Who Was James Puckle And Why Is He Relevant To The Second Amendment?

There is just no possible way that the Founders could have meant what they wrote in the Second Amendment. They just never could have anticipated the kinds of automatic weaponry we have today. Even noted Second Amendment scholar, Piers Morgan of CNN knows that, having stated:

“The Second Amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns and assault rifles. Fact.”

The reason that the Founders didn’t anticipate these kinds of weapons is that they didn’t have to – they already existed.

May I introduce the Puckle Gun, the first “automatic” weapon, a “machine gun” of sorts…patented by James Puckle in 1718, some 69 years BEFORE the Constitution and the Second Amendment were written.

PuckleGun

88 thoughts on “Who Was James Puckle And Why Is He Relevant To The Second Amendment?

  1. Well, yeah! But it is more than that (and this is why I am so concerned with preserving our language).

    The founders said the people had the right to ‘ARMS.’ They did NOT say “firearms” 9i.e. pistols and rifles). At the time they wrote the 2nd Amendment, this meant — if you could afford it — a person could own a cannon. Guess what? MANY DID! Yes, the founders knew that and had no problem with private citizens owning cannons! There was at least one private citizen who owned an armed ship of war, and they had no problem with that, either.

    We have been lied to! The 2nd Amendment meant ANY WEAPON OF WAR, and they meant that because the 2nd Amendment was intended to insure the people could resist the government and its troops.

    but then, what does history matter, right? 🙂

  2. That’s why Joe thinks we should all be able to own and carry hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, land mines and nuclear weapons, and just kind of ignore that “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment. I’s just too bad that Ronald Reagan was so stupid that he supported gun control.

    • This is how you can tell whether or not someone knows our history. The founders defined the militia as EVERY ABLE-BODIED MALE over (I think it was) 19 years old. James deliberately changes the meaning of the founders’ words and then tries to claim they meant something different –something he and his type have defined. Our founders had a couple words for this, too: usurpation and subversion.

      And for good measure, James throws in a gratuitous mention of Reagan that has NOTHING to do with the issue. He is committing several fallacies here. They matter because a fallacy is a mistake in reasoning (logic). When people — like James — have to resort to the deliberate use of fallacious arguments, it is an indication they know they are wrong. Otherwise, James would simply have posted the words of the founders where they said they intended the restrictions HE wants enforced on YOU!

      Now, if you are one of those who supports James, understand that your objection to the 2nd Amendment is rooted in your distrust of other Americans. Well, guess what: those who seek to protect themselves distrust YOU, as well. Only, where INDIVIDUALS may use weapons to cause harm to some, YOU are using a weapon (the government) to do greater harm to ALL. Try to look at it that way before you think it is “OK” to surrender another person’s rights because — sooner or later — someone is going to surrender a right YOU cherish and you will have already done away with the Peoples’ ability to do anything about it.

    • “That’s why Joe thinks we should all be able to own and carry hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, land mines and nuclear weapons”

      Ok McPherson, I will bite …

      Show me the quote where Joe actually said we should all be able to own and carry hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, land mines and nuclear weapons.

      This, I gotta see.

      • We used to keep dynamite and det cord on our farm when I was a kid – a quarter stick will blow the hell out of a beaver dam.

        I don’t remember being a risk to humanity.

        • My grandfather fished the Apalach with dynamite in the 1920s. He used to tell us stories about the amazing amounts of fish he would bring in.

          I guess though … that would be scary to pseudo men-folk like our intermittent visitors.

          • That’s the real issue isn’t it? It’s not our supposed inability to restrain ourselves but their irrational fear.

            So what if I own a tank or a 105 howitzer? If I don’t use it to blow up a certain house in Spokane, in the words of our best ever SecState, what difference, at this point, does it make?

            • Imagine all those coal miners, and rail workers of the day … what if, what if, what if?

              You are right about their irrational fears … despite their best efforts, they cannot regulate morality. But then again, the biggest fear of all would be totalitarian regimes is an equally armed militia who could undo them.

              Maybe their fears are not so irrational after all. 😀

        • Utah,

          To a Liberal …. the fact thet you THINK is a risk to Humanity. And to a Communist / Progressive….. the fact that you BREATH is a risk to Humanity…… : – ).

          Their Calculus is very simple …….. see North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia, China, etc etc etc for clarification ( those who aren’t aware ).

