opinions welcome

[KIMBER45]

[-Shaggy-]

A machine gun is not a sporting weapon? Depends on the sport. Go to Knob Creek sometime.
 
A machine gun is not needed for home defense?  How many machine guns did he have protecting his home in 1989?

[BUGEYE]

Even though Reagan is one of my hero's, I disagree with him on this issue.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty plain.  I should be allowed a machine gun if I want it and can afford it.

[cjclemens]

Machine guns have been strictly regulated for some time now. The AR's and AK's they're after are semi-automatic rifles. I'm pretty sure there's a large segment of the population, media included, who don't know the difference. I believe that, if a person is ok with that level of ignorance on an issue, their opinion on the matter should be null and void.

[BUGEYE]

Machine guns have been strictly regulated for some time now. The AR's and AK's they're after are semi-automatic rifles. I'm pretty sure there's a large segment of the population, media included, who don't know the difference. I believe that, if a person is ok with that level of ignorance on an issue, their opinion on the matter should be null and void.

I hear ya.  I do know the difference but I'm not familiar enough with the AK-47  to know if the military had an automatic version or not.  I would love to own a thompson .45 sub-machine-gun.  they just look sharp and have an interesting history.

[cjclemens]

Bugeye - I totally agree. I think I should be allowed to have a fully automatic AK or tommy gun, if I want! However, most anti-gunners are people that haven't been around firearms, and fear what they don't understand. I don't know for a fact, but I believe a good number of them don't know the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 or M-4. I think part if this is because the media loves to flash stock photos around and use catch phrases like "military-style assault weapons," to get people's attention.

I love collecting WWII era weapons, too. I think they're fascinating as a historical piece, and as a symbol of American pride (as well as the manufacturing power we once had). Unfortunately, the Garand and M-1 carbine are likely to be labeled "assault" weapons, if liberals get their way.

[mcwoodduck]

Notice that he said AK 47 and not M-16.
I think his objection was to Americans buying Communist/ slave labor made guns and helping to prop up their economy that he was trying to end and free them from the grasp of dictoarorial liberals that were funding the enslavement of millions of others in Africa and South America.
I never wanted an AK until the government told me I was not allowed to have one and they were taking away my rights to choose what I want and to live with my choices.
 Also note that he is stating an opinion.  He is not demanding that the AK be banned, that any and all similar guns be banned.
You also have to remember that he was an actor, and one of his fellow actors was given a license to own an AK in CA, a fully auto AK. 
I am sure that if you ask a buch of conservitives questions about firearms, you will get many different answers, Heck Kimber some may even not like the 1911 and think poorly of handguns, but notivce tey are not calling for the confiscation of them.  They simply do not buy them. 
i think that is the main difference between a liberal and a conservitive.  Both have opinions about things, liberals want to make laws to enforce their will on others. 

[BUGEYE]

liberals want to make laws to enforce their will on others.

That statement speaks volumes.

[SharonAnne]

DHS recently ordered 7000 M4s that must be capable of select fire, safe, semi, auto, with notations that the 5.56 in'30 round magazines' were 'particularly suited for defense'. Dang I have to learn how to post addresses.

I hope this works:  www.nysenate.gov/press-release/department-homeland-security-latest-highlight-flawed-logic-cuomo-gun-grab

you need the entire thing to get to the correct page. oh, it did come through

[Doublebass73]

It is fact, not opinion that Reagan was a gun grabber. You don't have to believe me on this, just read the full text of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 that Reagan signed.

My opinion is that many conservatives liked Ronald Reagan so they choose to ignore this anti 2nd Amendment piece of his history.

[mcwoodduck]

It is fact, not opinion that Reagan was a gun grabber. You don't have to believe me on this, just read the full text of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 that Reagan signed.

My opinion is that many conservatives liked Ronald Reagan so they choose to ignore this anti 2nd Amendment piece of his history.

He also signed into federal law the perservation of gun range act so the public can use the firearms they own.
Regan also made deals with the democrats during his two terms and the democrats always have gone back on their side of the deal.  I wonder if this act was part of a deal the Democrats screwed hium and the American people over.

[Doublebass73]

The Democrats were definitely behind the machine gun ban in the FOPA of 1986. That doesn't mean Reagan had to sign it. He's just as guilty as they are for signing it.

[mcwoodduck]

The Democrats were definitely behind the machine gun ban in the FOPA of 1986. That doesn't mean Reagan had to sign it. He's just as guilty as they are for signing it.

Ok there is a big difference between stopping the manufacture of new commercial machine guns and taking the ones that the people already legally owned. 
Now I agree this is not a conservitive thing but, it was clearly not a GUN Grab.

[lakota]

Ronald Reagan is not president, in fact he is dead and has been dead for sometime now. Anything he said or did while in office 25 years ago in no way justifies what the current dictator-in-chief is trying to do now. Ronald Reagan is quite inconsequential to the current and latest holy war being waged by democrats against the right to keep and bear arms. Stop bringing a dead man into this arguement in an attempt  to deflect the attention away from what Der Fuhrer Obama is doing right now. Ronald Reagan is dead and he cant take your guns away. Der Fuhrer Obama is quite alive and is hell bent on disarming us.

