Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Crime

Ronald Reagan Supported an Assault Weapons Ban, Says Obama — The Potentially Surprising Details

Jan. 16, 2013 2:48pm Mytheos Holt

President Barack Obama is fond of selling his policies by citing the support of former Republican/conservative luminaries. And arguably, no star shines brighter in the conservative firmament than former President Ronald Reagan. So it should surprise no one that President Obama, when casting about for a person to invoke in his current-day battle against gun control, would seek any evidence possible that Reagan might have supported that position, or a similar position. As it happens, Obama got his evidence:

Second: Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines. (Applause.) The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high-capacity magazines, has one purpose — to pump out as many bullets as possible, as quickly as possible; to do as much damage, using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage.

And that’s what allowed the gunman in Aurora to shoot 70 people — 70 people — killing 12 in a matter of minutes. Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater. A majority of Americans agree with us on this.

And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them — this is Ronald Reagan speaking — urging them to “listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of [military-style assault] weapons.”

Obama did not explain his reference to Reagan, which might justifiably have left many observers either skeptical or scratching their heads in confusion. After all, the idea of Reagan lobbying for one of the more infamously despised pieces of left-leaning gun legislation is counterintuitive, to say the least. More to the point, this is hardly the first time Obama has cited Reagan before as a dubious source of inspiration. As Benny Johnson reported on TheBlaze in April of last year:

“I’m not the first president to call for this idea that everyone has to do their fair share,” the president noted. Quoting one Reagan speech, Obama insisted the 40th President would consider our tax loopholes today “crazy.”

“He thought that in America the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so,” Obama assured.

He then went on to call the Reagan “That wild eyed, socialist, tax-hiking, class warrior” in a sarcastic reference to some of the titles that Obama himself has accumulated.

“That position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days, but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing we’re calling for — a return to basic fairness and responsibility.”

The President ended his comparison, “If it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan rule instead of the Buffett rule.”

Yet unlike Obama’s assertion about taxes, which is at odds in spirit with Reagan’s own tax reforms, evidence for the idea that Reagan genuinely supported a ban on assault weapons exists, and we are here to examine and, in some cases, explain it.

The Evidence

The piece of evidence that has been cited most extensively (often on liberal blogs) is a letter written in 1994 and cosigned by Reagan, former President Jimmy Carter and former President Gerald Ford supporting then-President Clinton’s assault weapons ban. Here is the text of that letter, via Daily Kos:

May 3, 1994
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

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. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

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.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

However, a form letter from a former president on a current issue of the day need not necessarily have that president’s personal fingerprints on it, and especially given that Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers later the same year this letter was sent, we needed more evidence to suggest that Reagan himself personally supported the idea. As such, we went back to news coverage from 1994 to see how the issue was being treated, then.

According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, it checks out: Reagan did support the ban.

Moreover, as Buzzfeed has documented in a longer piece exploring the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, Reagan’s influence over the debate about that bill amounted to more than just one form letter. He actively sought out support from Republicans and defied the NRA, and may have been the person who was ultimately responsible for the passage of the bill by getting two former opponents to back it:

As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.[...]

Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after “a last minute plea from President Reagan” in the form of a handwritten note.

”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

”I can think of no one who has been a stronger supporter of law and order and a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment,” Klug said in a statement regarding Reagan’s note announcing his support for the ban.

Another former Congressman, New Hampshire Democrat Dick Swett, also credited the former President with influencing his vote.

So not only did Reagan support the assault weapons ban, but he actively campaigned for it and made sure to get his fingerprints all over it. Obama’s reference to the previous President is undeniably correct.

However, this fact raises an important question – that is, why would a president whose legacy from his time in office is one of unabashed conservatism suddenly jump to support such a liberal cause?

Why Reagan Might Have Supported the Assault Weapons Ban

Obviously, it’s difficult to speculate on such a question without being able to get inside Reagan’s head. However, there is plenty of evidence from Reagan’s own life, as well as his tenure in office both as president and as Governor of California, to suggest two contributing factors to his embrace of gun control, which we will tackle in turn:

1. The assassination attempt on Reagan

As many people who lived through the Reagan years, or who have studied them in detail, will recall, Reagan was the victim of an assassination attempt early in his first term as President by the deranged would-be killer John Hinckley. And despite the former President’s seemingly nonchalant response to this event as it occurred (he quipped, “I hope you’re a Republican” to the attending surgeon), it apparently left a deep traumatic scar on him. In fact, the assassination attempt is what Reagan himself fingered as motivating his thinking about this issue in an op ed supporting gun control in 1991:

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.[...]

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.

Some of Reagan’s rhetoric here might sound understandable, even to NRA members. Gun advocates are not uniformly opposed to all background checks and many support better resources to screen out mentally ill buyers. In this sense, Reagan would fit well within the mainstream of his own party, even if his support of the 1991 Brady Bill was novel at the time he wrote the above op ed.

However, there’s a lot of daylight between the Brady Bill and its seven day waiting period and screening processes, and an all-out assault weapons ban. So why would President Reagan support both the latter and the former? Here things get murky, but another contributing factor may be found in his tenure as Governor of California.

