Quote of the Day

“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety… While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.” Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in a letter to the House of Representatives regarding passage of the assault weapons ban

Most of today’s NRA-owned conservatives would consider this to be just another screed from a few pansy-ass liberals.

Adding… Here’s Reagan’s 1991 op/ed in support of the Brady Bill.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Quote and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • bphoon

    I don’t necessarily oppose a new assault weapons ban; I’ve always believed that (no matter how cool they may be to have) no civilian individual has an actual need for such weaponry. My concern is that it be written intelligently and with a sober view to the efficacy and effectiveness of such a policy. My fear is that, though a knee-jerk reaction to the horrific nature of recent events, a policy gets jammed through Congress that is either so weapon-specific as to be unenforcable or so broad in scope that it also affects firearms that do have a legitimate purpose in the hands of individual civilians. That’s why I think it’s wise of President Obama to have Vice-President Biden seek out input from various interest groups over a period of time before introducing any legislation.

    Obviously, something needs to be done but let’s take a measured approach and try to get it right.

    • D_C_Wilson

      I agree. Any new legislation needs to be the result of sober, serious discussion by responsible adults.

      Which is why the republicans should have no part in it.

  • LK3

    And there is this, from a 10 year sister of one of the shooting victims:
    “The tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have increased the calls for gun control around the nation and in Congress, but perhaps none have been as poignant as that from 10-year-old Natalie Barden, sister of victim Daniel Barden.
    Natalie’s letter, written to President Barack Obama and read by Anderson Cooper on air, voiced her clear and thoughtful belief that guns did not belong in the hands of most civilians:
    My name is Natalie Barden and I wanted to tell the president that only police officers and the military should get guns. If people want to do it as a sport than they could go to a shooting range and the guns would not be able to leave there”.

  • trgahan

    I have begun to see the fight over the 2nd Amendment as something beyond gun ownership and the relentless profiteering by the gun manufacturers. For conservatives, a hardline interpretation and support of the 2nd Amendment is their counter to their hatred and constant assault on the rest of the Constitution (particularly the 1st Amendment). Their position provides two things when debating in the media and/or public square: 1) they love the constitution, just look at their love of the 2nd Amendment, and 2) since progressives don’t agree with their stance on the 2nd Amendment, progressives clearly hate the constitution and all the freedom it guarantees. It is a position in which they can push legislation at all governmental levels that they know is unconstitutional, yet claim to be the party of “strict constitutionalists.”

    The idea is best illustrated by recent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as some legal means for American citizens to revolt against the American Government whenever something isn’t going their way. The Amendment could legitimately be argued as a means of keeping the costs of maintaining a standing army (you know, the kind of costs that were passed to a certain 13 colonies in order to pay for the British Empire) to a minimum. I wonder what President Washington would have come down on the issue as he marched the American Army to present day Pittsburgh to end a rebellion over taxation?

    • D_C_Wilson

      I think it’s a akin to the republicans’ worship of the Laffer Curve and voodoo economics. It’s a religious view that is impervious to any logic or reason.