View Full Version : "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." -Ronald Regan
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
Write your reps and POTUS
Be respectful.
Here is a link, enter your zip code and it will find your reps so you can email them all at once. You can also print it to mail.
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
Here is the body of my letter.
I am a voter, husband, father of three, Marine Corps Veteran and have been a police officer here in Vermont for 21 years. I've been a small town police chief for the last five years.
The first thing I did when I heard about the shooting in CT was to go to my local school, I was on duty. I knew that is where I needed to be. Protecting our children is important. I cried often that day and the following week. My heart aches for the lives of the children and their teachers. I have grieved for their loss. I am also angry that they were not allowed to protect themselves. My ten year old son asked me why teachers can't carry guns to protect them. It's a damn good question. The answer is not less guns it is guns in the hands of good people like me.
Taking guns away from from law abiding citizens is and always has been the wrong answer. More laws will not protect our children. It' is already illegal to commit murder. The murder rate and crime rate in areas where lawful gun ownership is restricted or prohibited is higher. Our schools are gun free zones. Fort Hood was a gun free zone as was the theater in Aurora Colorado. this is where sociopaths go, they know they will be unopposed and are not likely to meet armed resistance. Gun free zones do not make us safer. They are dangerous. These recent mass murders were all mentally ill. This is an issue you need to address.
From here down was the form letter:
As your constituent, I strongly urge you to oppose any legislation to ban so-called "assault weapons" and "large" ammunition magazines.
A previous ban on these inanimate objects was in effect from 1994-2004 and
had no discernible effect on violent crime. In fact, a study of the ban
mandated by Congress found: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have
only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and
magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun
murders."
Tens of millions of Americans choose to own semi-automatic firearms with
ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for the same reason as
law enforcement officers: they are effective for self-defense. One never
knows how many rounds he or she will need for self-defense or defense of
others, or how many criminals may attack. Thus having a firearm that
allows its lawful user to discharge multiple shots can often be the
difference between life and death. In fact, a number of studies have
shown that firearms are used for self-defense hundreds of thousands of
times to 2.5 million times annually. This amounts to guns being used 3-5
times more often for self-defense than to commit a crime.
Rather than expanding previously failed legislation that won't curb
violence, but will affect law-abiding gun owners, I urge you to support
legislation to enhance school security and improve our nation's ailing
mental health system.
Please reply to me indicating your position on Sen. Feinstein's most
recent proposal.
Sincerely,
New link.
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62324471
Freedom has been gone for a while now.
Federal Income tax is tyranny, that was inacted in 1913 I believe.
Done...again.
Even sent letters to the rabid gun grabbers who represent me in this state.
GeorgiaBoy
01-08-13, 16:29
Freedom has been gone for a while now.
Federal Income tax is tyranny, that was inacted in 1913 I believe.
But was originally proposed in the 1870's to pay for the Civil War. The War was the turning point and creator of big government, and the slow suffocation of states' rights.
We haven't had "freedom" since the early 1800's. And if you wanted it, you would have had to been a white, landowning male.
I did the federal letter Friday night and today saw the link for my state and did that. As I reviewed the list I was frustrated because they were all soooooo freaking liberal. But I did it anyway.
But was originally proposed in the 1870's to pay for the Civil War. The War was the turning point and creator of big government, and the slow suffocation of states' rights.
We haven't had "freedom" since the early 1800's. And if you wanted it, you would have had to been a white, landowning male.
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
Now if we are done hijacking this topic with irrelevant information, maybe we can get back on course. Unless you have a time machine the only thing we can do is address freedom issues for our time.
Well Bernie Sanders has not responded yet but I am getting his junk email!:cray:
GeorgiaBoy
01-08-13, 18:06
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
And the 1870's was not the early 1800's was it? I believe the term "early" usually implies before the 50th year of a century, not after. And if you think that the 15th amendment automatically granted universal voting rights for every race other than non-whites, you are [knowingly] mistaken. Lets not forget about the about the 19th amendment, which took until 1920 to pass to finally allow women to vote...
Now if we are done hijacking this topic with irrelevant information, maybe we can get back on course. Unless you have a time machine the only thing we can do is address freedom issues for our time.
