Journal damn_registrars's Journal: How Ronald Reagan Learned to Love Gun Control 55
By Peter Weber, writing for The Week
(I'll bring up more on this later, but wanted to get the text out there sooner):
America is once again waging a rhetorical war of attrition over gun violence, after another mass shooting, this one in San Bernardino, California. We know the name of the suspects, both dead, and that one of the shooters was a coworker of the 14 people he and his wife are accused of murdering. We know it was the worst mass shooting since a lone gunman shot dead 20 small children and seven adults in a Connecticut elementary school.
We don't know the motive for the attack, but we do have some idea how this recurring battle over preventing the next mass shooting will go, and what the U.S. will end up doing (nothing). Maybe we can trip up this cycle a bit by talking about Ronald Reagan.
You can't expect Republicans to love everything about Reagan, but because today's Republicans, and notably its current crop of presidential contenders, pay such respect to America's 40th president â" sorry Bushes, pÃre and fils â" Reagan provides an interesting benchmark of American politics. There are a lot of issues that Reagan would be out of step with in today's Republican Party â" immigration, negotiating with global enemies, and tax hikes, to name a few that liberals like to highlight. (Though, to be fair, are any Democrats excited to defend JFK's escalation of Vietnam?) But maybe the starkest is gun control.
So as America's fight over gun laws moves to Reagan's home state of California, both sides of the gun debate â" but especially proponents of stricter gun laws â" can probably learn something from the Gipper. Arguably the most consequential president for gun control legislation in the past century, Reagan was also a favorite son of the National Rifle Association, gun control's most effective opponent.
Here's a look at a few gun control measures Reagan played a critical role in:
1. Banning open carry in California.
Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.
2. Banning the sale of machine guns and other automatic weapons.
The NRA fondly cites the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as "the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history." And while it did in fact roll back some of the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it also contained a provision â" banning the sale of machine guns and other fully automatic weapons to civilians â" that came back to haunt the NRA. Robert Spitzer, an expert on gun law, tells NPR that it was "a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons." Congress did just that in 1994, thanks â" very plausibly â" to Ronald Reagan. (See below.)
3. Mandating background checks for handgun purchases.
In 1991, Reagan supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named for his press secretary shot during the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life. That bill passed in 1993, mandating federal background checks and a five-day waiting period. "Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics," Reagan wrote in a 1991 op-ed for The New York Times. "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."
4. Banning assault weapons.
Despite the law being enacted well after his presidency, Reagan was credited with playing a critical role in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which has since expired. Reagan's personal and effective lobbying helped the bill overcome the strong objections of the NRA. "The vote on the assault weapon ban was contentious and barely passed the House of Representatives," notes Andrew Kaczynski. "At least two members of the House of Representatives credited Reagan with influencing their votes. The bill passed 216-214, a margin of two votes."
For anyone seeking a path toward common ground on gun control, there are interesting lessons here.
It's worth mentioning, of course, that times have changed: Modern gun-rights maximalism wasn't mainstream until about the time Reagan, a lifelong member of the NRA, became president. The NRA, for example, supported or even championed many gun control measures for most of its existence, until hardliner Harlon Carter became head of the organization in 1977, as UCLA law professor Adam Winkler detailed in The Atlantic. "Reagan's California," Winkler added, may have had "one of the strictest gun-control regimes in the nation," though Reagan's views "changed considerably" during the 1970s, too.
And that's the first lesson: Support for gun laws is cyclical, and has been since the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment. My colleague Ryan Cooper was right to say there is another federal gun regulation in America's future, at some point down the line.
If Reagan did turn against gun regulations in the 1970s, his views shifted back sometime after he was shot by John Hinckley Jr. in 1981. And that points to the second big lesson from Reagan's views on gun control: They appear to be influenced by his personal experiences with people aiming guns at him.
Reagan cited his attempted assassination in his 1991 speech backing the Brady Bill, as well as honoring the other three men wounded in the attack: Jim Brady, who was shot in the head and paralyzed; Washington, D.C., police officer Thomas Delahanty, shot in the neck and forced to retire due to nerve damage; and Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy, shot in the chest and liver. "This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now â" the Brady bill â" had been law back in 1981," Reagan said. He gave a favorable nod to Jim and Sarah Brady's work; the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which Sarah Brady led at the time, is one of the NRA's fiercest critics.
