RobertNashville

great info...it even references the applicable SCOTUS decisions.   Thanks for digging that up!

You need to pose that question to SCOTUS...of course, those decisions were made over a century ago so you would have to settle for reading their decisions since the justices that made the decisions are long dead.

I think you have a very myopic view of the situation colored by your anger at these people.   I was there, not in a uniform but just as a person...the issues you want to be black and white simply aren't..

Would you expect him to say anything else? Not saying it is all dead of course; no legislation or the potential for legislation is ever dead as long as Congress is in session.

I suspect this is both a flash in the pan and localized to the areas close to where the Boston attack happened. In other words; not something that's going to have wide ranging impact.

I doubt their choices are nearly as black and white or as easy as you seem to suggest.  I suspect more accurate is...   1. Don't play along with the radicals/terrorists and the terrorists slit the throats and send your kids into shops with bombs strapped to their chests, or...   2. Play along and maybe you get to live...or maybe you may get a cruise missile up your ass.   Maybe they aren't completely "innocent" but I don't know that they are as guilty as you would make them out to be and certainly their children aren't guilty of anything other than having the bad luck to have been born into that mess.

I love 1911s. Don't much care for Kimber as I think they are overpriced for what you get and, personally, I've been unimpressed with the quality and reliability of the several I've owned.   I too would consider a Rock Island or Sig 1911; both very good for the $ spend.   That said, as much as I love 1911s and even occasionally carry one, it's no longer my sidearm of choice for something I'm going to bet my life on.  A carry weapon is a tool and based on personal experience, I switched to carrying a Glock about three years ago.

I believe it's a lot more than a "claim"...if I remember correctly, the powers of bounty hunters are VERY BROAD; much more so that LEOs and were made that way by Supreme Court decisions a long time ago. Your rights pretty much mean nothing to a bounty hunter.   Also, if you happen to be the bond-jumper they are looking for or you are harboring the person they are looking for I'm pretty sure you lose any claim of self0defense and/or the legal right to use deadly force against them.

You can make all the guarantees you want but you don't know and you can't know the outcome of doing what you think should have been done. Also, no matter how much justifiable anger you have, it's not a good idea to start a ground war or drop bombs unless you are sure of the facts; who your enemy is, what the goal is and whether it can be accomplished.   If memory serves, Reagan and Mitterand (sp?) planned joint airstrikes on targets in Lebanon where Iran was believed to be training Hezbollah (who carried out the actual attacks) but that didn't happen because we weren't sure about Iran's involvement.   I'm not sure there was a right answer...that's one of the problems of dealing with terrorists...we've been in a ground war in Afghanistan for what, 11 years now...a lot of people, including people here, don't think we should have ever started that one...I guess sometimes you "lose" no matter what you do or don't do. :shrug:       P.S. As to the Cole, I think it worth noting that the attack could NOT have happened at all if we (the Navy) hadn't forgotten how to refuel underway....when I was in we topped off every three to four days and we NEVER pulled into port to do it. I guess our sailors forgot how to drive after I left.

And your main gripes is that he once divorced, he was anti-communist and you didn't like his acting...all really major issues to be sure!   As to the comment about people being able to refuse to rent or sell to blacks if they want to; he explained his basis for the statement....of course, assuming he lied about why he said it and chalking it up to racism is much more satisfying.

I don't give a #### that he was an actor...that the fact that he was and his acting career doesn't impress you I care about even less.   And yeah...being actively anti-communist while he was president of SAG...well, that's certainly something to abhor isn't it. I mean...we sure don't want anyone in office that's anti-communist!  :shake:   On civil rights....       During Reagan's presidency, the black middle class grew from 2.6 million households with income of $25,000 or more in 1979 to 3.9 million in 1989. Between 1978 and 1982 the number of poor blacks rose by more than 2 million but that between 1982 and 1989 the number of poor blacks fell by 400,000.  But yeah...obviously, Reagan was against civil rights and certainly his economic policies leads one to that conclusion as well. And yeah...being married for eight years, then divorcing, marring four yeas later and remaining married to the same woman for the next 52 years...that sure shows a real corrector flaw doesn't it.  However, since I too am divorced, as is about half of all couples who have ever been married, I guess in your mind that disqualifies me from being able to comment on any of this anyway.

I have a pretty extensive library on Reagan and yes; I've read them...I also lived through his presidency.

  The collapse of the Soviet Union was a LOT more complicated than simply "spending"...why don't you read up on it.

In 1999 I was privledged to spend three weeks in Beirut...walked its streets...stayed with a family that had to patch damage from shelling from the U.S. fleet...that family had a unique take on that time frame...I've been to the Bakaa valley where many of the New Jersey's shells fell.  The U.S. was there to try and keep the peace...Beirut was  BEAUTIFUL city that is only now starting to actually recover.   Is it really Regan's fault that Muslim terrorists attacked the barracks (the U.S. barracks was not the only one attacked you you)? Is it GW Bush's fault that Muslim terrorists attacked the Word Trade Center?   I think the issues are a bit too complicated to just blame Reagan or any other single person.

