that every political party wants power and control.

lostone1413
July 14, 2005, 05:32 PM
How many of you can name any Pro-Gun bills to come out of DC in the last 40years? Seems Democrap or Republican none are Pro-Gun. We Republicans now have the White House and both Houses. What has been passed for us? Being a Republican all my life I for one have to laugh when we control DC the way we do now. How we can still blame the Democraps for no Pro-Gun bills being passed. Since 911 i've never in 60 years seen so many of our rights go out the window. King George and his like in DC care less about what the people want. Had it to do over i'd have stayed home in Nov.

R.H. Lee
July 14, 2005, 05:41 PM
The entire ‘assault weapons’ argument is ludicrous. An assault weapon by definition must be capable of full-auto fire, which has been essentially outlawed (without special permission from and taxes paid to Uncle Sugar) since 1934. It cracks me up that folks in self proclaimed ‘free states’ think it’s big shakes to own a semi-auto AK knockoff or other semi-auto ‘assault weapon’. It’s a joke- even IF ordinary citizens could routinely possess full auto small arms, we would not even come close to parity with the advanced weaponry government has -which was the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Face it-with or without so-called ‘assault weapons’, you’re basically impotent; it’s just a cosmetic illusion.

rhubarb
July 14, 2005, 06:14 PM
POLITICOS ARE A CLASS THAT CARE ABOUT NOTHING BUT THEMSELVES!
Our current Repugnantcrat President also supports AWB, too. Said he'd sign its renewal if he got the chance. Reagan was a politician. Politicians do politically expedient things without regard to right or wrong. Get used to it.

taliv
July 14, 2005, 07:12 PM
The entire ‘assault weapons’ argument is ludicrous. An assault weapon by definition must be capable of full-auto fire, which has been essentially outlawed (without special permission from and taxes paid to Uncle Sugar) since 1934. It cracks me up that folks in self proclaimed ‘free states’ think it’s big shakes to own a semi-auto AK knockoff or other semi-auto ‘assault weapon’. It’s a joke- even IF ordinary citizens could routinely possess full auto small arms, we would not even come close to parity with the advanced weaponry government has -which was the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Face it-with or without so-called ‘assault weapons’, you’re basically impotent; it’s just a cosmetic illusion.

i don't get how this is in any way related to the discussion, but

i'm not familiar with any definition of assault weapon in widespread use that requires full-auto fire. quite the opposite. as i pointed out in the columbus ohio AWB two days ago, their definition of an automatic weapon includes semi-autos that accept magazines larger than 30 rnds.

regardless, that's unimportant.

what is important, but a conversation for another thread, is the totally outrageously incorrect notion that the 2A is irrelevant today because citizens can't own "advanced military weapons".

RevDisk
July 14, 2005, 07:33 PM
It must be pointed out - it was the republicans who put in the 10 year sunset on the AWB, without which it would still be the law of the land.

It must be pointed out - the AWB was a freakin joke. Yea, I hated it and found it bloody annoying. All it did was force cosmetic changes and drove up the price of normal capacity magazines. It effectively banned nothing. I could still buy an AWB-compliant evil looking black rifle that was just as effective as a pre-ban AWB non-compliant evil looking black rifle.

Oh yea, and our current Republican president swore he'd renew the AWB if given the chance.

On the other hand, some rather "effective" gun control laws...

Reagon signed the infamous 1986 FOPA the slammed the door closed on any new automatic weapons. This was not forcing cosmetic changes. This was denying an entire class of weapons to law abidding citizens. Ironically, probably the class of weapon LEAST likely to be used in crime.

Bush implemented the import ban of so called assault rifles, and expressed his desire to ban domestic production of so called assault rifles.

The current president has apparently just slammed the door shut on part kits and apparently C&R rifles too.

I love the irony that everyone thinks Bush is so pro-gun when he has done basically nothing that is pro-gun. Previous to this new ruling by the ATF, one could say he was not anti-gun with some conviction. Ignoring his support for renewing the AWB, of course. He begins to show his true colors on the 2nd amendment as he has on many other amendments.


Your choice is now obvious. Vote democrat, and be stabbed in the chest. Vote republican, and be stabbed in the back. Pick your poison.

GEM
July 14, 2005, 09:04 PM
The Dems are clearly antigun except for a rare few. The grass roots GOP may be closer to the progun citizen. However, the upper levels of the party are not particularly concerned with the issue.