2. Opposition to the Black Panthers

As it happens, if President Obama’s researchers had wanted to find a real whopper for him to cite in his speech, they could have gone beyond even Reagan himself and pointed out that the NRA itself has supported gun control as recently as the late 60′s. In fact, in one of the NRA’s most high profile (and controversial) victories from the late 60′s, then-Governor Ronald Reagan was a key partner. That victory was the passage of the Mulford Act.

What was the Mulford Act? Nothing less than an outright ban on carrying guns in public places, a law that would today sound draconian in general, let alone a piece of legislation with support from the NRA. Yet at the time, the law had support from the NRA and was signed by Reagan without any hand wringing whatsoever. What gave?

Quite simply, the law was being passed to target a group that many of today’s conservatives would find just as noxious as they did then – specifically, the Black Panthers. At the time, the Panthers had deep roots in Oakland, California, and were engaged in “safety patrols,” described this way by PBS:

The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.

This arguable vigilante justice quite understandably unnerved more than a few people, especially when the Black Panthers began rallying and openly protesting police behavior in the aftermath of the shooting of African-American man Denzel Dowell. The Mulford Act, dubbed “The Panther Bill” by the California press, was meant to ensure that such rallies would remain free of gun violence, and also to disarm the Panthers themselves, thus keeping what many people saw as a group of heavily armed, paramilitary street thugs from effecting civil war with the police. And indeed, its passage saw a massive protest from the Panthers at the California State Capitol. PBS again:

Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols, so the BPP sent a group to Sacramento, California on May 2nd, 1967 to protest. The group carried loaded rifles and shotguns, publicly displayed and entered the State Capitol building to read aloud Executive Mandate Number 1, which was in opposition to the Mulford Bill. They tried to enter the Assembly Chamber but were forced out of this public place where they then read Executive Mandate Number 1 out on the lawn.

Needless to say, this act remains controversial today, with some liberals calling the NRA racist (to say nothing of Reagan) for wanting to stop blacks from protecting themselves from police brutality. However, for our purposes, it shows that especially in the case of the 1994 assault weapons ban — which shows some similarities to the Mulford Act — Reagan might have seen similarities to a previous NRA-backed piece of legislation that had imposed a much more draconian anti-gun regimen in the name of preserving public order.

And consider this: Reagan still got the endorsement of the NRA when he ran for President in 1980, which raises an important point: Not only did Reagan support one of the more forceful anti-gun laws of the 60′s, but he never had to explain his support for that law, or pay any kind of evident political price for it. As such, when combined with the attempt on his life by a lunatic, one can easily see how Reagan could combine his already uneasy feelings about gun after the assassination attempt with his previous political experience passing gun bans as Governor of California to produce a position in favor of banning all assault weapons.

This position no doubt made sense to him, but as some conservatives observed after the 2008 elections, there are places where conservatives might want to get beyond Reagan, and indeed have, in the case of this position. Nevertheless, if President Obama wants to fly the flag of a man that one of his most ruthless constituencies despises as a racist and oppressor, further alienating that very constituency, there is nothing in the historical record to stop him.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (172)

huey6367
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:16pm
Here’s the latest – Obama signs 23 executive orders concerning weapons (not sure if it was purely assault or otherwise).

So which state succeeds first and when do the Articles of Impeachment get reported on?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:40pm
  Really? Almost all of these executive orders/legislative proposals are enhancements of gun controls that have been on the Federal books for a while now. Why didn’t you call for impeachment when Bush was our leader and chose not to change/get rid of most of them? Introducing new gun control or leaving existing gun control laws on the books does not equate to overruling the Constitution . If it did, many of your favorites, Reagan and Bush included, would be guilty of this.
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:51pm
  Reagan was not in the party that caused WACO & 76 deaths, 17 were minors, all burned to death.
  Nor was he in charge of Ruby Ridge.
  
  Report this comment
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:57pm
  I don’t know about impeachment, sorryyou but according to the 2nd Amendment all of those gun laws are illegal and unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:58pm
  No, and neither was Pres. Obama. What’s your point?
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:00pm
  Oops! I read your comment wrong! But still, I don’t quite understand your point. Both of those events were handled very badly by the government.
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:35pm
  I agree with what you say Huey, but damn it, it “secession” not “succession”. Seceed, as in break away, not succeed as in make it to the top.
  
  Report this comment
- JRook
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:54pm
  Regan also raised the effective income tax rates by lowering rates but eliminating deductions and raising government fees across the board and reducing federal support to state and local governments which resulted in state and local taxes going up. Reagan is the father of the shell game.
  
  Report this comment
- love the kids
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:58pm
  Gee, world trade center, Oklahoma, 2 biggest mass murder cases in US history, no gun used.
  Biggest mass murderers,
  Mau Sai tung
  Hitler
  Musalini
  If only the people they killed had a way to defend themselves. Biggest global killers in history. They took the guns first
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:01pm
  JRook
  Regan also raised the effective income tax rates by lowering rates but eliminating deductions and raising government fees across the board and reducing federal support to state and local governments which resulted in state and local taxes going up. Reagan is the father of the shell game
  ***
  Do you whine a lot?
  Eliminated deductions?
  - Should a person who pays in cash have lower taxes than person who pays via credit card?
  - Should a renter have a higher effective tax rate than a homeowner?
  