[lakota]

Maybe you could dig up some gun control quotes made by King George III or General Cornwallis to throw out there to aid the Obama smoke screen.

[Mike in Virginia]

I would love to have a fully auto weapon.  Specifically, I want an M14.  I don't understand how or why politicians and law makers can say I can't have one.  It matters not at all that it's not a hunting gun.  Where the heck did the notion that our guns should be for hunting?  I believe I ought to have legal authority to buy any kind of weapon on the market.  I don't need a machine gun, but I hate the law that prohibits me from having one.  I don't know why I can't mount a belt fed fully automatic on my front porch.  We either have gun rights or we don't.  Although I'm grateful for the laws that let me keep the semi automatic guns I have, I'm offended by the laws that says I can't have a machine gun.  I'm offended by having to register any kind of weapon.  My father was an ATF agent, but I have come to despise that agency as much as I despise IRS.  We will all soon be under the feds microscope.  Sometimes I'm glad I'm old and won't live to see how bad it gets. 

[KIMBER45]

I would love to have a fully auto weapon.  Specifically, I want an M14.  I don't understand how or why politicians and law makers can say I can't have one.  It matters not at all that it's not a hunting gun.  Where the heck did the notion that our guns should be for hunting?  I believe I ought to have legal authority to buy any kind of weapon on the market.  I don't need a machine gun, but I hate the law that prohibits me from having one.  I don't know why I can't mount a belt fed fully automatic on my front porch.  We either have gun rights or we don't.  Although I'm grateful for the laws that let me keep the semi automatic guns I have, I'm offended by the laws that says I can't have a machine gun.  I'm offended by having to register any kind of weapon.  My father was an ATF agent, but I have come to despise that agency as much as I despise IRS.  We will all soon be under the feds microscope.  Sometimes I'm glad I'm old and won't live to see how bad it gets.

I don't know the law on this. I thought you could own a fully automatic weapons, but you needed a special permit that costs alot of bucks. Am I mistaken?

[ironglow]

Context is everything correct?
  Let's look at the context where Reagan may have made such a statement;
 
  In 1986 (look it up) Reagan was dealing with a Democ-rat controlled house and senate.  The Democrats tried to push through a very restrictive gun bill and as usual, it landed upon the president's desk.  As usual, if a president is faced with the other two branches trying to force unreasonable legislation through.. he may have to "throw the dogs a bone", and that's just what the Gipper did!
   Notice the careful wording..the only gun he disparaged (but didn't outlaw) was the AK-47.  He also said nobody needs a machine gun, and that quieted the Democrat yapping dogs.  They didn't realize they'd been had..
    The AK-47 was then a "commie gun" and the "cold war" was still hot..so best we don't buy...and machine guns were ALREADY BANNED..well DUH! (gun control act of 1934)..
 
  Do we really want to know how Reagan felt about guns?  Let's go to his article in the September 1975  Guns & Ammo..  I already posted it here
         http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,273719.msg1099651715.html#msg1099651715
 
  You will find Reagan very much in favor of the Constitution, 2nd article included.  Besides, I challenge anybody to find a more vigorous defense of our gun rights... which was written by any leading Democrat at any time.
 
   The little statement out of context above is evidently intended to somehow mitigate the atrocity which is being attempted by the present Democ-rat administration in Washington.
  Keep in mind ..there NEVER before has been such an attack upon our second amendment...or the entire constitution for that matter, as we are now seeing, emenating from the president, vice president and their rest of the inner circle of butt kissers.

[Lon371]

Ronald Reagan is not president, in fact he is dead and has been dead for sometime now. Anything he said or did while in office 25 years ago in no way justifies what the current dictator-in-chief is trying to do now. Ronald Reagan is quite inconsequential to the current and latest holy war being waged by democrats against the right to keep and bear arms. Stop bringing a dead man into this arguement in an attempt  to deflect the attention away from what Der Fuhrer Obama is doing right now. Ronald Reagan is dead and he cant take your guns away. Der Fuhrer Obama is quite alive and is hell bent on disarming us.

What he said!!

[JonnyReb]

DHS recently ordered 7000 M4s that must be capable of select fire, safe, semi, auto, with notations that the 5.56 in'30 round magazines' were 'particularly suited for defense'. Dang I have to learn how to post addresses.

