Skip to comments.Ronald Reagan on Gun control
Posted on 06/21/2006 8:27:22 AM PDT by tcostell
In our September 1975 issue, Ronald Reagan, then two-time Governer of California, penned this column. A man of conviction, Ronaldus Magnus was true to these words before and during his eight-year presidency.
There are tales of robbery victims that are shot down in cold blood or executed "gangland style." There are stories of deranged parents killing their children or deranged children killing their parents. There are reports of snipers. And now and then the headlines blurt out that an assassin has struck again, killing a prominent official or citizen. All of these stories involve the use of guns, or seem to. As a result, there is growing clamor to outlaw guns, to ban guns, to confiscate guns in the name of public safety and public good.
These demands come from people genuinely concerned about rising crime rates, persons such as Sheriff Peter Pitchess of Los Angeles, who says gun control is an idea whose time has come. They come from people who see the outlawing of guns as a way of outlawing violence. And they come from those who see confiscation of weapons as one way of keeping the people under control.
(Excerpt) Read more at gunsandammomag.com ...
CA's 'law' is even worse. Certain semi-auto firearms supposedly cannot be sold - period. When you die they are to be confiscated by the State.
[Reagan] -- sold out many future generations of Americans by signing this into law.
Look at it this way, Brady is not a law, it is a repugnant infringement, not worth the paper it's printed on. [see Marbury]
Most gun owners in CA are ignoring it, and it is not being enforced.
Other states citizens should follow suit.
This sounds slightly similar to the UK: the major gun banning acts (semi-auto rifles (1988) and handguns which affected me (1997) were by Conservative governments. Things move on but am still bitter about it.
Fine. Obviously you know more about it then I do and all the same, obtaining firearms in the US is not the free-for-all its made out to be here in the UK.
The Great RR got it right. When he penned this he put the correct number of commas in the Amendment.
Didn't Reagan also sign the so called Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 which closed the NFA registry for civilian owned machine guns? Sorry he was not the pure defender of the bill of rights many here think he was.
That prohibition was a last-minute voice-vote amendment to the bill. The problem with large bills is that stupid little things can be snuck in and signed off without being noticed. Nobody knows if RR knew the MG ban had been inserted.
Hmm...a President not knowing what is on a bill they are signing. Wouldn's surprise me one bit, looks like we get the governmenet we deserve.
I see that a lot. Folks tend to forget that the president doesn't take office immediately after the election.
Can't you own fully-automatic weapons so long as you pay a bit more money on them?
1. I can't own ANY such arms if they are modern (made after 1986).
2. If they were made before then, I MAY be able to buy a one (probably worn and with a kludge aftermarket system) for 10x what it would cost if newly made.
Well, I am going by Matt Bracken's "Enemies Foreign and Domestic." In one part, one of the President's advisor's tells him that civilians can own automatic weapons and silencers so long as they pay a $200 dollar tax on them.
I so wish we could find another Reagan for '08. Hell, even if it's someone who is half of what he was, it would be great!
Yes, they do. The bill which became law was the "firearm owners protection act". The provision was discussed before the bill passed out of Congress and the NRA knew about it.
Well I've been around here for a while and I've never seen it. Thanks for posting. It rounds out RR for me. I have always been unclear about his stance. Now I know that at least as early as 1975 he had proper respect for the 2A.
Basically correct for silencers, but omits the fact that since 1986, full auto guns may not be made for civilian hands. There is about 2000 citizens per "transferrable" full auto firearm, thus making them preposterously expensive, and essentially worthless with regard to the intent of the 2nd amendment.
Well, a semi-automatic AR-15 (the first firearm I plan on owning, be it in the National Guard or as a civilian) is just as good as a fully-automatic one.
Besides, as "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" showed us, a single shot in the right person's head sends a good message to the anti-gun fascists.
You make good points, except that the experts in our armed forces seem to think that full auto has benefits justifying arming most soldiers with such rifles.
If you had to cross a field with hostile shooters nearby, would you rather your pals have machine guns or semi-autos to provide supressing fire?
Machine guns to provide suppressing fire, semi-autos to take out the shooters.
Besides, if the Second Civil War ever starts, I doubt the military would be on the side of whatever fascist democrat was dumb enough to rip apart the Second Amendment.
Don't bet on that. When the confiscation order came down in the Katrina aftermath, NG troops where right there with the confiscation squads. If Martial Law is declared after another National disaster or terrorist attack, the troops will by and large do as they are told.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.