View Full Version : Some Hope -- Reagan beats Obama in poll
1980s Nostalgia: Poll Finds Reagan Beats Obama in a Landslide
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2013/04/10/1980s-nostalgia-poll-finds-reagan-beats-obama-in-a-landslide
--
While I think he was one of the greatest, he would be crucified by the shitstream media of today.
I also find the demographic info in the article a little odd. They voted for Obama twice and they think Reagan was a much better president. Seriously wtf.
MountainRaven
04-11-13, 15:46
Reagan would be crucified by most of the people on this forum. He spearheaded efforts to restrict the Second Amendment in California while governor and then threw his weight behind the AWB. Hell, he thought there was absolutely no reason for any American to carry a loaded gun (or so he said).
Reagan would be crucified by most of the people on this forum. He spearheaded efforts to restrict the Second Amendment in California while governor and then threw his weight behind the AWB. Hell, he thought there was absolutely no reason for any American to carry a loaded gun (or so he said).
He thought lots of things that were messed up when California Governor. He also changed his mind. He wanted to veto the 86 GOPA due to the Hughes Amendment (he was persuaded to sign it by Larry Craig and others).
--
This. And where did he say we shouldn't be allowed to carry.
Yes he should have stood up a little more in 86, but his record was good as I remember.
MountainRaven
04-11-13, 15:58
When I get home, I'll share some links. If you Google 'reagan no one should carry a loaded gun', some links to old newpapers scanned into the errornetz should show up. 1967, IIRC.
Did he say this when in office as president? Or just in 67?
Yea, kinda don't matter, if he said it he said it. No bueno. Will use my googlefu and see.
Did he say this when in office as president? Or just in 67?
Yea, kinda don't matter, if he said it he said it. No bueno. Will use my googlefu and see.
It does matter when he said it. Stuff he thought in 1967 was not necessarily (probably not at all) what he thought when he was President.
People's ideas evolve and change. I know mine have.
---
True chadbag, but still don't like hearing that phrase come out of anyone's mouth.
Reagan would be crucified by most of the people on this forum. He spearheaded efforts to restrict the Second Amendment in California while governor and then threw his weight behind the AWB. Hell, he thought there was absolutely no reason for any American to carry a loaded gun (or so he said).
Couple clarifications. He supported the AWB AFTER he was out of office and possibly as Alzheimer's was setting in.
I'd love to see the Reagan quote about no reason for an American to carry a gun since HE regularly carried one on his ranch and even carried one when he visited the Russia. Perhaps you are referring to the Black Panther issue when he was in CA and the BPs were using guns to intimidate people.
But perhaps more importantly, even after BEING SHOT he refused to support the Brady anti gun efforts while he was in office.
Yep it was the Black Panther issue.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19670503&id=ClcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951
And we are talking about a racist, violent group who entered the capitol with loaded weapons including unregistered short barreled shotguns.. If the KKK did the same thing and somebody made a similar comment I'm sure it would hardly be used against them.
Phillygunguy
04-11-13, 18:17
I actually heard an interview where before he was president he witnessed a woman, a nurse who had been walking outside his apt. was being robbed and he said he held an unloaded 1911 out the window pointing at the mugger telling him he better leave, after which the guy ran
Heavy Metal
04-11-13, 18:46
I blame the AWB support in 94 on the Alzhimers and Nancy myself.
Couple clarifications. He supported the AWB AFTER he was out of office and possibly as Alzheimer's was setting in.
I'd love to see the Reagan quote about no reason for an American to carry a gun since HE regularly carried one on his ranch and even carried one when he visited the Russia. Perhaps you are referring to the Black Panther issue when he was in CA and the BPs were using guns to intimidate people.
But perhaps more importantly, even after BEING SHOT he refused to support the Brady anti gun efforts while he was in office.
I blame the AWB support in 94 on the Alzhimers and Nancy myself.
Not to mention as a private citizen it is simply an opinion.