  Was the federal government created by the Founders to provide a portion of the budget for states & municipalities?
  
  Do you want property taxes for a library or park district to not be taxes as a property tax but instead as an income tax & to go thru the middle man of the federal government?
  
  Are you for real?
  
  Report this comment
- Techcon
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:04pm
  Obama:
  
  “Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater. A majority of Americans agree with us on this.”
  
  Then why do the cops have them, hmm–and theirs will do FULL auto!
  
  Why?
  
  Civilian law enforcement is NEITHER military NOR paramilitary.
  
  Why do they have military weapons?
  
  As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, if the cops possess it, so can you.
  
  Report this comment
- TRUTHandFREEDOM
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:09pm
  I always go back to the founders for the correct answers and Jefferson always stands out like a beacon through darkness;
  
  “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it”
  
  “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it”
  
  Also
  
  “that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go; [...].
  
  In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
  
  Report this comment
- fastfacts
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:37pm
  Did you see Robert Gibbs this morning claim that the Obama machine is stronger than all of the NRA: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2013/jan/gibbs_nra_no_match.html
  
  Report this comment
- John.Galt
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:53pm
  @Sorry – IF THE LAWS ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, WHY DO WE NEED EXECUTIVE ORDERS?
  
  Sorry to make sorry look like a moron, but sorry makes it very easy.
  
  Report this comment
- Ballot_Box_Revolution
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:03pm
  Although I do like Regan, and was a man to be admired on most things, he is not a God, nor is Ron Paul. Just because you agree with somone on 90% of their positions does not mean you have to agree with them all….This is where the two party loyalty system gets corrupt.
  
  Report this comment
- RabidPatriot
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:09pm
  I don’t remember Ronald Reagan using executive orders to get around the 2nd Amendment. I guess he didn’t support gun control very much.
  
  Report this comment
- subic
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:41pm
  DUBLIN, you forgot Ok City, another Clinton/Reno/Holder govt operation to make “bitter clingers” look bad. McVeigh was only a scapegoat. Holder knows the truth.
  
  Anyone with any demo knowledge knows that truck bomb couldn’t do the damage that was done to the Ed Murrah FED bld.
  
  Check out the book “A Noble Lie” http://www.anoblelie.com/#
  
  Report this comment
- freeberty
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:21pm
  Don’t forget the machine gun ban signed by Reagan in 1986, if Reagan can keep you from owning a current machine gun, then Obama can use the same laws to take your handgun.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:34pm
  Reagan also enacted a gun ban with the support of the NRA when he was GOV. of California
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:35pm
  hahaha! impeachment on WHAT grounds?
  
  Report this comment
- DIR
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:44pm
  “Ronald Reagan Supported an Assault Weapons Ban, Says Obama — The Potentially Surprising Details”
  
  If Reagan supported such a ban, he had no idea low information voters would eventually elect the likes of Barry O as president. Had he known, he would have recommened stocking up on such things and tanks, field artillery and other like weapons.
  
  Report this comment
- Trigus
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:07pm
  Ronald Reagan speaking — urging them to “listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of [military-style assault] weapons.”
  and Semi automatic rifles.
  
  “Military Style Assault Weapons: selective fire rifles used by the military
  
  Semi Automatic Rifle: one shot per finger pull and is not used by the military.
  
  Play on words there by Barry. Now, BArry wants congress to pass extreme punishment for those who buy a firearm legally and then sell or give to criminals or Mexican Drug Cartels. 3 words Barry – “Fast and Furious” – lets make an example out of those involved in ‘Fast and Furious” and prove to Americans and the Mexican people that this administration is not above the law.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:15pm
  There are two reasons that reading comments like this from Reagan surprise people. One is that in the right wing bubble history has distorted and rewritten in an attempt to make people believe that people like Reagan believed the same things you do (and, by the way, I liked Reagan well enough and believe he’ll be considered one of America’s great Presidents, for his communication skills if nothing else).
  
  The other is that the Republican party is ruled by people who are so far right that the party would be unrecognizable to Republican’s of Reagan’s era. Yep, Reagan supported gun control as someone pointed out here. Reagan supported and passed immigration reform, and as many as a million Mexicans became US citizens under that legislation. Yes, Reagan cut taxes, but he raised taxes something like 18 times to address the growing deficit. And he supported the “Buffet rule.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw
  
  Nixon (who was a Republican for you young guys), created the EPA and OSHA, those agencies that keep mercury out of your water and lead out of the air your children breath. He and George H.W. Bush both were in favor universal health care. Funny, nobody ever accused Nixon or H.W. of being communists!
  
  Democratic ideas that you call “communist” ideas were once mainstream Republican ideas. American ideas really.
  