I hope this works:  www.nysenate.gov/press-release/department-homeland-security-latest-highlight-flawed-logic-cuomo-gun-grab

you need the entire thing to get to the correct page. oh, it did come through

  In addition to this, wording of the AWB(feinsteins) allows all members of congress to keep buy or sell the banned guns as they wish. They are exempted. They can have them, we're not supposed to.   What President Reagan thought 30 years ago doesn't really matter.  J

[jimster]

What President Reagan thought 30 years ago doesn't really matter.  J

True, and just as true is the fact what anyone else thinks does not matter to me. At this point I'll just say any weapon I currently own is my property no matter what they look like, same as my cloths, same as my chunk of land. Everyone has opinions on what we should or could have as far as guns, but my opinion is really the only one that counts in my home. Is it possible for a government to make a criminal? Well, yes, but then we always had that didn't we? We watch our government commit criminal acts all the time, they can also be criminals in our eyes, just depends which side the fence your on.
What you think matters, if you think you don't need something, sell it, if you want it, keep it, does not matter what Reagan thought anymore than the guy next door, all Americans can have opinions on any subject. It should not affect your beliefs. There will always be propaganda out there from everywhere. Why just today I was hearing how Obama shoots skeet...LOL!! But they did not mention he is surrounded by high cap weapons at all times either...nor did they mention no matter what congress passes on guns or anything else...they are all exempt from all.
So what does it matter what anyone thinks at this point, except you? Exempt yourself like Congress does if you wish...and keep a low profile about it.
 
 

[yellowtail3]

kimber's picture is making partisan an issue which ought not be... leaving aside that as other have mentioned actual AKs have never been widely avail, and not legal without jumping through hoops


you might score points with some libs with that pic, Kimber, but is is deceptive in the context of the current argument to ban scary-looking rifle and stick us all with Diane feinstein 10rd mags...

[cabledad]

It is my belief that the democraps all ready have a plan to replace 2 of the supreme court judges with there on and declare the 2 nd amendment null and void.Then come get all our guns,we better get on the ball and get together do what is necessary to be strong as a group. We better not lose the next elections.

[mcwoodduck]

Ronald Reagan is not president, in fact he is dead and has been dead for sometime now. Anything he said or did while in office 25 years ago in no way justifies what the current dictator-in-chief is trying to do now. Ronald Reagan is quite inconsequential to the current and latest holy war being waged by democrats against the right to keep and bear arms. Stop bringing a dead man into this arguement in an attempt  to deflect the attention away from what Der Fuhrer Obama is doing right now. Ronald Reagan is dead and he cant take your guns away. Der Fuhrer Obama is quite alive and is hell bent on disarming us.

The argument the left is trying to make is if even the Great Ronald Regan can sign a Gun Control act then why are we conservitives fighting the latest gun grab.
The left has a goal and that is to disarm us.  The left believes that hunting is not needed or wanted, look at PETA and the ASPCA (not the local animal shelter but the national org) they want to end animal ownership and the consumption of meat.  The politicians owe them and think like them.  So if we agree that firearms are only for sporting and hunting once they can end hunting we will not have an arguement as to why we need them.
The left understands that 90% of the populations does not agree with them, but they find  something they can advance their mission by an inch, then two and finally they are 30 yards down the field toward their goal.   
Any gun owner should resist them, but the ones that only shoot shotguns, or hunt, or revolvers and think their guns are not going to be on their shopping list then they are mistaken.  again the goal is total disarmed population.   
This last attack was with what they say is military style rifle, if we remove all military style firearms, and the next moron that wants to be famous uses what he can get, they will then go after that style of firearm, and so on like in Australia that outlawed everything but a single shot, the governemnt issued a fixed amount for each firearm and you had to hand it in and collect the pittance and the guns, historical, sentamental, and valuable were dumped in the ocean. 
The goal of the left is to not have personal property.  The tool that allows you to retain your property is the firearm and that is their first hurtle. 

[sluggo]

....do you think any of the modern era presidents would have wanted the Secret Service to get rid of the MP5s in the war wagon that follows the detail every wheres?

[SharonAnne]

sluggo, heck no. After all it IS there for their own protection.

[ironglow]

  Dr Garrow is a well known writer and educator..here's what his research tells him..  It may be just another conspiracy theory...what do you think?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
     Related topics•Barack Obama
•tyranny
•martial law
•         On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term.
Garrow made the following Facebook post:
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will
 fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.So, who is the source?
Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”
Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.
Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.
His bio on Amazon.com reads:
Dr. James Garrow is the author of
 The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.This comes on the heels of Sunday's report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.
The WFB article states:
“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”
Did Gen. Mattis refuse to "fire on U.S. citizens?"
Related articles: 

[SharonAnne]

I hope our nations Military leaders LIE to his face and say yes they will fire on US Citizens. Then when ordered to fire they will JUST SAY NO.

[lakota]

....do you think any of the modern era presidents would have wanted the Secret Service to get rid of the MP5s in the war wagon that follows the detail every wheres?

After Joe Biden's recent comments he should instruct his security detail to switch to double barrel shotguns. They are a "better" self defense weapon after all...according to him.

[mcwoodduck]

I hope our nations Military leaders LIE to his face and say yes they will fire on US Citizens. Then when ordered to fire they will JUST SAY NO.

With our current military make up of professional troops and the mix of men from different areas in one unit, it keeps us from doing what the Soviets did for years.  They would use Russians to attack the other minorities and then use the minority goups soldiers to attack the russians and eastern Europeans.  It is hard to have one group attack thier homeland and neighbors.
If you see troops being divided by race, religion, and language you will see commanders follow those orders.