MountainRaven
04-11-13, 22:12
Yep it was the Black Panther issue.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19670503&id=ClcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951
And we are talking about a racist, violent group who entered the capitol with loaded weapons including unregistered short barreled shotguns.. If the KKK did the same thing and somebody made a similar comment I'm sure it would hardly be used against them.
So let me get this straight:
A group of politically unpopular people walk into a state capital brandishing firearms. This results in a ban on carrying guns in said state capital. When it's California (and the arms being carried are carried by black people during the civil rights movement), it's OK. When it's Oregon (and the arms being carried are carried by firearms owners during a nationwide "debate" on "gun violence"), it's a bunch of sissy-ass liberals getting their panties in a wad.
When someone publicly says that they don't believe that you should own or carry a gun while they do it themselves, it means that they're a hypocrite if they have a 'D' following their names. If they have an 'R' following their names, clearly they were just bending to the political winds at the time. Even if the latter is true... how is that a good thing?
Just like how the Massachusetts AWB signed by Romney was the best possible outcome for Massachusetts gun owners.
Not to mention as a private citizen it is simply an opinion.
A private citizen with a Secret Service PSD. And an opinion shared in an open letter co-signed by Ford and Carter, two other private citizens with PSDs courtesy of the USSS.
Pelosi's, Feinstein's, and Obama's opinions that all guns should be banned are also just that, opinions. Carter's opinions are just opinions, too, but I still see people on the Right get worked up over them whenever they (rarely) get into the news.
Never mind the fact that he signed FOPA into law. Because he was 'convinced' to do it, that makes it OK?
The simple fact is that Reagan was not some sort of demigod (nor was any other president for that matter). And we shouldn't pretend elsewise. And the right to keep and bear arms, just like the right to freedom of speech, is not and should not be limited to the political mainstream: Communists and racial supremacists have the same rights to speak and to keep and carry arms as you or I (provided the arms are legal and no laws are broken during their carry. Sort of. Enter debate of moral- versus immoral laws stage right).
So let me get this straight:
A group of politically unpopular people walk into a state capital brandishing firearms. This results in a ban on carrying guns in said state capital. When it's California (and the arms being carried are carried by black people during the civil rights movement), it's OK. When it's Oregon (and the arms being carried are carried by firearms owners during a nationwide "debate" on "gun violence"), it's a bunch of sissy-ass liberals getting their panties in a wad.
When someone publicly says that they don't believe that you should own or carry a gun while they do it themselves, it means that they're a hypocrite if they have a 'D' following their names. If they have an 'R' following their names, clearly they were just bending to the political winds at the time. Even if the latter is true... how is that a good thing?
Just like how the Massachusetts AWB signed by Romney was the best possible outcome for Massachusetts gun owners.
If the KKK did a similar thing in Alabama during the same year, would you qualify that as a civil rights movement?
A private citizen with a Secret Service PSD. And an opinion shared in an open letter co-signed by Ford and Carter, two other private citizens with PSDs courtesy of the USSS.
Pelosi's, Feinstein's, and Obama's opinions that all guns should be banned are also just that, opinions. Carter's opinions are just opinions, too, but I still see people on the Right get worked up over them whenever they (rarely) get into the news.
Never mind the fact that he signed FOPA into law. Because he was 'convinced' to do it, that makes it OK?
The simple fact is that Reagan was not some sort of demigod (nor was any other president for that matter). And we shouldn't pretend elsewise. And the right to keep and bear arms, just like the right to freedom of speech, is not and should not be limited to the political mainstream: Communists and racial supremacists have the same rights to speak and to keep and carry arms as you or I (provided the arms are legal and no laws are broken during their carry. Sort of. Enter debate of moral- versus immoral laws stage right).
Let me make this easy.
When Pelosi, Feinstein and Obama are no longer part of the government, their views...like Reagans...will simply be "opinions" and they will be entitled to them. And you can rest assured they will still have those opinions.
But as members of government, opinions can be civil rights violations as they are typically related to legislature that they have direct control of.
