@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:
For David:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt
Quote:The shooting of Reagan ignited a debate on gun control in the U.S. that had already been kindled by the death of John Lennon in December 1980. Reagan expressed opposition to increased handgun control following Lennon's death and even re-iterated his opposition to gun control after his own assassination attempt. However in public remarks, later reprinted by The New York Times, President Reagan endorsed the 1993 act:
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot... four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special – a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol – purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now – the Brady bill – had been law back in 1981... If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land. And there would be a lot fewer families facing anniversaries such as the Bradys, Delahantys, McCarthys and Reagans face every March 30.[35]
Here's a link to the full column written by Reagan in which the above quote was taken from:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html?pagewanted=1
Quote:Why I'm for the Brady Bill
By Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan, in announcing support for the Brady bill yesterday, reminded his audience he is a member of the National Rifle Association.
Published: March 29, 1991
LOS ANGELES — "Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
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. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.
And there would be a lot fewer families facing anniversaries such as the Bradys, Delahantys, McCarthys and Reagans face every March 30.
Based on your comments here, David, are you now saying that Ronald Reagan was also a Benedict Arnold to conservatism?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Quote: She and her busband were long-time activists in the Republican Party and for conservative causes.
There is nothing conservative about gun control; it is a radical repudiation of the Bill of Rights.
If she was an activist for conservatism, as u claim,
then she became a Benedict Arnold.
The short answer, the direct answer
to your question is
YES.
OBVIOUSLY, he did
not write that himself
and accumulate all of those doubtful numbers,
which certainly come directly from the bowels
of the repressionist movement;
anti-freedom movement,
to prevent citizens from defending their own lives.
Whether he read it, or was
ABLE
to read it by then is an open question.
By then he was probably afflicted with his Alzheimer's Disease,
to whatever uncertain extent, but there is
no getting away from the fact that he
did
violate the Spirit of Freedom in the Bill of Rights,
and I condemn him for it.
He did the same thing when he was actually President,
qua the "War on Drugs" which is deeply unAmerican
and unConstitutional. In these respects he was not
a good conservative, nor any kind of a conservative.
Maybe we can compare him to a "recovering alcoholic"
who fell off the wagon a few times.
In my opinion, if the Brady Bill had actually
come before him while he was President
and he had the opportunity to fully evaluate it,
with aid of legal counsel, he 'd have
vetoed it.
That is my sense of the situation; I cannot prove it.
I have never supported nor mentally accepted
the M'Naughten Rule; hence, crazy or not,
Reagan is accountable for his actions
and he
betrayed the Bill of Rights in
this case,
as well as in the
War on Drugs; therefore,
I re-iterate my affirmative reply to your question.
He had many good things to his credit
(e.g., peacefully winning the 3rd World War), but
NOT this.
David