It is not irrelavnent information. J-Dub commented how our freedoms have been "gone" for a very long time, and he is right. If you think the origins of the lack of freedom in this country are irrelevant, then what is relevant? There is no mystery or conspiracy about the suppressed freedoms minorities, women, and even certain whites faced for the greater part of our country's history. You don't need a "time machine".
And the 1870's was not the early 1800's was it? I believe the term "early" usually implies before the 50th year of a century, not after. And if you think that the 15th amendment automatically granted universal voting rights for every race other than non-whites, you are [knowingly] mistaken. Lets not forget about the about the 19th amendment, which took until 1920 to pass to finally allow women to vote...
It is not irrelavnent information. J-Dub commented how our freedoms have been "gone" for a very long time, and he is right. If you think the origins of the lack of freedom in this country are irrelevant, then what is relevant? There is no mystery or conspiracy about the suppressed freedoms minorities, women, and even certain whites faced for the greater part of our country's history. You don't need a "time machine".
Hey I'm happy with the conversation it keeps the thread alive and hopefully more people will write their reps. Please tell me you've done so if not please do it now. Thanks.
GeorgiaBoy
01-08-13, 18:34
Hey I'm happy with the conversation it keeps the thread alive and hopefully more people will write their reps. Please tell me you've done so if not please do it now. Thanks.
I'm going to talk to Barrow at this Thursday's town hall meeting and I have written Isakson and Chambliss.
And the 1870's was not the early 1800's was it? I believe the term "early" usually implies before the 50th year of a century, not after. And if you think that the 15th amendment automatically granted universal voting rights for every race other than non-whites, you are [knowingly] mistaken. Lets not forget about the about the 19th amendment, which took until 1920 to pass to finally allow women to vote...
It's not that I didn't understand the use of the word "early", it's that I reject your entire premise that we didn't have freedom in the beginning, middle and end of the 19th century. I anticipated you would raise the "only if you were white" issue so I simply addressed it.
Certainly people have had their rights violated since then. Even in the last election we had incident of Black Panthers intimidating voters. But those are the acts of individuals not restriction by government.
It is not irrelavnent information. J-Dub commented how our freedoms have been "gone" for a very long time, and he is right. If you think the origins of the lack of freedom in this country are irrelevant, then what is relevant? There is no mystery or conspiracy about the suppressed freedoms minorities, women, and even certain whites faced for the greater part of our country's history. You don't need a "time machine".
J-Dubs comment was also irrelevant to the original post. And again, since it seems you missed it, this post is about addressing freedom issue NOW. You can't fix freedom issues of the past without a time machine.
Now that I have explained things on a 4th grade level I will assume you understand and there is nothing left to discuss and the topic of this thread is to contact your government representatives regarding upcoming legislation designed to limit our civil rights concerning second amendment issues.
I'm going to talk to Barrow at this Thursday's town hall meeting and I have written Isakson and Chambliss.
Awesome.
GeorgiaBoy
01-08-13, 18:53
Now that I have explained things on a 4th grade level I will assume you understand and there is nothing left to discuss and the topic of this thread is to contact your government representatives regarding upcoming legislation designed to limit our civil rights concerning second amendment issues.
Ok dude, whatever... You turned a legitimate topic which the OP expressed he is perfectly fine with to an ad hominem fest.. good for you... Now why not just heed my original advice and put me on ignore?
GeorgiaBoy
01-08-13, 18:57
Awesome.
[Senators] Chambliss and Isaksson have a very good voting record for guns.. I am far from worried about what they will do.
Barrow is a little "iffy" being a Southern conservative democrat.. he could easily go both ways on an AWB.
Chambliss and Isaksson have a very good voting record for guns.. I am far from worried about what they will do.
Barrow is a little "iffy" being a Southern conservative democrat.. he could easily go both ways on an AWB.
Well I'm in VT so I don't hold much hope at all. Locally we have some conservative folks but nationally and at the state level we are very liberal. It up is frustrating. We also have no gun laws to speak of and are always among the safest states.
Thank you for the President Reagan quote usmcvet.
It helps steel resolve as I am just literally physically sick by watching the azimuth our country is headed on.
Wrote all my reps, my Governor and Lt. Governor again today. All I received was a very generic and short reply from the Governor's office.
-Jax
Cool. I don't expect much response either but they will know we as a group are fired up and honestly all they really seem to care about is re election. I saw the Regan quote in this thread. There is some good stuff there. After reading the quote I opened the thread.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=530
Have not seen that thread in some time. Great stuff!
-Jax
I am glad it was bumped. Good stuff. Kinda reinvigorated me.
Some irony to quoting Ronald "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" Reagan on this issue...
I didn't know that. It's ironic, but still a good quote.
Some irony to quoting Ronald "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" Reagan on this issue...
Just for context that was a Black Panther quote.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19670503&id=ClcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951
And this was also the same man who after being shot himself, refused to support any gun control directed towards handguns.
Besides the junk mail from Bernie Sanders this is my first official reply.
It is obviously a canned letter which I understand but it is still frustrating as heck.
January 9, 2013
Dear Joby,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the horrific slaughter of twenty six people, including twenty children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. I appreciate hearing from you.
The unspeakable tragedy in Newtown was a transformational moment in the national conversation on gun violence. There should be no conflict between protecting innocent children from slaughter and preserving the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. It is time for America to reach a long overdue consensus on practical steps to prevent similar tragedies from happening again.
Common sense gun legislation should be part of the solution. I intend to work with the President and Congress to support legislation that would place restrictions on the sale of assault weapons and limit high capacity ammunition clips. We must also find a better way to prevent mentally unstable individuals from obtaining a gun. We should ensure that federal agencies, as well as state and local law enforcement authorities, are sharing relevant information to improve the effectiveness of background checks. We should find ways to address the gruesome violence on display to our children every day through television, movies and video games. And we must, even in an era of fiscal restraint, improve mental health services at the local level.
In Vermont, we are fortunate not to have experienced gun violence on the scale of Newtown. And we have a long tradition of responsible gun use. Parents teach their children proper use of firearms. Families hunt together. And children learn about wildlife and the environment as they walk in the woods appreciating the wonder of Vermont's natural terrain. We can preserve this tradition while also taking meaningful steps to ensure that tragedies like Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech and Columbine are not repeated.
I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers this issue.
Sincerely,
PETER WELCH
Member of Congress
Just for context that was a Black Panther quote.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19670503&id=ClcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951
And this was also the same man who after being shot himself, refused to support any gun control directed towards handguns.
That article was like a time machine.
Just for context that was a Black Panther quote.
I'm not sure what you mean by "that was a Black Panther quote" - it was a direct quote from Reagan in response to Black Panthers carrying weapons.
And this was also the same man who after being shot himself, refused to support any gun control directed towards handguns.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Reagan backed the Brady Bill and the '94 AWB.
I'm not sure what you mean by "that was a Black Panther quote" - it was a direct quote from Reagan in response to Black Panthers carrying weapons.
Sorry, I thought providing a link made it clear. It was a quote RELATED to the problem of the Black Panthers in the 60s. Basically when armed, black militants with a "kill whitey" and "**** the pigs" mentality were walking around with rifles.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Reagan backed the Brady Bill and the '94 AWB.
Not while he was in office and thus he didn't offer any government support for the idea. Furthermore he was grossly misled by the Bradys and by 1994 was in the early stages of Alzheimer's.
Now I'm not here to say he did no wrong. He was far from a perfect President. He did a LOT of crap I don't agree with including the first amnesty of illegals and many censorship related laws. But I think he was the best President we've had in a long time. All the rest from Kennedy forward were much, much worse.
Sorry, I thought providing a link made it clear. It was a quote RELATED to the problem of the Black Panthers in the 60s. Basically when armed, black militants with a "kill whitey" and "**** the pigs" mentality were walking around with rifles.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the history of the Panthers and black nationalism. Rather irrelevant, unless Second Amendment rights are to be restricted to those with acceptable political views.
That was, again, a direct quote from Reagan - who signed the Mulford Act (prohibiting all carry in California) in 1967, as well as the bill extending California's waiting period from 5 to 15 days (in 1975).
Not while he was in office and thus he didn't offer any government support for the idea. Furthermore he was grossly misled by the Bradys and by 1994 was in the early stages of Alzheimer's.
That editorial is from 1991. It explicitly states his support for the Brady Bill, attacks "Saturday night specials" and waiting periods. He even uses the arguments of modern-day antis: "This level of violence must be stopped. [...] If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
There's no misleading there. He knew exactly what he was supporting and did so repeatedly.