Bush I quit the NRA and II is in favor of the AWB. Dole blocked an early repeal of the AWB.

On the whole the rank and file of the GOP is the strength of the RKBA with a small number of Dems. Hopefully they can kept most of the Dems and the GOP rich boys from doing harm.

DMF
July 14, 2005, 09:10 PM
Holy resurrected thread Batman! This was almost a year old before it got revived today.

billwiese
July 14, 2005, 09:25 PM
Ronald Reagan was generally pro-gun even after being shot by Hinckley.

His signing of 1986 McClure-Volkmer was probably due to FOPA (Firearm's Owner Protection Act). While it did produce the May cutoff in MGs, that may not have been perceived as a big thing, and there were tons of gov't abuses of interstate travellers with firearms that Fed. law could reduce...

He owned an assault weapon -an AR15, for his ranch rifle - at Rancho Del Cielo at least in the 70s. I do not know if he retained it, or what happened to it. Or if it's still there with Nancy and hasn't been registered w/Cal DOJ. (Nancy's a felon! Just say no!)

RR's lobbying in '93 for the Fed AWB 'Crime Bill' must be forgiven. He was an old man, essentially under the care of others, who was being used by those around them - I can just see "Help those nice people, Ronny, you remember what happened to Bear".

At that time already he was not really hanging out in public or making pronouncements about things political so you know somebody from the Brady org came by with Jelly Bellys and helped put some words in a tired old man's mouth.

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

FeebMaster
July 14, 2005, 09:40 PM
Ronald Reagan was generally pro-gun even after being shot by Hinckley.

His signing of 1986 McClure-Volkmer was probably due to FOPA (Firearm's Owner Protection Act). While it did produce the May cutoff in MGs, that may not have been perceived as a big thing, and there were tons of gov't abuses of interstate travellers with firearms that Fed. law could reduce...

He owned an assault weapon -an AR15, for his ranch rifle - at Rancho Del Cielo at least in the 70s. I do not know if he retained it, or what happened to it. Or if it's still there with Nancy and hasn't been registered w/Cal DOJ. (Nancy's a felon! Just say no!)

RR's lobbying in '93 for the Fed AWB 'Crime Bill' must be forgiven. He was an old man, essentially under the care of others, who was being used by those around them - I can just see "Help those nice people, Ronny, you remember what happened to Bear".

At that time already he was not really hanging out in public or making pronouncements about things political so you know somebody from the Brady org came by with Jelly Bellys and helped put some words in a tired old man's mouth.

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Was he an old man essentially under the care of others when he was grabbing guns in California?

Marshall
July 14, 2005, 10:13 PM
I see it this way:

Republicans are pro gun for the most part. Some may hold off on assault weapon because of political pressure but support guns other than that. The fact that the Republicans do control Congress is the only reason we still have the guns we do. They may not be making new pro-gun laws but if it wasn't for the Republicans, the Dems would be having a hay day on us! Oh, and IIRC, the AWB ban would still be in effect if the Republicans were not in control, the Dems pushed to keep it but, to no ado.

Democrats just want your guns period, they would love to have them all.

I'll take Republicans.

As for Ronnie, it really makes no difference what the deal was, it's over and done with, the man has passed. I have a difficult time judging someone on their thoughts on this matter after they have been shot. I like to think I have some empathy for them. Until I have been shot and laid up in a hospital, facing death, I'll reserve judgment. I can see how it might make rational decisions at a tad fuzzy, especially with fuzzy thinking being so close anyway.

RevDisk
July 14, 2005, 10:29 PM
Republicans are pro gun for the most part. Some may hold off on assault weapon because of political pressure but support guns other than that.

Yep. Only so called "assault weapons". And machine guns. And importation. And part kits. But they'll never touch your hunting rifle! Oh wait. Scratch that. Forgot, and C&R.

But they'll never touch politically correct ueber-expensive hunting rifles and O/U shotguns! For now.


One good thing. The recent Republican presidents have given Oleg plenty of good poster ideas. I got a feeling the part kit ban and possible elimination of C&R importation will make catchy posters.

Rebar
July 14, 2005, 10:31 PM
It should be remembered, that it was a whole different environment back then. The liberal/left controlled the congress, most states too, for many years.