PERSONALLY I wouldn't let the acts of a violent racist group like the KKK or the BPs force me to limit the rights of the citizens of CA. But I also don't have a significant portion of that population DEMANDING I do it. Sadly states have the right to pass these kinds of laws as has been demonstrated by CA in years since.
Never mind the fact that he signed FOPA into law. Because he was 'convinced' to do it, that makes it OK?
Just wanted to take this one alone for the benefit of those who might not know. I'm sure you know but don't care.
FOPA was a good thing with a shitty last minute amendment. It UNDID many of the draconian aspects of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Do you like ordering ammo online? If so thank Reagan and FOPA because prior to that it was illegal and ammunition was treated like a firearms purchase by dealers where they logged it into a book and logged who it was sold to.
Do you like being able to order imported surplus military weapons? If so thank Reagan and FOPA because prior to that it was illegal. There wouldn't be a SKS in private hands if FOPA didn't exist.
Do you like to be able to not have to drive around states where your gun is illegal in order to arrive at a destination where it is legal? If so thank Reagan and FOPA, because prior to that you couldn't do it.
Do you like buying and selling guns and sometimes making a very beneficial deal? If so thank Reagan and FOPA because prior to that if you made a profitable trade or sale that was grounds for being arrested as an unlicensed gun dealer. This is where "kitchen table FFLs" came from. So many people were getting entrapped in ATF stings that they became FFLs for protection.
One needs to remember that FOPA had been continuously attempted since the 1968 Gun Control Act and had never successfully managed to make it to a Presidents desk who would sign it. After years and years of trying it FINALLY happened in 1986 but some dickhead added the Hughes amendment (and there is a great deal of debate about the validity of the voice vote regarding that amendments passage).
The bill then went to Reagan "as is" and he lacked a line item veto. So it was a ALL OR NOTHING proposition. Reagan asked the NRA what he should do and they told him to sign it. That is because in 1986 the NFA community was looked at sorta like "biker outlaws" and the NRA and firearms community was more concerned with ending things like the horrible ATF abuses made possible by the 68 GCA during the Carter administration than they were about getting "machine guns."
If you think the NRA doesn't stand up for black rifles enough today, you should have seen how they treated the NFA community like a red headed step child in 1986.
So for all those reasons Reagan signed it. And thank god he did because what other president was going to sign it? Bush Sr who criticized the NRA and resigned his membership because they called the ATF "jack booted thugs"? Clinton who gave us a 10 year domestic ban? Bush Jr who stated his support for the Clinton ban and vowed he'd sign the renewal? Obama?
The answer is NONE of those presidents would have signed anything like FOPA and that is assuming Congress could get a version without a MG ban to their desk in the first place.
Want to know what WOULD have happened no matter what? A domestic machine gun ban. We already had a foreign machine gun ban in the 68 GCA. Congress would have eventually attached a domestic ban on continued production of machine guns (possibly all NFA weapons) and it would simply have been part of the 89 Import Ban, the 94 domestic semi auto ban or more likely a stand alone ban that would have come as early as 1988.
The registry would be closed and the only difference is none of the protections withing FOPA would exist.
Thank GOD for Reagan.
Hopefully one day we will really be on top of our game and we will be able to strike the "sporter clause" from the 1968 Gun Control Act and that will eliminate the basis on which the 68 ban on foreign machine guns, the 86 ban on domestic machine guns and the 89 ban on semi auto imports rests.
Ok steyr, I did my googlefu.
Your right.
I have nothing else to say. He just said it.
ETA: sporter clause is going to be a no go. Ever. Libs will seppuku before they let this by. They fought too hard. Maybe, just maybe if as you say our shit ever gets together.
Ok steyr, I did my googlefu.
Your right.
I have nothing else to say. He just said it.
ETA: sporter clause is going to be a no go. Ever. Libs will seppuku before they let this by. They fought too hard. Maybe, just maybe if as you say our shit ever gets together.
We should hammer it every ****ing year regardless. Same way Feinstein introduces her AW ban shit every ****ing year. Then one day when they want something like expanded background checks, we can say sure...strike the sporter clause like we've been asking all along. That would be a reasonable, fair minded, bipartisan common sense solution.