In California, Reagan threw his support behind the Mulford Act after a heavily armed group of Black Panthers gathered at the state capitol while the new governor was supposed to be hosting a group of eighth-graders for fried chicken, Winkler recounts at The Atlantic. That same afternoon, Reagan told reporters that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Mulford quickly added a provision to his bill barring loaded firearms from the capitol, except for when carried by law enforcement.
Banning loaded weapons from the legislature may seem like a normal and prudent idea, but ordinary citizens could freely roam the U.S. Capitol until 1983, when a bomb detonated outside the Senate Republican cloakroom and House Minority Leader Robert Byrd's office. That wasn't the first bomb attack in the Capitol, and gunmen had fired at congressmen from the gallery in 1954, says Josh Zeitz at Politico Magazine, but after the '83 bomb congressmen finally started walling themselves off from citizens and, especially, citizens bearing arms. Even then, putting metal detectors at the door of the Capitol was controversial.
The Capitol complex has only gotten more locked down since then. Zeitz makes the obvious connection: "Ironically, as Congress has become less hospitable to gun safety laws, and as conservative Republican legislators have grown more strident in their desire to see citizens carry open and concealed weapons everywhere â" in churches and schools, on college campuses, at bars and restaurants â" the one venue that has grown more gun-free, more secure, and more restrictive is the building they work in."
This is wading into potentially dangerous territory, so let me be clear: The correct way to get more gun control is emphatically not to attack or threaten elected representatives. But it does seem true that when powerful constituencies feel personally threatened or aggrieved, they often appear more likely to support gun restrictions. After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was gravely shot and six supporters and staffers killed by a gunman in 2011, for example, she dedicated herself to the cause of gun control with her husband, Cmr. Mark Kelly, a Navy veteran.
The third major lesson from Reagan is that it matters who is proposing and backing new gun laws. When we trust people, we are more likely to listen to their ideas and have faith that they have, if not our best interests at heart, at least an aversion to harming our cause. Thus, right from the start, Democrats are more likely to support policies from Democratic presidents, Republicans are more likely to support proposals from GOP presidents, and the NRA is likely to consider ideas floated by gun-rights advocates and gun owners.
The NRA trusted Reagan; it has never trusted Obama. The closest the U.S. came to getting modest new firearms restrictions this century, in 2013, the sponsors of the bill were proud gun owners Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), an opponent of gun control, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who was endorsed by the NRA in 2012, in an election where he ran a TV ad featuring him shooting a piece of environmental legislation with a rifle. The NRA and Manchin parted ways in 2013.
There is a broad middle ground on gun laws. Proponents of tighter gun control, defeated and often demoralized after years of losses, would generally be open to if not thrilled by adding some modest restrictions. So would most Americans, and a majority of gun owners. The NRA, fueled by years of wins, isn't giving ground. That's where we're at.
Ronald Reagan, probably to the surprise of both gun control advocates and opponents, occupied that area of broad consensus. If the NRA really loved Reagan, they might remember that.
The TL;DR version (Score:2)
"We're in favour of guns for anybody, anywhere, anytime--except when they might get pointed at us, of course."
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot to mention that I really enjoyed this piece. Thanks for sharing it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It hits a lot of things that will likely cause slashdot conservative heads to explode as well...
Yes, I had exactly the same heartwarming thought, myself. Did you submit this as a story? I'd be happy to vote it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you submit this as a story? I'd be happy to vote it up.
Reality-driven heresy is not welcomed here, it would be just as likely accepted at townhall.com or fox news. The first commandment of politics on slashdot is thou shalt not challenge the infinite awesomeness of saint Ronnie.
OK, Reagan was wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as what is next, how about any proposal to change anything in the interest of reducing the frequency of mass shootings? We've been doing nothing for well over a decade now and the rate just keeps going up. I'd like to see a conservative propose anything on the m
Re: (Score:2)
. . .how about any proposal to change anything in the interest of reducing the frequency of mass shootings? We've been doing nothing for well over a decade now and the rate just keeps going up.
Your attention is drawn to Ramirez => http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-05/how-gun-laws-work-reality [zerohedge.com]
For a more detailed, practical approach, voting out every Lefty would be a start. Some competent adults (i.e. non-godless Commie sodomites) and a non-cowering foreign policy stance is precisely what's needful.
Re: (Score:2)
. . .how about any proposal to change anything in the interest of reducing the frequency of mass shootings? We've been doing nothing for well over a decade now and the rate just keeps going up.