Before the republicans became the majority party, CCW was outlawed or restricted in 40 states. Today 38 states are right to carry. That's a big difference, and that's because of republicans. If Gore or Kerry was elected, who here has any doubts the AWB would have been made permanent, with even more restrictions? You should be grateful that Bush won, considering the very real alternatives. And we're not out of the woods yet, President Hillary will definitely reinstitute the AWB, cancel CMP, stop imports of all firearms for civilians, and eventually start confiscation.

In my mind, saying that there isn't a difference between them is pure trolling. There might not be the degree of difference you might want, but to say there's none is clearly wrong. Republicans at the local and state level have pushed for our RKBA, with the democrats fighting them tooth and nail.

You'd think here of all places they'd get some credit.

Marshall
July 14, 2005, 10:39 PM
You'd think here of all places they'd get some credit.

Yea, you would think so. Some are so blind they cannot see. :rolleyes:

Ky Larry
July 14, 2005, 10:47 PM
Congress critters can call themselves anyting they want. The bottom line is they are all political pimps who would sell their own mothers to a whore house for another term in office. :barf:

davec
July 15, 2005, 01:01 AM
Take a look at who was Govenor of California when it passed the Mulford Act in 1967 which among other things ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’

Give you a hint, his initials are RR.

When giving an address at George Washington University on March 28, 1991 Regan said: And speaking of Jim Brady, I want to tell all of you here today something that I'm not sure you know. You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else, and I'm going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay.

With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun. The Brady bill is good legislation, and I hope my colleagues at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will do what's right for the people, and that means enacting this bill.

And I couldn't mention this bill without adding a special word about its most dedicated supporter, Sarah Brady. Nancy and I have the greatest respect and affection for Sarah, who is not only an effective and articulate advocate, but an inspiring woman who we're honored to call our friend.

Ronald Regan was no gun rights champion, and his support of the AWB is nothing out of character for him.

peacefuljeffrey
July 15, 2005, 01:47 AM
As for Ronnie, it really makes no difference what the deal was, it's over and done with, the man has passed. I have a difficult time judging someone on their thoughts on this matter after they have been shot. I like to think I have some empathy for them. Until I have been shot and laid up in a hospital, facing death, I'll reserve judgment. I can see how it might make rational decisions at a tad fuzzy, especially with fuzzy thinking being so close anyway.

To me, this sounds an awful lot like you are admitting the possibility that getting shot would make you like them -- would make you start to blame the gun.

I don't imagine that happening even if I got shot. I would still never blame the tool. I would blame the miscreant, and, possibly, anyone who did anything immoral or illegal to help him get a gun. (Certainly not the gun industry for simply producing and selling the gun, either.)

-Jeffrey

Marshall
July 15, 2005, 11:16 AM
PJ,

The possibility? Could be, I'll never know unless it happens. I seriously doubt that it would but how would I know? Isn't that what I already said? :rolleyes:

Be realistic buddy, or do you know how you'll react to everything regardless of what happens to you in your life? Wise up and quite trying to make me fit into a role of your pleasure for argument sake just because we have opposite views on RR.

lostone1413
July 15, 2005, 11:23 AM
For all the people who think with King George and now we have the Republicans in both houses. Give me a list of Pro-Gun bills that King George has signed into law. I voted for King George but him and the Republicans are not Pro 2nd Amendment. Oh think they are? Start on that list then

Rebar
July 15, 2005, 02:37 PM
I guess Bush/Republican hate causes hysterical blindness, the bashers cannot see my last post listing the accomplishments of the republicans for RKBA.

lostone1413
July 15, 2005, 06:21 PM
Don't know CCW is a State issue not Federal? Now as for the list of Pro-Gun bills King George has made law? I'm waiting

lostone1413
July 15, 2005, 06:27 PM
www.sierratimes.com/05/05/22/207_69_138_199_92159.htm
Get Your Hands Up, You Varmint!
Charles Stone, Jr.

All through the 2000 presidential campaign, the 2002 mid-term elections on into the 2004 elections the millions of gun owners of this country have supported the GOP and George Bush almost exclusively. Some are starting to wonder if they made a mistake.
Since the Bush administration took office, the only reference to gun rights or the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been a rather tepid Cabinet support of the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined in the Bill of Rights. I say tepid, because at the same time they made their statements of support, the Attorney General and Solicitor General trumpeted their undying support of all the other myriad gun control laws currently on the books. Apparently there will be no help for the gun owner from the new Attorney General either as he has stated that he would support a renewal of the totally misnamed “assault weapons” ban.

