Ronald Reagan's gun control and big spending legacy exposes his hypocrisy.Submitted by ronb28135 on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 15:48
--Ronald Reagan spoke out about big government, but, it was just that, all talk. His spending as governor of California and as president of the U.S. attest to his legacy of bigger government. After Reagan served, government was always more expensive, bigger and more intrusive.
--I'd like to know just what is it about the absolute right of all Americans to be armed against an oppressive government that the Second Amendment protects as is stated in "...shall not be infringed," didn't he or the Republicans understand then or now?
"...today, in his remarks on gun safety, President Obama invoked the 40th president when he reminded the nation that Reagan himself signed that letter supporting the ’94 assault weapons ban.
"Now the right wing has a new talking point — that Ronald Reagan only supported the ban because he was afflicted with Alzheimer’s by ’94 and had no idea what he was doing.
"Because of course, why else would a guy who’d been shot by a deranged gunman ever support gun control? When Reagan read that letter, and ran it by his staff, and signed his name, and had it presented to the world by his press office, it was just senile dementia. And of course his staff of all left-wing liberals put it out anyway."
--I'd also like to know just what is it about the absolute right of all Americans to own any military grade weapon or munitions from brass knuckles to h-bombs as the "arms" that are guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment didn't Reagan or the Republicans understand then and now?
--How does "supported common-sense gun restrictions" translate into "remaining true to that underlying belief "("as a defender of the Constitution and of gun rights")? It can't That is a contradiction in terms and as most Daily Paulans, know from Ayn Rand, contradictions can't exist. One or the other assertions may be true but not both.
--If it wasn't for the decision in Miller v U.S. made by a corrupt SCOTUS there wouldn't be any debate today about AR-15 and AK-47 look-a-like assault rifles. If it ain't got a selector switch for full auto fire, it ain't an assault rifle, and all the liberal rhetoric can't make it so.
--The Founders intended, by including the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights, that Americans would always have access to owning and carrying the same weaponry that the standing military would have or have access to without "infringements." And, Ronnie, just what are "common-sense gun restrictions" as opposed to "...shall not be infringed" all about?
--Ronnie, you sounded more like a Democrat talking here? Oops, I forgot, you were a Democrat before it was more convenient to your political career for you to try to change your spots by becoming a Republican. There just isn't any cure for big spending is there?
"Reagan is fondly remembered as a defender of the Constitution and of gun rights. However, while remaining true to that underlying belief, Reagan, before, during and after his presidency, supported common-sense gun restrictions that were compatible with the Second Amendment.
"While still president in 1986, Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed."