|
|
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." Hmmm.
In summary, Reagan, the Republican party's white knight for the last 40 years:
Wanted gun control
More than tripled the national debt in 8 years
Lead the US to become the world's largest debtor (had been world's largest creditor pre-Reagan)
Had an average national deficit of $237.5B in his presidency
Let's see what the resident republican hypocrites think, I have no doubt they'll swoop in soon enough.
beating the soviets didn't come cheap.Originally Posted by Yatahaze
2 users like bushmaster06's post: Sooner5030, soonerintn
Does Barack get the same free p**** for inheriting Governor Bush's wars?
i think getting shot to within an inch of your life sometimes changes your perspective on gun control.
I don't know but my guess is that Reagan's Cali gov consideration was due to all the social unrest of that era, however I imagine the Brady Bill support had to do with he and Brady being shot and Brady's maiming at the hand of a nutcase.
However, I'm sure Hinkley could have beaned them with a rock or stabbed them or nailed them with a blowgun just as easily as shooting them.
And of course Hinkley's .22 revolver did just as much damage as if he had opened fire with a 9mm glock or even an AR-15.
Who the hell tries to ****assinate somebody with a .22. What the **** was he thinking?
Reagan wanted gun control (as governor of California) because the minorities exercised their second amendment rights and it scared the whites.
No joke.
He wanted gun control as president because he got shot at.
This came at the expense of demolishing social spending on mental health programs.
The following users like this post: Yatahaze
When did Jeb get involved in a war?
The following users like this post: VUGear
Bush was governor of Texas, doctor.
This scared Governor Reagan.
Armed minorities are scary to a lot of gun toting conservative. Hence the Mulford act.
For as much as the Libtards hate Reagan, he did something that few presidents before him and none after him have done. He made our country feel good about ourselves. He gave us hope when Carter said it was hopeless. He helped end the Cold War. He worked with tip oneill.
Reagan, policy for policy, wasn't what made him great. What made him great was his ability to give the country hope and pride. That is something that our current office holder lacks completely.
You're post makes me think of this comic.
Sure he did a lot of bad, but we felt good while giving contras weapons, trading weapons for hostages, and pilfering the social safety net.
2 users like OnlyOneOklahoma's post: boomermagic, Yatahaze
Golden.You're post makes me think of this comic.
Sure he did a lot of bad, but we felt good while giving contras weapons, trading weapons for hostages, and pilfering the social safety net.
Could you clarify for the youngsters if the nun **** was, at the time, considered legitimate **** or not? I'm sure **** legitimacy standards have changed over the last 32 years.
You didn't get an answer.. We already know the answer though..
]
When Obama can show an economic record to equal Reagan, Clinton or Bush over his 8 year term, then he might get a p**** on some other stuff.
only if he brings peace to the middle east.
Bush has an economic record you like ?
Clinton has an excellent economic record but you sure don't give him any passes, So, NO, You wouldn't give obama one either no matter what.
i wouldn't piss in obama's mouth if his teeth were on fire.
The following users like this post: CookiePuss
Look at economic growth numbers under Bush. Look, the dude wasn't a great President. I'll never try to make that case, b/c it would be a losing effort. The facts are what the facts are though. We had good economic growth for most of Bush's presidency. Unemployment was low. Spending was absolutely out of control, but people had jobs, and our tax revenues were at record highs (in spite of those evil tax cuts of his.) When Obama gets us under 6% or even under 6.5%, then he might start getting a p**** on stuff. Until then? He sucks.
Sure I do. Read my posts my blindly partisan friend.
Source/link, please.
The Carter administration’s Mental Health Systems Act and a set of categorical federal mental health programs offered a fiscal centerpiece for this structure. However, in 1981 the Reagan administration orchestrated the repeal of the Mental Health Systems Act, consolidated the categorical mental health programs into a block grant, and cut spending on those programs about 25 percent.1 The vision of an organized, community-based, and dedicated mental health system ended.http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.htmlCuts in funding for mental health services continued throughout the 1980s, with the emphasis being on the provision of services via the private sector.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/6/1539.full
Then there is the King of the Hill episode where Hank encounters a crazy homeless person who says, "Reagan kicked me out of my mental health hospital" and Hank responds "well, it was difficult but 'Dutch' was trying to win the Cold War" or something to that effect.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I felt the same about reagan.
What do you mean by economic record? It's easily to have job growth when you're driving the country further into debt like Bush and Reagan and Obama all have done.
Then why don't we have real job growth? We've cranked the debt machine to unheard of levels--and we've been hanging at 8+ unemployment for about 4 years now.
Compared to what it was at its peak I'd say he's done a good job at job growth, and just like the others mentioned it came at the expense of massive debt.
Sadly, your King of the Hill quote carries much more credibility than those other two sources.
Be that as it may, we no longer have to worry about a gazillion Soviet nukes staring at us.
It's weird for me to see what people say about Reagan, especially people that are young enough they don't remember the Carter years, the Iranian hostages on TV every night and the very real fear that was kind of always there regarding the USSR.
Reagan could have spent his weekends clubbing seals along the Alaskan coast for all I care. What he did was remove the largest threat to freedom in the world since Hitler w/o a hot war. He saved us countless millions over the HW and Clinton years in not having to counter the Soviets. He helped us heal from the scars of Viet Nam. He was able to push the right buttons and trigger an economic boom that was huge for the country, and the world. He's still celebrated in Easter Europe b/c of what he facilitated, yet all people here want to do today is tear him down. Get a little context folks.
The following users like this post: Tundra
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
