Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They were Neo Cons, statist in the clothing of liberty...
Furthermore the Hughes Amendment failed a voice and recorded voted, but was illegal added to the finished bill...Which just proves even more so you people have to lie, cheat, and violate the Constitution to have your way to have a disarmed populace to rule over..
I gotta hand it to you, that's some fantastical spin you just put on a heap of historical fact.
Reagan didn't ban Machine guns?
Reagan didn't support the Assault weapons ban?
Reagan didn't support the Brady bill?
Bush 1 didn't stop importation of some really fine semi autos from China, and Soviet nations, that directly impacted my business in a negative way?
Bush 2 never said that he would sign the permanent renual of the Clinton assault weapons ban if it crossed his desk?
All these good, conservative republicans were really just posing as such and were rabid neocon liberals?
By the standards of certain modern-day conservatives, however, even Ronald Reagan was a traitor to the Second Amendment and the conservative cause. After all, he signed into law gun restrictions that still exist today While still president in 1986, Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun
Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."
Republicans are threatening to impeach Obama over executive action on gun control, but many presidents have issued executive orders on gun control, including George H. W. Bush n 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of some semi-automatic firearms after a mass school shooting Stockton, California. He based his executive order on the 1968 Gun Control Act and used it to ban the shipment of what could be considered “assault weapons” unless they were used for sporting purposes.
BUSH SIGNS MOST DRACONIAN GUN LAW IN US HISTORY! President Bush Signs H.R. 660 - H.R. 3690 - S. 863, and H.R. 2640!
H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007," which requires accurate information on individuals prohibited from possessing firearms to be transmitted by State and local government and Federal agencies to the Justice Department-administered National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); and provides incentives for facilitating electronic transmission of such information to NICS.
And........as a cherry on top of this republican gun control sundae I might remind our dear conservative friends that George W. Bush stated...."If an extension of the assault weapons ban comes across my desk, I'll sign it".
I rest my case.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was never very good on the 2nd Amendment, but you must realize that the gun debate in 1980 was a different animal from today. The 2nd Amendment had been largely ignored by legal scholars until the 1990's Harvard law prof Laurence Tribe changed his widely used textbook on constitutional law only in 2000 to reflect the new scholarship. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...anted=all&_r=0
I believe that Reagan, who was an individualist and true conservative, would have changed his tune had he come along 20 years later than he did.
As for HW and W Bush, neither were ever really conservatives. Remember HW Bush famously called Reagan's free market economics 'voodoo economics,' and HW also quit the NRA due to reference to the BATF as 'jack booted thugs.' W Bush was much maligned by liberals, but was really a liberal through and through. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...president.html
This was a guy who made his family fortune via a tax-funded sports stadium, for pity's sake, so he was not a limited gov't guy.
Essentially what you have here are some cherry picked examples of Republicans who supported gun control. But the fact is that the vast majority of support for gun control and gun bans comes from the left, and from the Democratic party. It just stands to reason that liberals, i.e. collectivists, would like to see guns restricted to the collective, while conservatives, i.e. individualists, want guns in the hands of the individuals. It's the same for a half dozen different issues from school vouchers to the fairness doctrine, to wedding cakes. Conservatives want the power of decision to lie with the individual; liberals want the power of decision to lie with the collective.
I gotta hand it to you, that's some fantastical spin you just put on a heap of historical fact.
Reagan didn't ban Machine guns?
Reagan didn't support the Assault weapons ban?
Reagan didn't support the Brady bill?
Bush 1 didn't stop importation of some really fine semi autos from China, and Soviet nations, that directly impacted my business in a negative way?
Bush 2 never said that he would sign the permanent renual of the Clinton assault weapons ban if it crossed his desk?
All these good, conservative republicans were really just posing as such and were rabid neocon liberals?
Good God! I must be dreaming
Yes, they all did, you assume I supported them and their actions, I do not support any laws that the limit the 2nd Amendment I could care less who signs or writes them.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was never very good on the 2nd Amendment, but you must realize that the gun debate in 1980 was a different animal from today. The 2nd Amendment had been largely ignored by legal scholars until the 1990's Harvard law prof Laurence Tribe changed his widely used textbook on constitutional law only in 2000 to reflect the new scholarship. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...anted=all&_r=0
I believe that Reagan, who was an individualist and true conservative, would have changed his tune had he come along 20 years later than he did.
As for HW and W Bush, neither were ever really conservatives. Remember HW Bush famously called Reagan's free market economics 'voodoo economics,' and HW also quit the NRA due to reference to the BATF as 'jack booted thugs.' W Bush was much maligned by liberals, but was really a liberal through and through. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...president.html
This was a guy who made his family fortune via a tax-funded sports stadium, for pity's sake, so he was not a limited gov't guy.