Ah, but remember man, this gives them the ban foothold(as it is used now).
But I agree. Pull the BFH out and hammer away like Thor. It's the only way we will ever get a micron of "change".
ETA: reasonable, fair minded, bipartisan? Much less a solution? Wow you are a dreamer...
I see skies of blue, clouds of white...
Ah, but remember man, this gives them the ban foothold(as it is used now).
But I agree. Pull the BFH out and hammer away like Thor. It's the only way we will ever get a micron of "change".
ETA: reasonable, fair minded, bipartisan? Much less a solution? Wow you are a dreamer...
I see skies of blue, clouds of white...
I'm just using their words to describe my ideas, then if you oppose my ideas you support none of those ideals. It seems to actually work on way more people than it should.
Styer, I forgot the smilies. It was more than a little of my ass showing, rather funny but the Internet doesn't let the sarcasm drip through with laughter.
But unless things change, soon... We will all be looking back quoting "what a wonderful world" it was
MountainRaven
04-12-13, 09:40
If the KKK did a similar thing in Alabama during the same year, would you qualify that as a civil rights movement?
I didn't say the Black Panthers were a civil rights movement, I said their action occurred during the civil rights movement.
No doubt the KKK did similar things both during the 1960s and -70s and also during the 1920s and -30s. During the latter period, at least, it would have been looked upon favorably by society. At least the BP had the testicular fortitude to not wear masks.
In any case, during the time period, the KKK doing that would have resulted in nothing. Many lawmakers and LEOs of the time period (mostly in the South) were either sympathetic or covert or overt members of the KKK. The KKK does it, BFD, except on the left. The Black Panthers do it, and suddenly those KKK-backing pols get a taste of their own medicine and it's time for Army-Navy Laws, Round 2. aka the Gun Control Act of 1968 and state level legislation to bar the carrying of guns in state capitals.
Let me make this easy.
When Pelosi, Feinstein and Obama are no longer part of the government, their views...like Reagans...will simply be "opinions" and they will be entitled to them. And you can rest assured they will still have those opinions.
But as members of government, opinions can be civil rights violations as they are typically related to legislature that they have direct control of.
PERSONALLY I wouldn't let the acts of a violent racist group like the KKK or the BPs force me to limit the rights of the citizens of CA. But I also don't have a significant portion of that population DEMANDING I do it. Sadly states have the right to pass these kinds of laws as has been demonstrated by CA in years since.
Allow me to restate:
So Reagan's support of an AWB as a private citizen is just an opinion (and forgivable)... but Mark Kelly's support of an AWB as a private citizen is hypocrisy?
And it's OK to, I don't know, bring back slavery if a significant portion of the population demands it? Does that make an AWB OK if a significant portion of the US population demands it?
Just wanted to take this one alone for the benefit of those who might not know. I'm sure you know but don't care.
Actually, I had no idea. The only thing I knew FOPA did was the safe passage provision (that states like NJ and NY love to ignore). Thank you for the education.
And I am well aware of how the NRA viewed NFA items and people who like black rifles right up until ten years ago or so. Hell, the argument that the Mass AWB was the best thing that could have happened to Mass gun owners came from an article in one of the NRA's rags leading up to the 2012 elections.
Hopefully one day we will really be on top of our game and we will be able to strike the "sporter clause" from the 1968 Gun Control Act and that will eliminate the basis on which the 68 ban on foreign machine guns, the 86 ban on domestic machine guns and the 89 ban on semi auto imports rests.
Hopefully. One day.
Of course, once we try pushing that, we'll rapidly find out which of the domestic manufacturers are on our side because they believe in the Second Amendment and which are on our side because they make money off us. (I think at least Colt and Remington and the whole 'Freedom Group' will turn. One positive point of having so many foreign manufacturers building stuff in the US, I guess: It gives companies like Beretta and FN some weight to sling around that they can use to help us and neutralize (some of) the domestic manufacturers.)
So Reagan's support of an AWB as a private citizen is just an opinion (and forgivable)... but Mark Kelly's support of an AWB as a private citizen is hypocrisy?
