Reagan-- 'Nobody Needs an Assault Rifle'

[Deleted]

    Look it up, Trump trolls... 

[Deleted]

Nobody needs a Porsche, BMW, or a Maserati. 
Nobody needs a membership to an exclusive country club.
Nobody needs a big mansion in one place and a vacation home in another place.
Nobody needs to flood and clog up this forum with fake lying anti-Trump bullshit.

But this is America.  We have the RIGHT to own and/or do things beyond what we "need."  We do NOT have to show "need" in order to own/do something.

MY Mini-14 says:
"If you don't like me,  FCKU  YOU; you are a worm and I don't give a shit."

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2018 17:19:13 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Feb 4, 2018 16:48:51 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Nobody needs a Porsche, BMW, or a Maserati. 
Nobody needs a membership to an exclusive country club.
Nobody needs a big mansion in one place and a vacation home in another place.
Nobody needs to flood and clog up this forum with fake lying anti-Trump bullshit.

But this is America.  We have the RIGHT to own and/or do things beyond what we "need."  We do NOT have to show "need" in order to own/do something.

Oh, really?

What about pesticides?  

What about hand grenades?

Do Americans have unlimited rights to own and use  things that unduly endanger the health, lives, and safety of other American citizens?

Why did Ronald Reagan oppose the sale of assault rifles in the U.S.?

[Deleted]

[daleko]

Feb 5, 2018 13:35:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Though it would be unusual for you to care, here is the actual quote.

Following the Stockton, ca shooting, on 6 February 1989, former president Ronald Reagan attended a 78th birthday celebration where he said, "“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

And I agree w him, and the law, that requires a permit to own and operate one. “Machine guns”, fully automatic weapons, were made illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. 

The context of the first half involved the Mumford act, which was in response to the Black Panthers carrying guns openly in Compton, circa 1967. The BPs weren't going into Compton to observe the police w/o guns. Smart fellows them. They weren't going to be the only NBomb in the neighborhood w/o guns.

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2018 15:41:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Feb 5, 2018 13:35:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Though it would be unusual for you to care, here is the actual quote.

Following the Stockton, ca shooting, on 6 February 1989, former president Ronald Reagan attended a 78th birthday celebration where he said, "“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

And I agree w him, and the law, that requires a permit to own and operate one. “Machine guns”, fully automatic weapons, were made illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. 

The context of the first half involved the Mumford act, which was in response to the Black Panthers carrying guns openly in Compton, circa 1967. The BPs weren't going into Compton to observe the police w/o guns. Smart fellows them. They weren't going to be the only NBomb in the neighborhood w/o guns.

Oh, I see, Cheese Burgher.

Funny you should mention the Black Panthers, given the lengthy historical relationship in America between Confederate rifle associations and what Randy Newman called, "keeping the nxggers down."

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2018 15:41:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Feb 5, 2018 13:35:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Though it would be unusual for you to care, here is the actual quote.

Following the Stockton, ca shooting, on 6 February 1989, former president Ronald Reagan attended a 78th birthday celebration where he said, "“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

And I agree w him, and the law, that requires a permit to own and operate one. “Machine guns”, fully automatic weapons, were made illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. 

The context of the first half involved the Mumford act, which was in response to the Black Panthers carrying guns openly in Compton, circa 1967. The BPs weren't going into Compton to observe the police w/o guns. Smart fellows them. They weren't going to be the only NBomb in the neighborhood w/o guns.

This is all glaringly wrong.

Machine guns were "outlawed" by the National Firearms Act in 1934.   That's when the $200 excise tax was imposed on them, and they had to be registered, etc. etc.
The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "McClure-Volkmer").

Ronnie Raygun got this one wrong.  IF you can afford the ammunition, shooting a fully automatic firearm is certainly SPORT.

Interestingly, the $200 tax remains the same.   In 1934 that was a prohibitive amount of money.  Today it is chump change and is no longer a deterrent.

[daleko]

Feb 5, 2018 16:10:33 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

My only point was Willie AGAIN changed another's words to further his personal view. He's a Douche. 

[Deleted]

Feb 5, 2018 16:17:52 GMT -5 daleko said:

Feb 5, 2018 16:10:33 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

My only point was Willie AGAIN changed another's words to further his personal view. He's a Douche. 

Huh?  As a guy who always changes my words around while pretending to debate, that's funny, coming from you.

What was Reagan's position on the sale of assault rifles?

[daleko]

Feb 5, 2018 19:41:25 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Feb 5, 2018 16:17:52 GMT -5 daleko said:

My only point was Willie AGAIN changed another's words to further his personal view. He's a Douche. 

Huh?  As a guy who always changes my words around while pretending to debate, that's funny, coming from you.

What was Reagan's position on the sale of assault rifles?

He was against machine guns. Full auto AKs. His quote "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” Which in this country is licensed.

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2018 0:27:05 GMT -5 daleko said:

Feb 5, 2018 19:41:25 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Huh?  As a guy who always changes my words around while pretending to debate, that's funny, coming from you.

What was Reagan's position on the sale of assault rifles?

He was against machine guns. Full auto AKs. His quote "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” Which in this country is licensed.

As a citizen of the United States, RR had the right to voice his opinion, but even the POTUS cannot override the Constitution of the United States.
[Unless his name is Hussein Obama and he refuses to uphold federal immigration law]

RR also made the typical mistake normally reserved for lieberals ........  we don't judge ownership by need; we judge it by CHOICE.

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2018 8:39:24 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Feb 6, 2018 0:27:05 GMT -5 daleko said:

He was against machine guns. Full auto AKs. His quote "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” Which in this country is licensed.

As a citizen of the United States, RR had the right to voice his opinion, but even the POTUS cannot override the Constitution of the United States.
[Unless his name is Hussein Obama and he refuses to uphold federal immigration law]

RR also made the typical mistake normally reserved for lieberals ........  we don't judge ownership by need; we judge it by CHOICE.

Horseshit.  The Constitution has always been open to interpretation and amendment.

If we interpreted every syllable of that 18th century document as immutable, slavery would still be legal.

[daleko]

Feb 6, 2018 12:41:15 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Feb 6, 2018 8:39:24 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

As a citizen of the United States, RR had the right to voice his opinion, but even the POTUS cannot override the Constitution of the United States.
[Unless his name is Hussein Obama and he refuses to uphold federal immigration law]

RR also made the typical mistake normally reserved for lieberals ........  we don't judge ownership by need; we judge it by CHOICE.

Horseshit.  The Constitution has always been open to interpretation and amendment.

If we interpreted every syllable of that 18th century document as immutable, slavery would still be legal.

I'm guessing you don't favor the British model and turn illegals into a Coolie labor pool.

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2018 17:31:23 GMT -5 daleko said:

Feb 6, 2018 12:41:15 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Horseshit.  The Constitution has always been open to interpretation and amendment.

If we interpreted every syllable of that 18th century document as immutable, slavery would still be legal.

I'm guessing you don't favor the British model and turn illegals into a Coolie labor pool.

The British model banned slavery long before Americans amended our Constitution on that issue.

And they have much stricter gun laws and lower homicide rates over there.

Try to get a clue.

[daleko]

Feb 6, 2018 21:39:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Feb 6, 2018 17:31:23 GMT -5 daleko said:

I'm guessing you don't favor the British model and turn illegals into a Coolie labor pool.

The British model banned slavery long before Americans amended our Constitution on that issue.

And they have much stricter gun laws and lower homicide rates over there.

Try to get a clue.

Correct. They changed from the slavery model for cheap labor to the coolie model. Worked out for them, world-wide, throughout the British Empire.