Essentially what you have here are some cherry picked examples of Republicans who supported gun control. But the fact is that the vast majority of support for gun control and gun bans comes from the left, and from the Democratic party. It just stands to reason that liberals, i.e. collectivists, would like to see guns restricted to the collective, while conservatives, i.e. individualists, want guns in the hands of the individuals. It's the same for a half dozen different issues from school vouchers to the fairness doctrine, to wedding cakes. Conservatives want the power of decision to lie with the individual; liberals want the power of decision to lie with the collective.
I agree with everything you just posted to some degree but bear in mind, I was responding to Haakon's post, wherein he stated,
"Every liberal may not be for banning guns but I've never seen anyone who wanted gun bans who wasn't a liberal."
I was merely giving examples to refute that statement, unconditionally. I'm very aware that Gunlover does not support any measures that he personally perceives as threatening the constitution and I'm very aware of the animus that exist between modern right wing conservatives and the Bush family.
I also now understand that it doesn't matter what the rebuttals are, there are those whose agenda is to keep the gun control issue front and center in the discussion forum. Making an outrageous claim that "it is only liberals who have ever enacted gun control" is only to put the discussion on the table so the gun rights agenda can be hashed, rehashed, over and over, yet again.
When you refer to "Cherry picked examples" I take mild irritation. I listed factual gun control by three republican elected presidents. Unless you didn't vote for any of them, you can't disown their gun control actions as cherry picking.
I should have known better than to post in this thread, as it is just a soapbox for yet another gun rights review of the bumper sticker talking points. I guess it was the OP claim that "seditious liberals are taking away all the guns and only cops should be allowed to have them". I'm a liberal, by your standards and have over 35 years of experience in the gun world. I know plenty of liberals just like me who you've probably bought imports from who refute that OP claim.
Oh well, carry on. I'm sure you have your crib sheets on the gun rights talking points taped to your monitor. See if you can troll another fish with outrageous claims so you can stuff the same old tired bumper sticker slogans about the 2nd, liberal gun grabbers and gun rights on page 1. It's what makes P&OC go round and round.
It really amazes me how many people believe this. It is typical right wing radio rhetoric.
I am all for common sense gun control. I have no interest in taking away anyone's guns.
We require testing to get a driver's license. Cars after all are a deadly weapon if used improperly. Simple safety testing and then you get your permit and a weapon.
I have yet to see a credible argument as to why this shouldn't be the case.
I do not own a firearm. I have no interest whatsoever.
You can start by better enforcement of current federal gun laws.
I agree with everything you just posted to some degree but bear in mind, I was responding to Haakon's post, wherein he stated,
"Every liberal may not be for banning guns but I've never seen anyone who wanted gun bans who wasn't a liberal."
I was merely giving examples to refute that statement, unconditionally. I'm very aware that Gunlover does not support any measures that he personally perceives as threatening the constitution and I'm very aware of the animus that exist between modern right wing conservatives and the Bush family.
I also now understand that it doesn't matter what the rebuttals are, there are those whose agenda is to keep the gun control issue front and center in the discussion forum. Making an outrageous claim that "it is only liberals who have ever enacted gun control" is only to put the discussion on the table so the gun rights agenda can be hashed, rehashed, over and over, yet again.
When you refer to "Cherry picked examples" I take mild irritation. I listed factual gun control by three republican elected presidents. Unless you didn't vote for any of them, you can't disown their gun control actions as cherry picking.
I should have known better than to post in this thread, as it is just a soapbox for yet another gun rights review of the bumper sticker talking points. I guess it was the OP claim that "seditious liberals are taking away all the guns and only cops should be allowed to have them". I'm a liberal, by your standards and have over 35 years of experience in the gun world. I know plenty of liberals just like me who you've probably bought imports from who refute that OP claim.
Oh well, carry on. I'm sure you have your crib sheets on the gun rights talking points taped to your monitor. See if you can troll another fish with outrageous claims so you can stuff the same old tired bumper sticker slogans about the 2nd, liberal gun grabbers and gun rights on page 1. It's what makes P&OC go round and round.
The Demodummies want to protect their personal stormtroopers from harm....and also give them the green-light to occupy and destroy even more cities.
Riiight........we're coming to your city next and going to demand you install indoor toilets. You on the other hand will claim that nowhere in the constitution does it say you need to install indoor toilets. You keep your outhouse as close to your neighbor's fence line as possible and as far away from your house that's feasible. That's what you call "Freedom".
Riiight........we're coming to your city next and going to demand you install indoor toilets. You on the other hand will claim that nowhere in the constitution does it say you need to install indoor toilets. You keep your outhouse as close to your neighbor's fence line as possible and as far away from your house that's feasible. That's what you call "Freedom".
Now that is funny.............I have to say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
