May 19th, 2014

[Moose242]

This day 28 years ago, Ronald Reagan fucked us all.

[LANTIRN]

And remind me again why the right loves him so much?

[red89notch]

Just a little over six weeks before I was born

[03trubluGT]

Just a little over six weeks before I was born

I was going to say that it was before Alex was born too.....

[David]

He didn't fuck us all, the dems got what the wanted and now we have expensive guns that we can call investments.

[CJ]

That's a pretty damn deceptive statement. Actually, I would call it completely incorrect. The bill you're referring to was drafted and signed to curtail the ATF's prosecution of second amendment cases. It was pro-second amendment, it was reducing requirements on gun control and stripping the ATF of power. At the last minute the Hughes amendment was added (922) (who was a democrat, of course - not Ronald Reagan). Charlie Rangel (also a democrat - who was removed from office on corruption charges btw) who was a chairman took a voice vote, but refused an official vote. Later he was forced to do an official recorded vote and the Hughes amendment was shot down. He then decided to pass the motion. Reagan signed the bill because If I'm not mistaken (and it's been years since I looked into this) it was a veto-proof bill majority. The NRA was threatening senators to pass it. There was nothing he could do. Parts of this law and the reason it was signed prevented the ATF and the US government from creating a national firearms registry and a safe passage act (ex: Oklahoma can't send you to jail for driving through their state with a pistol in the glove box).

[Moose242]

The buck stops with Reagan. He could have easily not signed it, but he was very pro gun control. He was on record saying that "an AK-47 is not a sporting weapon nor needed for home defense".

In his post-presidency, he cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban.

So yeah, Fuck Reagan's stance on gun control.

[CJ]

The buck stops with Reagan. He could have easily not signed it, but he was very pro gun control. He was on record saying that "an AK-47 is not a sporting weapon nor needed for home defense".

In his post-presidency, he cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban.

So yeah, Fuck Reagan's stance on gun control.

You must not have read the part about the veto-proof majority. You can't just refuse to not sign, it passes regardless.

[Moose242]

I have never heard that but who knows what would have happened if the bill had been vetoed. It is pointless to speculate but who knows.

That said, fuck Reagan for being an anti-gun asshole.

[CJ]

I have never heard that but who knows what would have happened if the bill had been vetoed. It is pointless to speculate but who knows.

That said, fuck Reagan for being an anti-gun asshole.

It's not speculation, It couldn't have been vetoed. Constitution states a 2/3 majority (66%) overrules any presidential Veto. The 1986 FOPA had 86%, absurdly high majority, it was nearly invincible. Which is precisely why the democrats tossed in 922 illegally. What you're saying is widely proclaimed by a lot of anti-Reagan people (mostly liberals, and believed as you can see a few above) but it's a huge misconception.

[Moose242]

Oh ok, its cool then. How dare the patron saint of the right be outed as a leftist on any issue.

Again, Reagan was an anti gun shithead. There is sufficient evidence to drive that home.

[CJ]

Oh ok, its cool then. How dare the patron saint of the right be outed as a leftist on any issue.

I think a more accurate statement is how dare you be fooled by left wing propaganda. Because on it's face, this whole argument is factually incorrect. I'm not going to suck Ronald Reagan's dick about anything, but facts and facts. The reason this whole idea is so sensationalized is because it's completely a polar opposite of his administration's perspective. When you actually research it you discover it had nothing to do with Reagan at all. By blaming Reagan you're hiding the truth. It was crafted by two Senators that bathed in corruption and tyranny.

[Moose242]

The fact that Reagan was anti-gun? Dude, read the links I posted. It is exceptionally well documented. In actuality the motherfucker did more to huet gun rights than Obama has to the nth degree.

[CJ]

The fact that Reagan was anti-gun? Dude, read the links I posted. It is exceptionally well documented. In actuality the motherfucker did more to huet gun rights than Obama has to the nth degree.

I'm not saying that. I'm simply focusing on the facts and what his Administration did. What you posted is post-presidency. By using the same metric you used initially, you should be blaming George H. Bush and Clinton, they were the presidents when those were proposed and passed. I don't agree with everything he did, but I do feel he was extremely pro-second amendment and his administration was as well. Reagan has been quoted many times saying that he would sign something he did not agree with himself, but constitutionally he was required to do. Reagan was a constitutionalist, and by that mark a 2/3 majority left no room for a veto on a bill. Like it or not the constitution makes that clear. The very bill this thread revolves around was entirely pro-second amendment from it's conception. The President is just the head of the executive branch. A presidents Administration is far more influential (with the exception of our most recent king). As for comparing him to Obama, that's absurd. What Obama has attempted to do, via executive fiat and proposed legislation is far FAR more damaging, he has just been unable to get most of it to pass because of conservatives (many of which were Reagan cabinet members). I think what's lost in this generation, or at least what's very difficult to communicate, is the political climate of the mid 80's. Machine guns were a huge political target for gun control advocates, a huge liability left open and the left was ferociously waving banners in an attempt to use machine guns as the vehicle to pass anti-gun measures. If i'm not mistaken, there were many previous bills drafted that stripped away a huge amount of gun rights using that as the reason. From what I've been able to read and discover, some very right wing groups (The NRA for instance) quietly saw this as the only solution. Now, an argument can be made that Reagan could have vetoed the bill simply to show his stance, and then have it overruled by Congress. That's certainly a better grievance. I can't say I agree with that at all, but it does cast a different light on where this came from.

[Moose242]

The President can, and has historically represented his party. Reagan well could have vetoed the bill and said "here is why", but he didn't.

The facts stand:
1. This day, 28 years ago Reagan signed an unconstitutional gun law.
2. Reagan could have vetoed the act, but did not.
3. The NRA told Reagan to sign the bill, saying that they would later focus on repealing the amendment.
4. Reagan's successor banned the import of "non-sporting" weapons by executive order.
5. Reagan said that guns like AKs should be illegal (see above)
6. Reagan supported the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

I have no idea why Reagan is held in such high regard by conservatives. He is, in my opinion one of the worst presidents we have ever had. I will say though, his foreign policy was an exception and here I will give the man credit where credit is due.