  The fringe has moved so far right that Republican ideas are now “communist” ideas.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:17pm
  Reagan was an awful President! he doubled spending, tripled the national debt. Trained and funded the raise of islamic extremism i.e. Al Qeuda and the Taliban, sold weapons illegally to iran and chemical weapons to Iraq, yes those chemical weapons, he also supported the Contras in their civil war by sending them money and using Nicaraguan drug dealers to launder the money and in exchange gave said drug dealers easier access to markets in America. in case your wondering why coke and crack were so big in the 80s. he would have been impeached too except congress felt that back to back republican impeachments would disenfranchise voters… yes all of that is 100% true!
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:26pm
  Keatonc33, you’re correct. But you didn’t mention the Beirut terrorist attacks that killed 299 Americans. As a nation we came together after that incident, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and blamed terrorists, not Reagan. After Bengazi, the Republican and the right fringe were quick to blame on President Obama, not the terrorists that killed four Americans.
  
  That’s just another example of high far right Republicans have gone. These are they guys that cheer when Americans are killed, provided that deaths can be spun in a way that makes President Obama look bad.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:33pm
  meteors.. Amen! 9/11/2001 another great example!
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:06am
  Amen meteors! 9/11 another great example! and If a tragedy happens during our next republican presidents term you better believe he or she will have my full support.
  
  Report this comment
- Lt_Scrounge
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:09am
  Hey Send, the big difference is that after the Beirut bombing, Reagan said it was Islamic terrorists. Obamao kept claiming it was a protest of a YouTube video. I had a high school class mate survive Beirut. I was an ROTC cadet at the time, and the minute I looked at the security measures at the airport, my thoughts were “What idiot set it up to allow a direct approach to the building?” That death toll didn’t need to be anywhere near what it was, but the military was trying to minimize its footprint to avoid offending the Muslims. The proper way for the approach to the terminal should’ve included at least 2 90 degree turns that would’ve allowed any vehicle running the gate to have to slow down and be exposed to a broad side from a shoulder fired missile. A Dragon or Tow Missile fired from the roof would’ve blown the truck up long before it reached the barracks with a significantly reduced loss of life.
  
  Ambassador Stevens should’ve never been anywhere near Benghazi on 9/11. When he came under attack, a QRF should’ve been in the air in minutes, not forced to sit on the tarmac. A pair of Apaches or Cobras could’ve suppressed the ground fire while a Black hawk dropped a armed security team to provide protection and/or evacuation. The requests for additional security had been denied. The outrage isn’t that 4 Americans got killed, it’s that it was unnecessary, and then the administration concocted and continued to promote a lie as to what had happened.
  
  Report this comment
- punyhuman
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:32am
  To TRIGUS @ 9:07, Oh if only people would pay close attention to the difference you pointed out, that is, the nomenclature of the weapons in question:
  
  “Military Style Assault Weapons: selective fire rifles used by the military [full automatic]
  
  Semi Automatic Rifle: one shot per finger pull and is not used by the military.
  
  This major configuration difference is not addressed in 90% of the articles I’ve read here and on other news sites as well. That difference is at the core of the entire conversation and needs to be emphasized ad nauseum till every one that engages in this dialogue get sick of hearing it. Just so they know it. It’s that important.
  
  Report this comment
- Onesimus
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:06am
  Lt_Scrounge, one of the other elements contributing to that fiasco was that the billeted unit was an H&S Company, specifically H&S 1/8. The rest of the Battalion was deployed around the airport. Now I’m not throwing rocks at POG Marines (being a 2861 that would quickly give me bruises), but given the opportunity to have a bit cushier place to spread out our test equipment, truck tools, small arms mainenance kits, and so forth, we usually will. Times have changed a bit since then, and even support MOS Marines have become more security focused. I had the privledge to serve in H&S 1/8 about 4 years after the bombing, pretty good unit.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:15am
  SENDTHEMETEORS, KEATONC33, If the two of you want to pat yourselves on the back and tell us just how uber intelligent that you are, then stop acting like a couple of simps. When it comes to Reagan and that video is classic Reagan. Allow me to point out some simple facts, for simple minds to ponder. Prior to the 1994 election that swept the Democrats out of the House and Senate, when did the Republicans hold either or both with dominance? It had been well over 45 years. Did President Reagan have enough Republicans in Congress to get anything that he wanted while president? Not just no, but Hell No! When Reagan made that speech, he was talking about laws and loopholes in our tax code made by Dems for their crony friends, not the other way around. Reagan want a fair tax for all, not one that skinned the wealthy alive. As for Reagan raising taxes, yes JZS, you and I have gone around and around about this in the past. My simple point is to think, and tell me just how many of those bills to raise taxes started in the White House? Oh, that would be none since they started in the Dem dominated House of Representatives. Okay, how many of these tax increases did he ask for? My point, is that he had to do some give and take to sometimes get his way, and sometimes the Congress got it’s way.
  Another thing METEORS, that we have gone over before while you were both JZS and now METEORS, There were 241 Americans killed at the Beirut Barracks bombing, the remainder were French.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:19am
  MEATEORS, KEYTONC33, All of these service members were part of an International Peace Keeping Coalition. Reagan was not in charge, and those Marines, and Sailors were not send by a Lord Almighty King Reagan as 0bama would attempt. There were there at the will of the Congress too. The heavily Democrat dominated Congress.
  You two keep fooling and lying to yourselves. I know better, as well as many here.
  
  Report this comment
- tsg-29
  Posted on February 2, 2013 at 9:55am
  OH good you hate exec orders do you?
  
  Date Executive Order
  2009
  Jan. 16 Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust
  Jan. 9 Executive Order: Strengthening Laboratory Biosecurity in the United States
  Jan. 9 Executive Order: Providing An Order of Succession Within the Department of Transportation
  Jan. 9 Executive Order: Amending the Order of Succession Within the Department of Agriculture
  2008
  Dec. 18 Executive Order: Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay
  Dec. 12 Executive Order: Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on Friday, December 26, 2008
  Dec. 9 Executive Order: Providing An Order of Succession Within the Department of Justice
  Dec. 1 Executive Order: Exclusions from the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program
  Nov. 18 Executive Order: Transformation of the National Air Transportation System
  Nov. 18 Executive Order: Amendments to Executive Order 9397 Relating to Federal Agency Use of Social Security Numbers
  Oct. 31 Executive Order: Settlement of Claims Against Libya
  Oct. 9 Executive Order: Facilitation of a Presidential Transition
  Oct. 7 Executive Order: Further Amendments to Executive Orders 12139 and 12949 in Light of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
  
  and tons more see all at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/or
  
  Report this comment
WebDumpGarbage
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:16pm
Wrong is wrong. Do not care if Reagan said it as well.

“Shall not be infringed…”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Southernsoul
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:46pm
  Exactly. I was going to say the exact same thing.
  
  Report this comment
- 226crimsontrace
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:19pm
  I thought the libs accused Reagen of alzheimers in 1988, So why would they care what he said in 1994
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:01pm
  Ya reagan was a socialist america hater huh?
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 1:12am
  Keaton – We know that you’re an anti-American socialist.
  
  Report this comment
LakeHartwellSailor
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:15pm
Loved Reagan, but on this topic, I disagree with his stance back then. Sounds like he let his emotions get in the way. Reagan was a man, which means he was not always “correct” in his decisions and stances.

Herr Obama is equally wrong in his position on this topic. The only new gun law I would support is a law permitting citizens to buy fully automatic (REAL assault weapons) without getting a class III license.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:36pm
  First off they’re not assault weapons assault is an action not a description. The guns he’s talking about are high capacity carbine rifles. Secondly if Reagan was president an proposed this measure through congress or executive order it would be just as UnConstitutional then as what he proposed now….The only difference is Reagan supports would be up in arms over it where the liberal vegatable garden never listen to the message they only care what party is delivering it.
  
  Obama needs to go back to his liberal vegatables where they line up and swallow all the fertilizer he’s spewing.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:48pm
  @naughty….
  
  I know that Obama is intentionally misusing th term assault weapons. My AR-15 is no more dangerous than my 45 pistol. Both will do the job. One is just better in certain scenarios than the other. They are tools….it is I whom determines how and when they should be used.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:07pm
  I wish The Blaze and Fox, at least, would stop calling an AR15 an assault rifle. It is not. It just looks like one. How many times do so many of us try to make this point with no response.
  
  Report this comment
AvengerK
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:13pm
Obama..like all statists…believes in the herd mentality. If Reagan supported an “assault weapon” ban then ALL conservatives must follow Reagan’s lead according Marxist Soetero. This is a distinct difference between statists and conservatives. Conservatives can differ even from their own figureheads if they choose to and they’re applauded by their peers for their right to their opinions, whereas if a liberal walks off the plantation, they are smeared and vilified and pressured to return to the fold under dear leader’s watchful eye.

Furthermore, Obama isn’t even fit to shine Reagan’s shoes. Reagan got this nation booming and people back to work after inheriting Carter’s Stagflation…while Obama has the American people languishing for more than four years in record unemployment and economic under-performance while continuing to point the finger at George W Bush as a scapegoat for his own ineptitude.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:19pm
  So Obama is defending his attempt at Unconstitutional action by pointing out Reagan who was in advanced stages of alzhimers 1994 support for the same unConstitutional measures……..You can’t justify unamerican action by pointing out others. BTW that also means Reagan was no longer under his oath of office as his presidency
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:26pm
  You’re wrong about the reason why Pres. Obama quoted Pres. Reagan. It was to show how hypocritical you all are. When Pres. Obama calls for meaningful gun control after a horrible event like Sandy Hook, you all call for his impeachment. But when it is shown that Reagan did the same thing, mainly after the assination attempt against his life, you have no problem with it. Do you really think you would have called for his impeachment, too? I doubt it, hypocrite.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:40pm
  @sosorry….
  
  First, most people on here are disagreeing with the Late Ronald Reagons stance. Secondly, Reagan was no longer in office in 1994. Hard to impeach a non-sitting president. Third, Herr Obama has repeatedly ignored the Constitution, and often thumbs his nose at the people.
  
  Obama should be impeached for a number of reasons, not just for his Nazi position to unarm law abiding citizens that does nothing to curtail criminals.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:50pm
  Really SOSORRY? Hypocrisy you say? You mean like watching the gun deaths in Chicago overtake the casualties in Afghanistan and doing absolutely NOTHING about gun laws there for your entire first term as pResident? Or is it because Obama’s buddy and former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is the mayor of that city and he kept his mouth shut because of the “bad optics” it would create? Oh sure he paid lip service to Chicago today in front of the children he used as props…FOUR YEARS LATER. And after enjoying a Democrat supermajority in both houses for TWO OF THOSE FOUR YEARS where Obama could have easily passed any gun laws he pleased.
  Get better material you idiot.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:04pm
  @Sosorry..
  
  Umm..
  1 – Reagan signed the Mulford Act as a governor of a State…yes yes we all know about the 14th Amendment but that literally only applies to discrimination acts and unlawful application of the law. The Mulford Act only made it illegal to “open carry” assault weapons, not to own them or a magazine of any size.
  
  2- Reagan was no longer President in 1994 and therefore his opinion could be expressed but as President, someone under the Constitution by oath and by law, you no longer have the right to that type of opinion. You must obey the Constitution at all costs and current laws, not sign EO’s that are in direct opposition to those laws and the Constitution.
  
  3 – Reagan also agreed to a tax increase on the top bracket from 25% to 28% because Tip O’Neal agreed that there would be a 3 to 1 spending cut to tax increase. Tip and the Congress LIED and never even attempted the spending cuts.
  
  4 – Reagan also agreed to an immigration reform bill that provided amnesty to about 3 million people, again with the notion that Congress and Tip would secure the border, reform the immigration process, and put tougher enforcement on employment of illegals and increase Border Patrol numbers. Again, Congress and Tip LIED!!
  
  Just goes to show you that Liberal Progressives LIE and tell you they want compromise, get what they want, then stab you in the back. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
  
  Report this comment
- joetentpeg
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:45pm
  Agreed!
  
  Love Ronaldus Magnus. He did many things “Right.”
  
  But, he was wrong on the “Freedom Weapons” Ban.
  
  He was wrong on granting amnesty to illegals.
  
  And he was wrong on not punishing Iran after blowing up the Marine Barracks in Beirut.
  
  Report this comment
rangerskippy
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:13pm
Reagan was a good president, but he was not perfect, he was not a God, and he was not one of the founding fathers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ranepowel
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Screw the founding fathers. They have no relevance in modern times.
  
  “Oh, look, someone 200 years ago said this!” Wow, that must still be 100% relevant in today’s culture!
  
  Yeah. Real genius thinking some of you have. Conservatism is a disease that we are slowly shedding in this country. It will only get better from here, and with every election you continue to lose :)
  
  Report this comment
- Onesimus
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:21pm
  @ ranepowel. Given your lack of respect for the founders, please divest yourself of the benefits and liberties that thier sacrifices have given you and find your way to the nearest country that the form of government is of your preference.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:07pm
  he wasn’t a good president either. he doubled spending, tripled the national debt. Trained and funded the raise of islamic extremism i.e. Al Qeuda and the Taliban, sold weapons illegally to iran and chemical weapons to Iraq, yes those chemical weapons, he also supported the Contras in their civil war by sending them money and using Nicaraguan drug dealers to launder the money and in exchange gave said drug dealers easier access to markets in America. in case your wondering why coke and crack were so big in the 80s. he would have been impeached too except congress felt that back to back republican impeachments would disenfranchise voters… yes all of that is 100% true!
  
  Report this comment
HKS
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:11pm
So you think banning something that is already possessed by millions of people is going to make “kids safe”, are you an idiot or what. It’s not the tools moron, it’s the people. People have got to be trained to respect things, like life and personal property. Teaching kids that they are entailed to things is the problem MORON. This is a cold cruel world, no one owes you anything.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:08pm
  We’ll at least we can both agree, Reagan was a moron!
  
  Report this comment
- BuddyDallas
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:45pm
  gees keaton do you have a life…..your every where on all articles spewing your liberal rehortic….its ok it just showd that liberal policies dont hold up…and you have to spin and conjure up some to prove your right. why didnt obama just do this aftet the tucson mascare…colorad massacre..oh yeah he had to wait for little kids and after the election…freaking dolt liberal….
  
  Report this comment
Bobby D
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:09pm
Reagan got his ass handed to him when the Marine Corpse Barracks—LOL were destroyed and he turned tail and ran. He, also, was a fool to give away US citizenship to more than 3,000,000 felons, So what’s the point kenyan.?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JQuentinEvermann
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:16pm
  Agreed. Regan was a great POTUS, but to point to his mistakes as inspiration for one’s current agenda seems, well, quite stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:17pm
  The point is that you should have your right to vote taken away for being so incredibly stupid. Typical dumb-stump Amurrcan. Thankfully it’s deluded fools such as yourself who will ensure Democrats are in the White House…
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:02pm
  Zeus is such a tool. Something about counting chickens before they hatch, or was it coming home to roost? Eh, wanker comes to mind.
  
  Report this comment
alinskythis
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:09pm
1980 bears no resemblance to 2013 whatsoever.

The early 1980s were an incredibly light-hearted, optimistic time, and an infinite cornucopia of prosperity.