Well there is the minor detail of Reagan becoming a carry advocate AFTER the fact. In 1967 he had a reactionary mentality as a result of a violent group like the BPs bringing loaded weapons to the capitol and an effort to intimidate government (much like was done at Cornell University) and then later on became a much stronger advocate of "lawful" carry of firearms even after being shot.
Mark Kelly on the other hand was a gun owning second amendment supporter until his wife was shot and then he came out publicly to promote an anti gun agenda and then was caught purchasing one of the very rifles he said should be banned for others. But as he wasn't a member of government, it is his opinion and he is entitled to it.
There is a certain degree of hypocrisy in both examples, but in one much more than the others. Now Reagan was hardly perfect. I could probably do an entire post on the things Reagan did that I strongly disagreed with. But FOPA really isn't one of them, I think given the circumstances he did the right thing.
Problem is 90% of the people who have even heard of FOPA only know the machine gun ban part and don't realize the rest of it, let alone what it was like before FOPA.
Magic_Salad0892
04-12-13, 17:30
I could probably do an entire post on the things Reagan did that I strongly disagreed with.
I'd be really interested in reading it if you wrote one.
I'd be really interested in reading it if you wrote one.
Reagan was hardly a perfect person. Might have been the best President since Kennedy but that isn't difficult.
Reagan gave us the first amnesty for illegals actually believing it would end illegal immigration.
His hand holding with the religious right managed important things like getting Playboy removed from 7-11 stores for a time.
Similarly they passed a law that in movies a child cannot be in the same scene as a naked adult. This is why in the movie Private Lessons (1981) the beaver shot of Sylvia Kristel is forever censored.
For some reason having naked children in a scene with adults is perfectly acceptable so you can still see a naked 12 year old Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby (1978).
He wasted time on thing like the Meese Commission on pornography hoping to find evidence that adult material is dangerous or harmful even though a far more credible government study had been done and published in 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Commission_on_Obscenity_and_Pornography
Despite his "no negotiations" stance on terrorism he supplied weapons to Iran to fund his pet projects in Central America.
Probably most appalling of all was the discovery of evidence of American POWs still held in Vietnam, for which Delta trained for two rescue missions, somebody in the US government undermined both attempts by leaking information and Reagan failed to make this a top priority issue. In fact he basically all but ignored it.
He had an opportunity to make much more significant achievements with Gorbachev beyond the economic destruction of the Soviet Union and missed the opportunity to have a much stronger and beneficial relationship with Russia. Gorbachev was actually left to be the "fall guy" in Russia for all of his efforts.
And that is just off the top of my head.
Belmont31R
04-12-13, 21:03
I don't agree with everything he did but the thing, I think, people miss when looking at Reagan is his leadership and attitude.
Just listen to some of his speeches while he was president, and you see a leader who was genuinely doing what he thought was best while at the same time giving off an aura no one else had in a long time. Politically, from 1960-1980 was pretty bad. Kennedy was shot, another resigned, Carter, Vietnam, sexual revolution, civil rights movement, gas lines, double digit interest rates, ect.
I disagree with some of the things he did but we need that type of attitude and leadership for another decade and get us back on the right track.
I think the two most damning are the weapons distribution and the POW issue. As a 1969 born white male, what I heard of these events made my blood boil.
He was overall a good president but, I remember...
Just as I will with every presidents bullshit...
Magic_Salad0892
04-12-13, 23:58
Reagan was hardly a perfect person. Might have been the best President since Kennedy but that isn't difficult.
Reagan gave us the first amnesty for illegals actually believing it would end illegal immigration.
His hand holding with the religious right managed important things like getting Playboy removed from 7-11 stores for a time.
Similarly they passed a law that in movies a child cannot be in the same scene as a naked adult. This is why in the movie Private Lessons (1981) the beaver shot of Sylvia Kristel is forever censored.
For some reason having naked children in a scene with adults is perfectly acceptable so you can still see a naked 12 year old Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby (1978).