Your attention is drawn to Ramirez => http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]
I did not see that cartoon proposing any kind of change. Seriously, I just want to see a proposal from anyone at this point for an actual change in policy. We have done nothing for some time now, and the situation just keeps getting worse.
For a more detailed, practical approach, voting out every Lefty would be a start
What does being left handed have to do with it? There are no politicians in the federal government from the left side of the spectrum anymore, everyone is either center-right or hard right.
a non-cowering foreign policy stance is precisely what's needful.
Please, tell me what foreign policy has to do with mass shootings in this coun
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to see a proposal from anyone at this point for an actual change in policy.
Well, I've been advocating http://www.conventionofstates.com/ [conventionofstates.com] for however long. Short of, you know, *actually* changing the system, I submit that we're just faffing about.
Please, tell me what foreign policy has to do with mass shootings in this country?
Well, that would involve you taking an honest look at what's occurred during this administration. But if I have confidence in everything, it's your commitment to dishonesty.
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to see a proposal from anyone at this point for an actual change in policy.
Well, I've been advocating http://www.conventionofstates.... [conventionofstates.com] for however long.
I do not contest that you have been advertising heavily for that cause for some time now. I do however struggle to see what it would do to change the ever-increasing rate of mass shootings in this country.
Please, tell me what foreign policy has to do with mass shootings in this country?
Well, that would involve you taking an honest look at what's occurred during this administration.
I actually dare to look at the facts of what the Lawnchair Administration has done since 2009. You prefer to talk about them in the lens of your favorite conspiracies. Please, tell me what the foreign policy of the Lawnchair Administration has to do with the mass shootings we have seen in this country
Re: (Score:2)
I do however struggle to see what it would do to change the ever-increasing rate of media-overdriven mass shootings in this country.
Breaking down the Racism Industrial Complex, the Democrat Media Complex, and the Church of Global Warming are key steps toward recovery.
Please, tell me what the foreign policy of the Lawnchair Administration has to do with the mass shootings we have seen in this country since Senator Obama became President Lawnchair in early 2009.
Passivity.
Re: (Score:2)
I do however struggle to see what it would do to change the ever-increasing rate of mass shootings in this country.
Breaking down the Conspiracy, the Conspiracy, and the Conspiracy are key steps toward recovery.
So you have convinced yourself that the people who died in mass shootings in the pas decade are of no importance, then. Apparently you see them as illusions driven by three conspiracies that don't have anything to do with anything. I guess that explains why you don't want to do anything about it, if you don't believe it to be a problem.
Please, tell me what the foreign policy of the Lawnchair Administration has to do with the mass shootings we have seen in this country since Senator Obama became President Lawnchair in early 2009.
Passivity.
I would really like you to elaborate on that. It is fact that the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators of mass shootings in this country are US citizens. How would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to pretend the media are not in some sense culpable.
In what way do you see the media as being culpable for the mass shootings? If you want to play that card, I really would love to know the basis of the selection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does advertising drive sales?
With the exception of the Thanksgiving Day newspaper, generally no. Regardless, how does that make the media at fault for the mass shootings?
If anyone is profiting from the mass shootings, it is the manufacturers of guns and ammo. Every time there is a shooting that makes the national news, the right wing FUD machine kicks into overdrive telling everyone to go out and buy as many guns and and much ammo as they can get their hands on, under the absolute certainty of President Lawnchair coming in to shut
Re: (Score:2)
no such event from the Lawnchair administration has transpired.
Do you think that past performance is a guarantee of future activities? In particular, when Her Majesty grabs a double clawful of throne?
Re: (Score:2)
no such event from the Lawnchair administration has transpired.
Do you think that past performance is a guarantee of future activities?
For one person, yes. President Lawnchair will not take guns away from individuals, period. It doesn't matter how many more mass shootings transpire between now and the end of his administration in 2017. You can absolutely take that to the bank.
In particular, when Her Majesty grabs a double clawful of throne?
That is a separate matter entirely. Why would President Lawnchair be held responsible for what the next POTUS does?
Re: (Score:2)
For one person, yes. President Lawnchair will not take guns away from individuals, period. It doesn't matter how many more mass shootings transpire between now and the end of his administration in 2017. You can absolutely take that to the bank.
I'm pretty sure that Nakoula Nakoula didn't get to pack a pistol when he got thrown in the joint after Benghazi.