While in office, Reagan started the first EO bans on imported shotguns that led to the Bush bans and '94 AWB. And, of course, the '86 machine gun ban.
If you want to split hairs about him not "offer[ing] any government support," I guess we'll just have to pretend that a popular, two-term President has no influence on Congressmen in the years after he leaves office.
Now I'm not here to say he did no wrong. He was far from a perfect President. He did a LOT of crap I don't agree with including the first amnesty of illegals and many censorship related laws. But I think he was the best President we've had in a long time. All the rest from Kennedy forward were much, much worse.
That's fine and dandy - but doesn't change Reagan's real-world record on gun rights. It was atrocious and the selective memory of the firearm community is rather ridiculous - the sum of his positions in a modern-day politician would spark outrage and a wild gnashing of teeth.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the history of the Panthers and black nationalism. Rather irrelevant, unless Second Amendment rights are to be restricted to those with acceptable political views.
That was, again, a direct quote from Reagan - who signed the Mulford Act (prohibiting all carry in California) in 1967, as well as the bill extending California's waiting period from 5 to 15 days (in 1975).
I'm not saying I agree, I was just offering context.
That editorial is from 1991. It explicitly states his support for the Brady Bill, attacks "Saturday night specials" and waiting periods. He even uses the arguments of modern-day antis: "This level of violence must be stopped. [...] If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
There's no misleading there. He knew exactly what he was supporting and did so repeatedly.
While in office, Reagan started the first EO bans on imported shotguns that led to the Bush bans and '94 AWB. And, of course, the '86 machine gun ban.
If you want to split hairs about him not "offer[ing] any government support," I guess we'll just have to pretend that a popular, two-term President has no influence on Congressmen in the years after he leaves office.
Reagan was NOT in office in 91. The 86 MG ban was part of FOPA and he did not have a line item veto. I'm not familiar with the shotgun ban he passed, perhaps you can cite your reference.
That's fine and dandy - but doesn't change Reagan's real-world record on gun rights. It was atrocious and the selective memory of the firearm community is rather ridiculous - the sum of his positions in a modern-day politician would spark outrage and a wild gnashing of teeth.
Again, not perfect but still better than the expressed views of every other politician since Kennedy and those were views made while running for office or in office. Ford might be a possible exception.
I'm not saying I agree, I was just offering context.
Is the context relevant? If someone were to oppose open or concealed-carry because Tea Party members were carrying rifles to meetings in 2009 - what would be the gun community's response?
Reagan was NOT in office in 91.
No, but he was several years away from the early Alzheimer's in '94 you referenced, when that op-ed was written.
Reagan knew what he was backing - and why would it be any kind of surprise that he would do so? Would the guy who signed a 15-day waiting period into law in 1975 need to be misled to back a 7-day wait in 1991 or 1994?
Again, not perfect but still better than the expressed views of every other politician since Kennedy and those were views made while running for office or in office. Ford might be a possible exception.
I don't know how you can say this. Waiting periods and criminalizing carry as governor, support for the Brady Bill and AWB put him, at best, on common ground with all those other Presidents when it comes to the Second.
Whatever other good one might think he did is irrelevant, IMO, to the irony of him being lionized by specifically-2A groups - in the past and today.
Are you suggesting it was ok for the panthers to walk into the legislature carrying weapons?
Is the context relevant? If someone were to oppose open or concealed-carry because Tea Party members were carrying rifles to meetings in 2009 - what would be the gun community's response?
Of course it is relevant. For example the Black Panthers were often engaged in actual violence and illegal action. Big difference from the Tea Party. It's like comparing the KKK to the Populist Party started by Nader.
No, but he was several years away from the early Alzheimer's in '94 you referenced, when that op-ed was written.
Reagan knew what he was backing - and why would it be any kind of surprise that he would do so? Would the guy who signed a 15-day waiting period into law in 1975 need to be misled to back a 7-day wait in 1991 or 1994?
I'm not sure waiting periods accomplish anything meaningful, but it's hardly the worst infringement we've ever suffered.
68 GCA, 89 Import Ban and Clinton Ban were all much worse.
I don't know how you can say this. Waiting periods and criminalizing carry as governor, support for the Brady Bill and AWB put him, at best, on common ground with all those other Presidents when it comes to the Second.