He wasted time on thing like the Meese Commission on pornography hoping to find evidence that adult material is dangerous or harmful even though a far more credible government study had been done and published in 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Commission_on_Obscenity_and_Pornography
Despite his "no negotiations" stance on terrorism he supplied weapons to Iran to fund his pet projects in Central America.
Probably most appalling of all was the discovery of evidence of American POWs still held in Vietnam, for which Delta trained for two rescue missions, somebody in the US government undermined both attempts by leaking information and Reagan failed to make this a top priority issue. In fact he basically all but ignored it.
He had an opportunity to make much more significant achievements with Gorbachev beyond the economic destruction of the Soviet Union and missed the opportunity to have a much stronger and beneficial relationship with Russia. Gorbachev was actually left to be the "fall guy" in Russia for all of his efforts.
And that is just off the top of my head.
Thanks, Steyr.
I think the two most damning are the weapons distribution and the POW issue. As a 1969 born white male, what I heard of these events made my blood boil.
He was overall a good president but, I remember...
Just as I will with every presidents bullshit...
We should keep in mind that Reagan was NOT responsible for the POW issue. Whoever had their ass on the line because they sold those guys out during the 70s peace agreements are to blame. And certainly they are the same people who leaked the information about Delta rescues to cover their own guilty asses.
The only thing Reagan was guilty of is a failure in leadership regarding this issue. He should have made it top priority and figured out who was ****ing up the works regardless of how big a player they had become or if they had an R by their name. He also should have held Vietnams ass to the fire to get results.
That Vietnam would later attain favored nations status was just insult to injury. Bill Clintons way of taking an Executive shit on the graves of the men we abandoned, forgot and didn't think enough of to go get. I think it is the most shameful part of our involvement with that war.
I don't agree with everything he did but the thing, I think, people miss when looking at Reagan is his leadership and attitude.
Just listen to some of his speeches while he was president, and you see a leader who was genuinely doing what he thought was best while at the same time giving off an aura no one else had in a long time. Politically, from 1960-1980 was pretty bad. Kennedy was shot, another resigned, Carter, Vietnam, sexual revolution, civil rights movement, gas lines, double digit interest rates, ect.
I disagree with some of the things he did but we need that type of attitude and leadership for another decade and get us back on the right track.
With a few noted exceptions, I completely agree.
He made American a better place than he found it. That is hard to do.
We should keep in mind that Reagan was NOT responsible for the POW issue. Whoever had their ass on the line because they sold those guys out during the 70s peace agreements are to blame. And certainly they are the same people who leaked the information about Delta rescues to cover their own guilty asses.
The only thing Reagan was guilty of is a failure in leadership regarding this issue. He should have made it top priority and figured out who was ****ing up the works regardless of how big a player they had become or if they had an R by their name. He also should have held Vietnams ass to the fire to get results.
That Vietnam would later attain favored nations status was just insult to injury. Bill Clintons way of taking an Executive shit on the graves of the men we abandoned, forgot and didn't think enough of to go get. I think it is the most shameful part of our involvement with that war.
Don't get me started on Clinton. Agree with regan thoughts.
We should keep in mind that Reagan was NOT responsible for the POW issue. Whoever had their ass on the line because they sold those guys out during the 70s peace agreements are to blame. And certainly they are the same people who leaked the information about Delta rescues to cover their own guilty asses.
The only thing Reagan was guilty of is a failure in leadership regarding this issue. He should have made it top priority and figured out who was ****ing up the works regardless of how big a player they had become or if they had an R by their name. He also should have held Vietnams ass to the fire to get results.
.
Steyr,
Any books/articles you can throw out on this topic. Always wanted to learn more about it. Thanks bud.
-Jax
Steyr,
Any books/articles you can throw out on this topic. Always wanted to learn more about it. Thanks bud.
-Jax
I'm only aware of one, and it's an excellent and enlightening read.
Inside Delta Force by Eric Haney
(http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Delta-Force-Publisher/dp/B004MNPDPS/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365919109&sr=1-4&keywords=inside+delta+force)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.