More to the point, though, #OccupyResoluteDesk's fascist twitches are only restrained by his own rank cowardice. We all it's a kinda I want to [youtube.com] meeting a cold hard reality.
Why would President Lawnchair be held responsible for what the next POTUS does?
Because of their ideological bond?
Re: (Score:2)
For one person, yes. President Lawnchair will not take guns away from individuals, period. It doesn't matter how many more mass shootings transpire between now and the end of his administration in 2017. You can absolutely take that to the bank.
I'm pretty sure that Nakoula Nakoula didn't get to pack a pistol when he got thrown in the joint after Benghazi.
He was arrested and charged with a crime. That is pretty standard.
#SillyConspiracyHashTag fascist twitches are only restrained by his own rank cowardice
You realize you just followed a conspiracy in a hash tag with another conspiracy, right? You just admitted that he hasn't done anything fascist to date, and then proclaimed your belief - in spite of any evidence whatsoever - that some day he just might. That would be more amusing if it wasn't so very sad.
We all it's a kinda I want to meeting a cold hard reality.
There are better uses of quality music than to propagate your favorite conspiracy-of-the-week.
Why would President Lawnchair be held responsible for what the next POTUS does?
Because of their ideological bond?
You are going in to the realm of "bonde
Re: (Score:2)
He was arrested and charged with a crime. That is pretty standard.
This is arguably the most glibly toolish thing you've ever uttered on this web site, though, one admits, the competition is fierce. As a thought experiment, contrast this with your 120dB shrieks, had the person in power the consonant 'R' adjacent to their name.
That would be more amusing if it wasn't so very sad.
A fine, brief review of your /. postings, in fact.
Otherwise if you want to claim that Hillary will somehow be similar in action to President Lawnchair and you want to hang him by that, you need to hold Reagan responsible for all of the Lawnchair failings as well.
Why, no: no, I do not. There is no requirement that I accede to your bizarre twistings of facts and history in any way whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
He was arrested and charged with a crime. That is pretty standard.
had the person in power the consonant 'R' adjacent to their name.
You can keep speculating on that, but your speculations won't get you any where.
That would be more amusing if it wasn't so very sad.
A fine, brief review of your /. postings, in fact.
A slick insult there, and completely disconnected from the fact that I wrote that in response to a sentence where you opened with one conspiracy and ended the same with a different conspiracy.
Otherwise if you want to claim that Hillary will somehow be similar in action to President Lawnchair and you want to hang him by that, you need to hold Reagan responsible for all of the Lawnchair failings as well.
Why, no: no, I do not. There is no requirement that I accede to your bizarre twistings of facts and history in any way whatsoever.
If you do not acknowledge the fact that the actions of President Lawnchair are an extension of the actions of Reagan, then you are just assigning blame by party. In that case, Reagan should be held responsible for the failings of GWB to
Re: (Score:2)
to the same extent that you are aspiring to hold President Lawnchair responsible for a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration.
I'm curious what you mean by "hold. . .responsible" in that reply. The only one who's been held responsible for the no-talent rodeo clown is W.
Re: (Score:2)
to the same extent that you are aspiring to hold President Lawnchair responsible for a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration.
I'm curious what you mean by "hold. . .responsible" in that reply.
Hold responsible is entirely up to your fantasy in this context, as you are trying to hold responsible someone who has not yet been elected for things you think she might do if she were elected. You were saying before that you would hold President Lawnchair responsible for what Hillary - if she were elected - might do as POTUS. I then replied by asking who you would hold Reagan responsible for.
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying before that you would hold President Lawnchair responsible for what Hillary - if she were elected - might do as POTUS. I then replied by asking who you would hold Reagan responsible for.
Are you really so challenged to understand the difference between the past and the future?
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying before that you would hold President Lawnchair responsible for what Hillary - if she were elected - might do as POTUS. I then replied by asking who you would hold Reagan responsible for.
Are you really so challenged to understand the difference between the past and the future?
I am just probing for an explanation for your inconsistency. Why would the current POTUS be held responsible for the actions of a potential future POTUS but a certain POTUS from the past not be liable for any actions of a POTUS that followed him?
As usual, it appears in your case the answer is just partisanship.
Re: (Score:1)
Remember, he fails to understand the present. And the past, for some reason, apparently is a lousy teacher, making the future a shot in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the current POTUS be held responsible for the actions of a potential future POTUS but a certain POTUS from the past not be liable for any actions of a POTUS that followed him?