Whatever other good one might think he did is irrelevant, IMO, to the irony of him being lionized by specifically-2A groups - in the past and today.
Do you support the right to carry by criminal organizations such as Crips, Bloods, MS13, etc?
Are you actually saying LBJ wasn't worse with the 68 CGA?
Are you saying Ford wasn't worse with his request for Congress to ban Saturday Night Specials?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Gerald_Ford_Gun_Control.htm
Are you actually saying Carter wasn't worse with the abuses by ATF under his administration and his support of registration of ALL handguns, bans on Saturday night specials and advocacy of waiting periods?
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Gun_Control.htm
Are you actually saying Bush I wasn't worse with his 89 Import Ban because "only drug dealers use those guns" and ATF with an anti gun agenda that resulted in Ruby Ridge?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_Bush_Sr__Gun_Control.htm
Are you actually saying Clinton wasn't worse with the domestic 94 ban an anti gun agenda that resulted in WACO?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
Are you actually saying Bush II wasn't worse with his banning of Chinese firearms and his expressed willingness to renew the Clinton Ban?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips
Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia
Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
Supports law-abiding American’s constitutional right to own guns to protect their families and home
Supports the current ban on automatic weapons
Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips
Supports voluntary safety locks
Opposes government mandated registration of all guns owned by law abiding citizens
Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ , Apr 2, 2000
Are you actually saying Obama isn't worse?
And technically Nixon was out of office at the time but...
"Unless we adopt and enforce strict gun control laws--ones much tougher than the Brady Bill--we will never succeed in stemming the violence spawned by the drug trade."
Source: Seize the Moment, by Richard Nixon, p.294-295 , Jan 15, 1992
And now let's look at Reagan.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Gun_Control.htm
Carried a pistol as president on his ranch & to the USSR
A former Secret Service agent remembers that when Reagan was running for president the first time, he came out of his home in Bel Air to drive to Rancho del Cielo, the 700-acre Reagan ranch near Santa Barbara. Another agent noticed that he was wearing a pistol and asked what that was for. "Well, just in case you guys can't do the job, I can help out," Reagan replied. Reagan confided to one agent that on his first presidential trip to the Soviet Union in May 1988, he had carried a gun in his briefcase.
Source: In the President`s Secret Service, by Ron Kessler, p. 87-88 , Jun 29, 2009
I'm an NRA member & I support the Brady Bill
[In a 1991 speech, Reagan said]: "I'm a member of the NRA. And my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay. It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period [7 days] to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun."
The Brady bill was opposed by the current President, George H.W. Bush. "I don't think it would be proper for me or any other ex-president to stand and tell an acting president what he should or shouldn't do," Reagan said. But then he added: "I happen to believe in the Brady Bill because we have the same thing in California right now."
He was asked why he had opposed all gun-control measures while he was President. He shook his head. "I was against a lot of the ridiculous things that were proposed with regard to gun control.
Source: The Family, by Kitty Kelley, p.502-503 , Sep 14, 2004
And if the worst thing you can say about a man is he supported a 7 day waiting period while out of office...well that is better than any President since Kennedy.
I stand by my previous statement.
Of course it is relevant. For example the Black Panthers were often engaged in actual violence and illegal action. Big difference from the Tea Party. It's like comparing the KKK to the Populist Party started by Nader.
I believe it's often said that criminal acts with firearms are already criminalized, yes? Gun-free zones stop no criminal, etc..
The Panthers were not, up to this time (1967) often "engaged in actual violence and illegal action" - that was a later development (helped along by COINTELPRO). But that is, again, irrelevant - the use of some firearms by some Panthers for illegal ends should not deprive the rest of the BPP of their rights, correct?
And, of course, the existence a militant group that was essentially confined to the East Bay shouldn't deprive all Californians of their rights - but that was what Ronald Reagan cheerfully believed and what happened with the bill he supported and signed into law.
I'm not sure waiting periods accomplish anything meaningful, but it's hardly the worst infringement we've ever suffered.
68 GCA, 89 Import Ban and Clinton Ban were all much worse.
The latter two he supported, natch.
Do you support the right to carry by criminal organizations such as Crips, Bloods, MS13, etc?