It was a time where your biggest problem was “which of five well-paying positions should I accept?” And, no one could conceive of anything other than “things can only get better and better.”

Now, we’re looking at a horror story worse than any book or movie….. 1984, evil, corruption, enslavement, genocide, forced sterilizations, unbridled medical murders, FEMA camps, transhumanism, and feudal tyranny.

I’m sure I left out a few thousand things.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Phreqguru
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:42pm
  @alinskythis….I couldn’t have said it better. Right On
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:08pm
Reagan’s Alzheimer’s was in full bloom by ’94.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AvengerK
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:17pm
  I don’t care whether Reagan’s alzeimhers was a factor GONZO. As a conservative I can think for myself, I don’t need “dear leader” to think for me and tell me I should obey and not wander off the plantation. I respectfully disagree with President Reagan’s position on the matter whether affected by his alzheimer’s condition or not. The subsequent ban had no effect on gun crimes which is what it tailored to accomplish..end of discussion.
  
  Report this comment
- toto
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:26pm
  Not sure how Alzheimers would factor in, but it must be remembered that Reagan came from liberal roots, and it would be irrational to think that issues of the day were not influenced at times by his “Democratic” roots. Also, context is everything when decisions are being made, that often fall away in hindsight and the light of pure principle.
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:30pm
  Yes, but liberals want to tell us his whole presidency was inhibited by the disease. Yet, when it suits their cause, they want to applaud him for a letter his name was attached to after it actually was a major factor in his life.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:09pm
  what about in the 60s when he himself passed a gun ban as Gov. of California
  
  Report this comment
Al J Zira
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:08pm
And back in 1864 democrats argued to keep slavery. Didn’t make it right then and doesn’t make it right now. Reagan promoting weapons bans was wrong then as it is now. Notice Obama didn’t say Reagan used his executive privilege to institute a gun ban. Our king will try, I just hope he fails.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:11pm
  Ronald Reagan = 381 Executive Orders
  Barack Obama = 138 Executive Orders
  Who is bypassing the Constitution?
  
  Report this comment
Sosorryforyou
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:07pm
Ronald Reagan:

“This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981.”

“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.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:31pm
  I prefer Ben Franklin:
  
  “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:50pm
  @MISTER
  
  “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain – and most fools do.”
  Benjamin Franklin
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:54pm
  We get a few riots & people will cluster together in safe neighborhoods & shop in safe areas. People will go to amusement parks, concerts in large groups.
  
  People like hanging out in large groups when a society is safe. But of the future it will be to a much greater degree & a matter of necessity.
  
  I went to a Water Park one time with the family. I noticed that the Hispanics did not move around as families. They moved as a group. You get your way &society is going to become courser, because your ways don’t work. You mistake herd immunity (think vaccinations & those that effectively protect themselves with guns) for effective liberal laws. You are wrong. When you realize your mistake I hope I am nowhere near you.
  
  Report this comment
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:55pm
  I agree. And I’m glad you see the error of your ways.
  
  Report this comment
- hatchetjob
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:01pm
  SOSORRYFORYOU, “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain – and most fools do.”
  Benjamin Franklin
  
  So you are saying that you are a fool? Don’t be so hard on yourself.
  
  Report this comment
MDECKER
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:05pm
Ronald Reagan’s name should not even be spoken in the same sentence with the current guy’s.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:29pm
  What gets me is Obama thinks Conservative even reagan conservatives are like his liberal zombies….
  I got new for you Obama we base oppinion and reaction on what was said or proposed not on who said it. An UnConstitution measure put forth by george Washington himself is just as Unconstitutional as one placed by you.
  We vote and react on substances not on party……He needs to go back to his liberal vegatable garden where they all line up in a row to swallow the fertilizer he’s spewing.
  
  Report this comment
MisterSarcastic
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:04pm
I very respectfully disagree with President Reagan on this issue.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lawrench
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:16pm
  What also needs to be clarified here is that Congress passed the Scary Weapons Ban, it was not done by executive order. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. ANY attempt to remove the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and can be considered TREASON!
  
  Report this comment
- SLARTIBARTFAST
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:28pm
  It was two things that changed Reagan’s mind. The Alzheimer’s is the first. Also the incessant guilt trips put on him by Sarah Brady who had no shame in running her husband James Brady around in his wheelchair at every opportune moment.
  
  Report this comment
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:52pm
  According to Wiki, he wasn’t diagnosed until August of that year. Three months after the letter was sent. Probably still had quite a bit of clarity at that time.
  I noticed also that June will mark the ninth year anniversary of his death. It doesn’t seem that many years ago. I guess that clock ticks a lot faster than we realize.
  
  Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:04pm
Ronaldus Magnus was wrong on a few other issues too. So what? It’s all based on feel good. It has no practical purpose. You want to ban “military style” (someone explain that to me) rifles, then I’ll just buy a 30 ought 6 hunting rifle. It’s more powerful anyways.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:15pm
  Good choice
  30.06 vs 7.62 round
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na1lLtuCJWY
  
  Check this out:
  M1 Garands with Tracers
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9AwgIkSReI
  
  Report this comment
zoro51
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:04pm
the gipper BELIEVED in 2nd amend RIGHTS even though HE WAS SHOT he FOUGHT FOR THIER RIGHTS PSUDOE DICTATOR OBAMA DOES NOT n plays POLITICAL GAMES over it USEING KIDS as his back drop n CLAIMING this n that when HE IS A RAPIST OF OUR FREEDOMS hater of america n americans the constitution and our GOD GIVEN FREEDOMS N RIGHTS… IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH OBAMA NOW he DECEMATED REAGNS GOOD NAME

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:04pm
Once again we see the Progressives and the Democrats use the ‘revise history to suit your own agenda’ of Ronald Reagan to fit their own ends. Obama is no Reagan, not even close.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:15pm
  Reagan is the biggest reason we are over run with illegal’s.
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:55pm
  Reagan was a big tax, big spender, big government RINO. And, he was for meaningful gun control – even while in office.
  
  Report this comment
Laugh-ler14
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:03pm
haha this should make for some interesting commentary

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Idaho2aa
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:03pm
If Ronald Reagan did support the “assault weapons” ban then he would also be on the wrong side of the issue.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
grimmster
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:03pm
So mytheos holt, according to you, it is ok for the black panthers to defend themselves against “police brutality”,but not whites, or hispanics,or asians? Yes, you said that in this article,which to me shows not only bias, but racism as well. It matters not what any president says, or does, any infingment of the second amendment is unconstitutional,and therefore unlawful.Unless people want all of their freedoms taken away by the commie in chief, they need to wake up to that fact,and Glenn,getting arrested when they come for your guns,and getting lawyers to fight it in court,will not work, and you know this,as when the british came for our forefathers guns…..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ALLEGIANCE
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:56pm
  I am asking you an honest question here, with no malice intent. Is there ever going to be anything posted on the Blaze, where you do not bring up Black people????
  
  Report this comment
- hatchetjob
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:05pm
  ALLEGIANCE, Maybe this site isn’t for you.
  
  Report this comment
Red Meat
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:02pm
Ronnie gets way too much credit from conservatives. Don’t forget, he also authorized amnesty and raised taxes and got NOTHING for it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:01pm
Hitler supported gun control and he’s dead too. Gun control from the right or left is only control, guns don’t kill freedom, people do.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
naughtycal
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:00pm
So Obama is defending his attempt at Unconstitutional action by pointing out Reagan who was in advanced stages of alzhimers 1994 support for the same unConstitutional measures……..You can’t justify unamerican action by pointing out others. BTW that also means Reagan was no longer under his oath of office as his presidency ended in 1988.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rowgue
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:59pm
Why isn’t anybody bringing up the point that not only did Reagan have alzheimers at the time but his son was acting as his personal advisor and controlling just about everything he did. The son that has proven since to be a completely unhinged and ignorant socialist the extremes of which are rarely seen even today. There is a reason the parents essentially disowned him, this is part of it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:05pm
  A son who is CURRENTLY on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the FFRF
  none other than:
  
  Ron Reagan,
  media commentator, describes himself in a radio ad he taped for FFRF as: “Unabashed atheist, not afraid of burning in hell.”
  http://ffrf.org/about/ffrf-honorary-board
  
  Yes, the rump rodeo gay son of Ronald Reagan is part of the organization currently dragging anyone in the country into court and litigating into oblivion ANYONE who opposes their atheist agenda.
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:59pm
I dont really give a **** what ronald reagan supported. I support the 2nd amendment and the Constitution.

SECOND CONGRESSMAN SUGGESTS IMPEACHMENT…
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/second-gop-congressman-suggests-impeachment-over-executive-action-for-gun-control/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:09pm
  √ we agree
  
  Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:58pm
Obama is no Ronald Reagan. A bad actor maybe, but no Ronald Reagan. Obama is a dufus.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- riseandshine
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:55pm
  @Chet…..Quit being a pest.
- DIR
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:09am
  Barry O may be a crummy actor, but he certainly has a lot of people thinking he’s J.C. I’d like him to do his walking on water impression, without the kiddy water wings and studio special effects. His feeding the multitudes using other people’s money is pretty impressive especially where they get a free cell phone to boot, but especially where 90 cents of every dollar allocated goes into a liberal slush fund. It was touching when he hugged that woman after hurricane Sandy and said “you will recieve.” She did. …. she received nothing. Yes Barry is the second coming, of what I’m not sure, possibly a real cheezy horror film.
  
  Libs are premo actors. Bill Clinton plays a black man and people actually believed he was. Hillary’s remake of ‘Victor Victoria’ is flawless. In her version she plays a women pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman. She almost pulls it off. She gets as far as pretending to be a man and it works. Then again maybe she’s really a guy pretending to be a woman. Barney Frank’s rendition of La Cage aux Falles puts the play to shame. Nancy P’s rendition of the Three Faces of Eve is reviting (the story of woman with mutlipule personality disorder). The only thing different is in Pelosi’s rendition she hasn’t made it to the asylum yet. But I think she’ll finally make it there soon. She can’t get much nuttier without being a danger to herself. It’s all like watching the Barnum and Bailey 3 ring circus, but the lib rings
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.