Why should I share your apparent taste for red herring?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the current POTUS be held responsible for the actions of a potential future POTUS but a certain POTUS from the past not be liable for any actions of a POTUS that followed him?
Why should I share your apparent taste for red herring?
I am just asking you to be consistent. You are applying one set of rules and expectations to people from one party and a completely different set of rules and expectations to people from the other. There is no red herring here, there is no trap. I just ask you to stop moving the goal posts.
Re: (Score:1)
Oof! *the assassin accusing the assassin*. They never did answer the question of what that is called, did they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that the truth is leaking out of the Royal Colostomy Bag despite Her best efforts, and those of Her sad little tools.
Re: (Score:2)
a fair comparison of the 1983 Beruit Marine barracks bombing and Benghazi
You're right that it is unfair to compare the two. The former was a total catastrophe that cost over 200 American lives in a military institution, while the latter was a terrorist strike that killed 4 Americans. The former was a blatant example of America failing to secure its own military installations while the latter was an attack on two buildings that were not for explicit military purposes. The former was investigated only once by congress and eventually swept under the rug with no meaningful chang
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Only of character... well, if he had some. Nice, if not original, wave off on your part though...
Re: (Score:2)
The fact of the matter remain though that you hold people with the blessed (R) responsible for almost no mistakes, ever, and people with the mark of damnation (D) to be directly the cause of everything wrong with the world.
Red herring. You seem incapable of facing the repeatedly demonstrated fact that Her Majesty is a pathological liar.
What is likely to remain amusing is your desperate, flailing waving of the Commie herring as the facts are dripped out, piecemeal, reaching a crescendo next October. Which military leader gets to reveal how callously Her Majesty (in conjunction with #OccupyResoluteDesk) permitted heroic Americans to die under fire?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact of the matter remain though that you hold people with the blessed (R) responsible for almost no mistakes, ever, and people with the mark of damnation (D) to be directly the cause of everything wrong with the world.
Red herring.
Not in the least. You make all kinds of great excuses for your friends, and have no shortage of conspiracies for your enemies. You rarely push fewer than 4 simultaneous conspiracies in any given week that you wish to see President Lawnchair removed from office over (without concern for the law, naturally), yet you have all kinds of great reasons why nobody from your team should ever be more than casually investigated for potential wrong doings.
Which military leader gets to reveal how callously Her Majesty (in conjunction with #SillyThoroughlyDebunkedConspiracyHashTag) permitted heroic Americans to die under fire?
You've downgraded to only "permitted" now? Previously you c
Re: (Score:2)
You've downgraded to only "permitted" now? Previously you claimed that Lawnchair & Co. directly caused the death.
One day, one hopes, all of the facts will be exposed, and we can measure your precise degree of spineless, gibbering toolishness.
Re: (Score:2)
You've downgraded to only "permitted" now? Previously you claimed that Lawnchair & Co. directly caused the death.
One day, one hopes, all of the facts will be exposed
The remaining "facts" you seek for your conspiracy have obviously all been consumed to drive the Obama Time Machine (TM). Those things don't run on just any fuel source, after all.
Re: (Score:1)
You have to break it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Passivity.
Aside from being totally passive about the regular corruption, can you give a single example?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
:-) non-responsive...
Now then, how 'bout an actual example, aside from the previously mentioned qualifier? Can ya do it? C'mon, man, don't hold out on us...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing was given except opinion. Wanna try again? Not that you have to or anything. I'm just curious. Just one little bitty, teensy weensy thing that distinguishes this administration from any of the previous, you know, aside from being the present administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How far back do you want to go. Let's start with the more recent ones.
The ongoing weapons deals going on in the entire middle east, contracts made with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Pakistan are much more wretched than Iran.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, extremely wretched, criminal in my book.
Reagan's Iran/Contra scheme, the dirty wars in Central/South America, and the funding of the mujahedin
The war in Southeast Asia
Yet, despite all the negativity, all of these policies are working as designed.
Re: (Score:2)
Two come to mind immediately that are vastly worse than the one you just named
So, go ahead, you big tease.
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians are in a box.
Oh. Kay.
Re: (Score:1)
So they're rattling it, big deal, the world still buys American (Chinese?) made, the world's mercenaries accept only American dollars, more so than ever. Destabilization is working.
*What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?*