It has become clear to me that the President does not
believe in the Constitution. Or at the very least, the Second Amendment. He has
said and done many things that would restrict a citizen’s Constitutional right
to bear any arms to which they feel entitled.
Let’s take a look at some of those things now:
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”--Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.
Oh shit, I enticed you with some slippery tongue action,
didn’t I? Well, buck up, Sally. We’re going for a ride.
“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”--Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991.
“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.
“I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”--Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.
“Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control.”--Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988.
“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.”--Ronald Reagan, on March 29, 1991, in support of signing the Brady Bill.
*** *** *** *** ***
When he was the governor of California in 1967, Ronald
Reagan signed the Mulford Act, “prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s
person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.” Granted,
it was aimed at disarming the Black Panthers (because they opposed rampant
police brutality and murder with armed patrols – which they were legally
allowed to do at the time), but it still
applied to everyone. To this, he said, “Americans don’t go around
carrying guns with the idea they’re using them to influence other Americans.
There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded
weapons.” Kinda contradicts the current
crop of right-wing Teapublican nutbags threatening to employ “second amendment remedies” for anything they disagree with. Reagan must be some sorta un-American
socialist Marxist communist atheist Libtard.
Also while governor of California, Reagan signed a bill for
a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. Socialist.
As President in 1986, he signed into law the Firearm Owners
Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were
not already registered on the day the law was signed.”
In 1991, Reagan wrote this op-ed piece in the New York
Times:
And finally, let’s peruse this letter Reagan co-signed with
Presidents Ford and Carter:
May 3, 1994To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.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.Sincerely,Gerald R. FordJimmy CarterRonald Reagan
Did you get that last paragraph? They understood that ALL
crime wouldn’t be stopped, but it should not be easy for criminals to access
guns. Another notion that seems to not count with the Teapublicans these days.
*** *** *** *** ***
And, yes, before you start crying that he said a lot of
pro-gun stuff, too - it’s true. He was pro-gun. Regulating deadly weapons is a
common sense thing. You can still be pro-gun and want them regulated. Nobody
hates cars, but they want laws about which side of the road to drive on, when
to stop, how fast to go in school zones, etc.
Gundamentalists like to pull this quote from a 1975 column
in “Guns & Ammo” written by Reagan,
“You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”
Three things about that quote (and others like it):
1.)
Every time a gun masturbator whips out his little list of pro-gun Reagan
quotes, I notice that the quote is from some private gun magazine or gun convention,
never from a public speech. That’s called pandering.
2.) His actions regarding guns (the gun-control bills he signed and
his public stances) are what I
would put more credence into than what he says privately to a group of people
who brought him there to say what they want to hear.
3.) Re-read that quote
above. It’s a tricky little imp that smoke-and-mirrored the reading audience
like a daddy stole his baby’s nose. Gun-control IS about disarming thugs and criminals and locking them
up. NOT about taking guns from law-abiding citizens. It doesn’t matter if a
criminal is “not fazed by gun controllers.” If a felon can’t pass a background
check, a felon can’t purchase a gun from one of the 5,000 annual gun shows or
online – which he can do now, easy-peasy. And don't forget that last paragraph in his letter co-signed with Ford and Carter: "...statistics prove that we can dry up the supply
of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." But kudos to Reagan for pulling a
fast one on blind fundamentalists for their votes.
And the right-wing believes Reagan was one of the best
presidents regarding anti-gun control. But, from those that dwell in the
bubble, I expect no less. Whenever someone points out something Reagan said or
did that a right-winger disagrees with, that’s suddenly when his Alzheimer’s was
kicking in. Hah. Cognitive dissonance.
*** *** *** *** ***
Gun-control is not a “slippery slope” that leads to
government tyranny, as the gun lobby wishes you to believe, because they want
to have as many people buy their product as possible – if that includes
criminals, so be it. The “slippery slope” in America has actually been leading
in the opposite direction – back toward the lawless wild west. But that’s only
according to world-wide gun violence statistics.
-- TANGENT ALERT -- While we’re on the “slippery slope” argument, I’d like to point out that that is a nonsensical straw man argument, pulled out every time someone (Republicans, 99.99% of the time) doesn’t like something. It is used to project an extremely unlikely dystopian future to fear-monger you into backing off of something - in other words, create something that doesn't exist, then tell you to fear it. For example, how many times have you heard a Republican say that allowing gays to marry is a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to people being able to marry whatever they want, a car or a chicken? A lot. But by the “slippery slope” method, it’s already too late. Straight people being allowed to marry should have been banned as well. Because straight marriage will inevitably lead to gay marriage will inevitably lead to man/car marriage will inevitably lead to man/chicken marriage. You can start and end this mentally deficient nonsense anywhere you want, based on nothing but your own prejudices. When someone has no logical reason to oppose something, listen for “slippery slope.” Uh, unless you’re telling me you WOULD marry a chicken but for the law? “You got a purdy cloaca.” -- TANGENT OVER --
*** *** *** *** ***
This is genius. Please watch it. Please.
(These are Parts 2 & 3 of John Oliver’s report. I posted Part 1 in Government Tyranny.)
(These are Parts 2 & 3 of John Oliver’s report. I posted Part 1 in Government Tyranny.)
To all you people who believe the Constitution is an
unchangeable document chiseled in stone, I’d like to point out that the Second
Amendment is an amendment, added two
years and nine months after the Constitution went into effect – not part of the
original document. A change. One of 27 times the Constitution has changed. The
Constitution is a living document, last changed in 1992. Something written over
two centuries ago just may be a little out of date.
This is how the Second Amendment is applicable in the 21st
Century:
I keep trying to not write about guns. I really do.
Good day.
“The victims of gun violence will no longer be used as ‘props’ as soon as there are no more victims of gun violence to be used as ‘props.’”--Me, in a Tweet on April 25, 2013
Oh, yeah. One last
thing. You know how gun assholes (I’m getting a little testy now, aren’t I?) keep saying that reducing magazine capacity
won’t save anyone because you can reload in less than a second (ignoring the
fucking fact that you fucking can’t unless you are a fucking
competition-trained re-loader)?
Duck hunters’ guns are required to hold no more than 3 shells. You know why? So
you can’t decimate a fuckload of ducks from the same flock. The time it takes
you to reload gives the rest of the flock time to get away. Apparently, ducks
are more important than humans.
And when that bugfuck
nutjob shot up the Tuscon gathering, people wrestled the shooter to the ground only after he had to pause to reload. If his magazine could only hold 10
instead of 30 rounds, nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green would be alive
today. But go ahead, ignore that fact and keep spewing your self-serving
bullshit.
AND, when that other bugfucker shot up the Newtown school, 11 kids
were able to escape the classroom while he reloaded a magazine. Another disregardable fact,
for your self-serving convenience.
To anyone saying that
their laziness to have to reload more often at the shooting range is more
important than having time to escape killers, I say: Fuck you. Your mental
disfunction is the reason for background checks.
*** *** *** *** ***
Are Cats Better DJs Than Dogs? {Scientific Evidence}
No comments:
Post a Comment