I don't care what someone calling himself a Crip chooses to carry if he's neither a felon nor engaged in criminal activity.
Are you actually saying LBJ wasn't worse with the 68 CGA?
Are you saying Ford wasn't worse with his request for Congress to ban Saturday Night Specials?
Well, no... what I said was, quite specifically:
"Waiting periods and criminalizing carry as governor, support for the Brady Bill and AWB put him, at best, on common ground with all those other Presidents when it comes to the Second."
Emphasis mine - I'm not sure why you based all of your statements on a nonexistent argument that he was worse.
It is, of course, worth noting that Reagan publicly supported many of the things you tie to other Presidents. Only an accident of timing means he's not the one signing the Brady Bill in earlier forms or the '94 AWB.
And now let's look at Reagan.
Carried a pistol as president on his ranch & to the USSR
Hmmm - so he signed a law prohibiting carry for California civilians but carried himself?
Sounds a lot like DiFi's carry permit (lapsed) and all the Bloombergs of the world who surround themselves with armed guards but deprive commoners of the same protection.
And if the worst thing you can say about a man is he supported a 7 day waiting period while out of office...well that is better than any President since Kennedy.
I stand by my previous statement.
I can say worse but we're talking specifically about his record on gun rights. His record was dismal - he would earn a F from the modern NRA.
I think it's interesting how avidly he supported the Brady Bill, while even Bush I (who never saw an import ban he didn't like) was opposed.
I believe it's often said that criminal acts with firearms are already criminalized, yes? Gun-free zones stop no criminal, etc..
The Panthers were not, up to this time (1967) often "engaged in actual violence and illegal action" - that was a later development (helped along by COINTELPRO). But that is, again, irrelevant - the use of some firearms by some Panthers for illegal ends should not deprive the rest of the BPP of their rights, correct?
I completely disagree. The BP was a group devoted to criminal acts and violence in a way very similar to the KKK.
And, of course, the existence a militant group that was essentially confined to the East Bay shouldn't deprive all Californians of their rights - but that was what Ronald Reagan cheerfully believed and what happened with the bill he supported and signed into law.
But there was more than one group, there were dozens. Remember the SLA? Hell it was nationwide, students took Cornell University hostage at gunpoint.
That said, I do agree that innocent, ordinary citizens of CA should NOT have had their rights restricted. But it seems the majority of the population supported it then as now.
The latter two he supported, natch.
I'd like to see some citation that he supported the 89 Import Ban, that doesn't even make sense. It wasn't a bill that was introduced to Congress for vote that needed support. It was an EO and was simply done. Also still waiting on citation for that shotgun ban you claimed he was responsible for while in office.
I don't care what someone calling himself a Crip chooses to carry if he's neither a felon nor engaged in criminal activity.
So you are fine with people who voluntarily join organizations devoted to crime, violence and terrorism? Would you be ok with a US chapter of Al Quida being armed so long as they had not been arrested for any felonies yet?
Well, no... what I said was, quite specifically:
"Waiting periods and criminalizing carry as governor, support for the Brady Bill and AWB put him, at best, on common ground with all those other Presidents when it comes to the Second."
Emphasis mine - I'm not sure why you based all of your statements on a nonexistent argument that he was worse.
Well stealing bubble gum and stealing a car are on common ground. But one is much worse.
It is, of course, worth noting that Reagan publicly supported many of the things you tie to other Presidents. Only an accident of timing means he's not the one signing the Brady Bill in earlier forms or the '94 AWB.
I'd like to see some citation for that other than your opinion. He rejected a tremendous amount of gun control ideas while in office.
Hmmm - so he signed a law prohibiting carry for California civilians but carried himself?
Sounds a lot like DiFi's carry permit (lapsed) and all the Bloombergs of the world who surround themselves with armed guards but deprive commoners of the same protection.
Nice try but anyone can carry on their own ranch in CA. Reagan signed a law that the people he represented in CA wanted. It was their choice, unfortunately. He carried on his ranch as he was allowed to by law, doesn't sound like he got a special permit like DiFi did.
I don't see what CA law has to do with Russia.
I can say worse but we're talking specifically about his record on gun rights. His record was dismal - he would earn a F from the modern NRA.
I think it's interesting how avidly he supported the Brady Bill, while even Bush I (who never saw an import ban he didn't like) was opposed.