Here is a pop quiz for you...      1. who initiates and controls spending at the federal level?      2. In the modern age, when was the last time the federal budget decreased in real dollars year over year?   Do you not remember...oh wait...you weren't there...that EVERY budget Regan was pronounced dead on arrival at Congress?  Is it really Reagan's fault if the Congress passed a budget he didn't propose???   Do you actually know that economic fact of those times or the totality of what was actually going on  or are you just repeating something that someone else said? Here are just a very few... From 1982-1989 real family income grew by over 15% according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census For the poorest fifth of Americans, real income grew almost 12% The total population under the poverty line decreased by 3.8 million people The misery index was gone (do you know what that was???)...we experienced sustained economic growth, without inflation, low unemployment and low interest rates while the economy created over 20 Million jobs Between 1982 and 1989 real after tax income per person rose by 15.5% and real median income of families before taxes rose 12.5% Oh and...the Soviet Union collapsed and a lot of his military spending, you know; the spending that liberals and Democrats tried to discredit by labeling it "star wars" is the technology that the military uses today for anti-missile defense and a host of other things.   Yeah...he was such a lousy president.

Funny how folks who aren't olde enough to actually remember Ronald Reagan seem to be so annoyed/uninspired by him. I'm SURE they've read his writings, speeches, etc. before coming to their opinion.

What's so sacred about "Miranda rights"? That concept didn't even exist until the Supreme Court created it in 1966 and all it really does it tell people the rights they have and have had under the Constitution all along. No one is setting aside the fourth or any other amendment...there are circumstances where police have the right to search you/your home/your property without your permission and without a search warrant. You have the right to not give consent if that makes you feel better but the search will happen if the police feel they need to do so. Maybe much later when they have weeks to look at decisions made in moments some judge will decide the police were in the wrong - that's how it's supposed to work isn't it?

While I don't for a moment trust Obummer or Sebelius we do, I believe, need to find a way to identify those individuals who, because of their mental health status, should not be allowed to possess a firearm. I don't know what the best way to do that is but I think it's pretty apparent that the system we have now isn't working very well. Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a way to do it without trampling on the rights of both the mentally disturbed as well as others.

Not going to happen. I think we saw EXACTLY and in high definition the country we now live in and it's not the world most of us thought.

How do you t think that ban on machine guns cam about? Did you look into what other things were contained in that piece of legislation that may have made it very difficult for him to justify a veto? Do you understand or did you just overlook that the NRA had worked for years to relax many of the restrictions of the 1968 Gun Control Act and that the ban on newly manufactured machine guns was a lat amendment that got the law passed out of a Democrat controlled congress? Rightly or wrongly, the NRA went along with the ban to get the bill passed but yeah...I guess since Reagan didn't veto it it's all his fault. As to amnesty; what exactly are you referring to? What did he do to "kick start" amnesty in California? If you are referring to the 1986 FEDERAL amnesty bill Do you know or not know the totality of the immigration law reforms of that time...the promised made by congress to Regan the congress reneged on? Yeah...I guess when congress lies that's the president's fault too.

I wonder what he did (or didn't do that you think he should have) that makes you think so little of him? Do you remember him or is your knowledge of him and that time frame in our country based on what you've read/been taught? Not trying to pick a fight here...I'm asking because I am really wondering.

That's only partially true...There were nominated because a plurality of voters during the primary season voted for those two candidates more than they did for the other choices. They lost their respective elections, in part, because because enough self-proclaimed conservatives and libertarians decided they weren't good enough and were willing to let a radical socialist win and then remain in office.

:surrender:   Apparently, no one wants to comment on the quote regarding self-governance vs government by "the elite"...rather, they just want to bash Reagan for his anti-2A positions and other actions (both real and imagined).    :leaving:

As I said, Reagan was not perfect on the second amendment but this is the same Reagan who also signed legislation relaxing restrictions on firearms in 1986...and yes, the same Reagan who, along with Carter and Ford wrote a letter to Congress in favor of passing the 1994 AWB.   Let's not lose sight of the fact that a lot of other formerly "pro-2A" Republicans voted for that AWB legislation including one who is a darling of the pro-gun crowd in Ohio right now.   As I said, I don't vote on any one issue. Moreover, if you look hard enough you'll find problems on one or more specific issue with pretty much every man who has ever held office (including many of the founders) - until Jesus comes back and takes over I suspect it will always be that way...my purpose of the thread was to foster a discussion on the concept of self-governance but whatever.

Really?  Were you there?   Did you forget that strong "patient's rights" movement of the 60's, 70's and 80's and lawsuits by the ACLU and other groups? Many groups, including the mental health care industry wanted the states and the federal government out of the mental health care industry (not to mention that the cuts in funding and other legislation passed while Reagan was governor and President was done under Democratic controlled legislatures).   To put it more plainly, the people who were truly responsible for the release of thousands of mentally ill from institutions and changed (for the worse I think) the way we approach mental health today were on the totally opposite end of the political spectrum from Reagan.   Maybe we should have elected the Peanut Farmer to a second term.  ;)