Even some “RINO” Republicans support gun control, usually under the rubric of “reasonableness.” Somehow, people seem to have gotten the idea that it's just fine for rights to be partial or restricted. That the concept of the natural rights of man are made better by restrictions placed upon them by government.

How can that be?

The only actual “rights” are those possessed by all, without question or equivocation. Anything else is not a right, it is merely a privilege and may be withdrawn at a whim by the same government that grants it.

That's the real problem, the Neo-Liberal Democrats have incremented us into the position of having to fight our way up a mountain of existing legislation aimed at controlling the possession and ownership of firearms to get to their real goal, the wholesale trashing of the Second Amendment. It's nothing new, just the result of decades of Left-wing political activity.

President Bush could have showed his appreciation for the votes of American gun owners with a stroke of his pen by rescinding the Clinton Executive Order banning the importation or production of high capacity magazines. The next logical step would be to ask the GOP congressional leadership for legislation overturning the ridiculous BATF regulation 922 regarding the sale and possession of so-called “assault” weapons. The fact that he allowed the Clinton gun-grab to sunset gives little comfort.

Even that positive moment for gun owners was by default. It took no particular political or moral courage to allow the misbegotten “Violent Crime Control And Law Enforcement Act Of 1994” to simply expire. Of course, there is no way to know how close the President was to renewing it.

The bleatings of the gungrabbers have been proved wrong time and time again and they have even been shown to be blatant liars in their attacks on gun owners and their constant blame of firearms for any and all crime. Prof. John Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck (among others) have shot their arguments full of holes (sorry) yet the Bush Administration still seems terrified of taking them on.

It's almost humorous to listen to the Loony Left any time some state or municipality decides to make firearms ownership or the ability to carry firearms less burdensome.

The rhetoric is always the same. They squeal about a return to the “Old West” and declare that great numbers of policemen will be shot and that the streets will run red with blood. Of course, such fairy tales never come to pass, but that doesn't stop the constant whining.

It's hard to convince the ignorant mass of government school educated voters why preserving the 2nd Amendment is so important. After all, for their whole time in school, they've been indoctrinated to believe that the Secind Amendment only applys to state run “militias” or other government agencies and that even if it applies to regular civilians, there is no need for semi-automatic weapons for “hunting” or “target shooting.”

If they do acknowledge that there could be a defensive purpose for firearms, it would only be for protection against criminals, never to keep government from violating their rights.

Perhaps it's a political calculation by the likes of Karl Rove and company. Maybe they think the gun owners are so frightened by the thought of having the Democrats return to power that they will support Republican candidates at all cost. They are WRONG!

Many gun owners have distinctly libertarian leanings and will support libertarian candidates on conscience, others will simply bail out on the system that has let them down and stay away from the polls.

In any case, the Republicans owe a huge debt to American gun owners and the best way to repay it is to restore the Second Amendment to its status as the second most important portion of the Bill of Rights. Many gun owners will accept nothing less.


© 2005 Charles Stone, Jr.

Marshall
July 15, 2005, 06:33 PM
Rebar, you'll never get someone that calls Bush, King George, to see the difference, or admit it, between he and the Republicans, to the Democrats.

Futile.

Art Eatman
July 15, 2005, 06:46 PM
In interviews or question/answer sessions after Reagan's recuperation, he was asked if he'd changed his views against more gun control laws. Quick summary: "No."

Reagan pointed out that Hinckley had broken a fair number of laws; more laws wouldn't help...

Art

Rebar
July 15, 2005, 07:58 PM
Now as for the list of Pro-Gun bills King George has made law?
You answer my question first:
If Gore or Kerry was elected, who here has any doubts the AWB would have been made permanent, with even more restrictions?

Do you really think things would be better if Bush lost? Because the way you're talking, it seems you think there was an actual choice whom to vote for.

308win
July 15, 2005, 08:13 PM
I guess Bush/Republican hate causes hysterical blindness
Yea, almost as hysterical as the don't confuse me with the facts, Bush worshipers who think he is the second coming. :rolleyes:

Rebar
July 15, 2005, 09:03 PM
Yea, almost as hysterical as the don't confuse me with the facts, Bush worshipers who think he is the second coming.

There are as many Bush-bashers here as on DU, it's rediculous.

You all should be grateful for Bush, because guess what? Badnarik was NOT GOING TO WIN NO MATTER WHAT. Do you really think a President Gore or Kerry would be better for our RKBA? If you do, it's time to put down the crack pipe and smell the coffee. And as I clearly stated, the republicans more than tripled the states with right to carry, the AWB is gone, and we're in much better shape then when Clinton was president.