Again, I'd like to see some citation for why he would have an F rating and examples of his dismal gun record.
Dear Mr. Feccia:
Thank you for contacting me about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and gun control in the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this very important issue.
The tragedy in Newtown left me shocked and horrified. As a father and grandfather, I cannot begin to imagine the pain and grief that the families of the victims are experiencing. Many constituents, like you, have written in to me in the past few weeks to express their support for meaningful changes to federal firearms policy. I have heard from parents, grandparents, veterans, teachers, hunters, and children, all expressing their belief that our laws need to be improved, and urging Congress to act. I have also heard from Vermonters, like you, who are concerned that new legislation could interfere with our Second Amendment rights.
I grew up hunting in Vermont and am still an avid target shooter. I value our Second Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court has said definitively that Americans are guaranteed its protections. But like all of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, it is not absolute. I agreed with Justice Scalia when he wrote in the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision that the Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable regulations. The factors underlying the terrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, are complex, and involve a host of issues relating to mental health treatment, firearms policy, and school safety. It is my hope that as this conversation continues, the Senate will hear from many Americans, including experts from law enforcement, from the mental health community, and from leaders in our educational system.
One thing that I am especially concerned about is the role that mental health records play in the purchasing of firearms. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is an FBI database that is intended to provide licensed sellers with a quick and easy way to determine if, among other things, a buyer has a history of mental illness. Unfortunately, the majority—some estimates say as many as 91 percent—of mental health records are not in NICS, due to a lack of reporting and legitimate competing values involving privacy. But in order to be effective, the records that make up our background check system must be as complete as possible, and I support efforts to improve the inclusion of these records. In 2007, I worked with a bipartisan group of senators and representatives to pass the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. This bill, which was unanimously passed by both the House and Senate, helped to improve the collection of records for inclusion in the federal background check system. The bill, which was unfortunately prompted by the tragic events at Virginia Tech in April of 2007, helped to improve the information sharing of criminal and mental health records between state and federal law enforcement agencies. I have supported strong funding for this law and will continue to do so and encourage state and local officials to play their important role in making the NICS database as complete as possible.
In the past weeks, many, including the President, have called for sensible changes to our federal gun laws. While this has traditionally been a difficult topic to broach in Congress. I am very hopeful that we will be able to work together and make meaningful changes to our national firearms policy, while still preserving the Second Amendment rights that Vermonters cherish. I look forward to starting this conversation early this Congress, and I plan to hold a Judiciary Committee hearing on our national gun control policies. If there are practical, sensible, workable answers to prevent such unspeakable tragedy, we should make the effort to move them forward.
Thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
United States Senator
Well I had a message on my desk today from one of my officers with a copy of a VT bill, S.32. I sent off another letter to my legislature.
Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm
Here is a link to the proposal S.32
http://gunownersofvermont.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/S-32.pdf
I've never participated in a protest but tomorrow I start.
I am a voter, husband, father of three, Marine Corps Veteran and have been a police officer here in Vermont for 21 years. I've been a small town police chief for the last five years.
I am writing to ask you to oppose S.32, it is not needed and will do absolutely nothing to protect Vermonters. It would in fact weaken our ability to defend ourselves and our families.
I have never protested anything in all my life. Tomorrow I will be on the State House lawn protesting S.32.
The first thing I did when I heard about the shooting in CT was to go to my local school, I was on duty. I knew that is where I needed to be. Protecting our children is important. I cried often that day and the following week. My heart aches for the lives of the children and their teachers. I have grieved for their loss. I am also angry that they were not allowed to protect themselves. My ten year old son asked me why teachers can't carry guns to protect them. It's a damn good question. The answer is not less guns it is guns in the hands of good people like me.
Taking guns away from from law abiding citizens is and always has been the wrong answer. More laws will not protect our children. It' is already illegal to commit murder. The murder rate and crime rate in areas where lawful gun ownership is restricted or prohibited is higher. Our schools are gun free zones. Fort Hood was a gun free zone as was the theater in Aurora Colorado. this is where sociopaths go, they know they will be unopposed and are not likely to meet armed resistance. Gun free zones do not make us safer. They are dangerous. These recent mass murders were all mentally ill. This is an issue you need to address.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.