Some people just won't be happy unless Bush personally hands everyone a free M16.
Futile.
It's starting to look that way. I think a lot of DU trolls have infiltrated THR, with the non-stop republican bashing, most of it undeserved, going on here.

lostone1413
July 15, 2005, 10:17 PM
Don't know if i'd use the word troll. Maybe it's Republicans who voted for King George and can't see were he has done anything for the gun owners. Maybe people who look at the Patriot Act the illegals the campaign reform.The trouble is all they see is someone who has sold not only the gun owners out but the Constitution. By the way still waiting for the list of Pro-Gun bills that are law now. You know with the Republicans in control of both houses every Democrate can vote against the Pro-Gun bills and they can still become law? So what happened to them. Maybe better look were King Georges AG stands on gun control. That alone should tell a blind man something

Rebar
July 15, 2005, 10:46 PM
By the way still waiting for the list of Pro-Gun bills that are law now.
I'm still waiting for my answer. I get the feeling I'll be waiting for a long time.

Marshall
July 15, 2005, 11:03 PM
I found this....................

From the LA times. (And we know how pro Bush they are :rolleyes: )

After four years of George W. Bush, the notions that some people might be too dangerous or unstable to trust with a firearm or that assault weapons do not belong in civilized society are deader than a wild turkey in hunting season.

During Bush's first campaign, a National Rifle Assn. leader quipped, "If we win, we'll have a president where we work out of their office." How right he was.

1. Republican congressional leaders simply ran out the clock on the 10-year-old federal assault gun ban, refusing to even call a vote on renewing it despite steady popular support for the law. Bush, who once claimed that he supported the ban, refused to make so much as a phone call to his House or Senate allies to keep it alive. With it died the ban on domestically made ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

2. The president also signed a bill that requires the destruction within 24 hours of all records from background checks of gun buyers.

3. The immunity bill, introduced by Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), would protect gun manufacturers and sellers from damage suits by victims of gun violence. This measure, long on the NRA's wish list, has come before Congress before, but enough lawmakers balked. This time, emboldened by last November's GOP victories, there looks to be less resistance. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) says he's ready to call for a floor vote any time. Unless voters speak up.

Obviously Frist knows Bush will sign it when he, Frist, believes he can get it through the Senate.

Edited to not post anti-gun rhetoric. Source (http://www.aagunsales.com/News/Remember%20Gun%20Control)

lostone1413
July 16, 2005, 02:27 PM
Guess some people think a good leader is one who cares less about the 2nd. Then someone who sees no trouble in destroying the Constitution. He sees nothing wrong in CAFTA and 4 thousand a day just walking into our country. Wonder if King George would have got the AWB and signed it how the gun owners would have supported him? Remember it expired before the election. Wonder why you can't even carry in a National Park. Think something like that would be easy to fix. Guess someone who has destroyed so many freedoms wouldn't be to interested in restoring our 2nd amendment rights.

lostone1413
July 16, 2005, 02:33 PM
Oh forgot about the immunity bill. Guess you forgot when it was voted down in the Senate because of the amendments added in the Senate. Who had the majority in the Senate. Far as Gore and Kerry no they wern't Pro-Gun but nor is King George. I don't think they could have done more to destroy the Constitution then King George has.

AZRickD
July 16, 2005, 02:41 PM
Several years ago I heard RR's adopted son, Michael Reagan, say on his radio show that he was aghast at the Gipper's support for the AW Ban. Michael related that he exclaimed to his father, "Dad!! Do you realize that they've just banned the rifle you used to teach me to shoot?!?"

Rick

Rebar
July 16, 2005, 05:35 PM
lostone1413, you still refuse to answer the question. It seems that you're just a typical DU troller come here to bash Bush, not to engage in discussion.

FYI, I'd say that the majority, if not the vast majority, of members here voted for Bush, so you'd better bring something better than "King George sucks" to the table.

Marshall
July 16, 2005, 06:05 PM
Rebar, he's still pissed over the 2000 election and actually believes that democrats would be as good as the republicans when it comes to guns. He can't see that we would still be with 10 round mags and much worse. :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
July 16, 2005, 06:38 PM
Whee! Didn't take this sucker long to go OT and downhill!

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Reagan pro-AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!