  3. “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”

    Zachariah Johnson
    Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

    “… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
    Philadelphia Federal Gazette
    June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
    Article on the Bill of Rights

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
    Samuel Adams
    quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington
    First President of the United States

    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot

    “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

    Thomas Jefferson
    Third President of the United States

    I could go on: these are just a few of many, many similar assertions. No, I think there two real issues here are these:

    1 — that too many Americans have forgotten so much about the principles of Liberty that they are willing to surrender the ONLY assurance of preserving individual rights and liberty.

    and 2 — That this situation has come about because people like James — a college professor — are now trusted to teach our history to our children.

    THERE are the larger problems: not guns in the hands of private citizens.

    • Funny how often you tell us that people are innately bad, but then imply that we should “trust Americans” (well, except college professors, liberals, those who disagree with you, etc.) And I notice that though you spewed forth a lot more words, you do not dispute the claim that you think we should all be able to own and carry hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, land mines and nuclear weapons,

      But unless you think a significant number of the “right people” have those things, we have already “done away with the Peoples’ ability to do anything about it” — you are and always will be outgunned but the U.S. military. Face it, Joe: If the government actually cared enough to take you on, you’d be toast — and chances are, you’d never know what hit you.

      And the mention of Reagan was hardly gratuitous — unlike you, he could look at reality and be reasonable.

      • James,

        I never said people should always be trusted. That is YOUR assertion, and your attempt to put it in my mouth makes it another of your deliberate attempts to deceive those who read these comments. It is also fallacious argument. You are a ‘professor’ and yet you intentionally deceive and use bad reasoning??? READER: see why our society is in trouble: it is because men such as this have seized control of it and are indoctrinating us through our children.

        Yes, James, the people should retain the ability to resist the U.S. military. And no, I am not out-gunned by the military. You would not understand why this is true, but veterans know why it is true. Nor do I think we will all be “safe” if people have these weapons. But “safety” is as much of an illusion as Karl’s Communist utopia. It only exists in our minds. Look at all the mas shootings you guys claim would not happen if there were no gun. THEY HAPPENED WHERE NO GUNS ARE ALLOWED! And you have the nerve to tell me I am being irrational when you argue in the face of objective reality?!

        READER: again, this man teaches college students. I it no wonder we graduate people who cannot think and do not even recognize objective reality?

        As for Reagan: where the 2nd Amendment was concerned, HE WAS WRONG! For that matter — NEWS FLASH — many who claim to be “Conservative” are still WRONG! This is because “Conservative” does not NECESSARILY men “in line with Natural Law.”

        • “And no, I am not out-gunned by the military.”

          I assume you look forward to meeting the drone (which, admittedly, may come from the CIA rather than from the military).

          “Look at all the mas shootings you guys claim would not happen if there were no gun.”

          I’ve never made such a claim — you’re putting words in my mouth. So is that fallacious reasoning on your part, or simply lying?

          But what do you suppose would have happened if some of those shooters had the hand grenades that you apparently think they should have been allowed? A couple of those would do wonders in a school or movie theater, wouldn’t they?

          • “I assume you look forward to meeting the drone (which, admittedly, may come from the CIA rather than from the military).”

            So you DO have something in common with Adolf, Josef and Mao. Thanks for admitting it to us — finally.

            “I’ve never made such a claim — you’re putting words in my mouth. So is that fallacious reasoning on your part, or simply lying?”

            You sure have. You object to everyone who advocates for and tries to protect their 2nd Amendment rights. This is an advocacy for gun control. And THAT means you think those shootings never happened because guns were banned there. In this case, James, it is called “logical extension.” Look it up.

            Now, had they had hand grenades, it is likely a few more people would have been wounded but fewer killed. You obviously do not know very much about grenades and how they work/do. I do. I’ve used them and seen them in action first hand.

            Now, time for GROWN-UP logic. What do you suppose would have happened if just ONE PERSON — like me — had been allowed to carry his/her weapon when these grenade-throwing mad men had started their killing spree??? Same thing that happens most times an armed citizen is around: YOU DON’T HEAR ABOUT IT ON THE NEWS BECAUSE THE GOOD GUY SHOOTS THE BAD GUY!

            James, you are looking more and more like Homer Simpson here, but then, that might be why you have the yellow behind you in your avatar.

            • “So you DO have something in common with Adolf, Josef and Mao.”

              Gee, Joe, it doesn’t usually take you this long to resort to such an inane comparison. I don’t like the use of drones — but I am smart enough to know they’re there.

              “In this case, James, it is called ‘logical extension.'”

              No, it’s simply exaggeration or lying, and once again you can’t admit you’re wrong.

              “Now, had they had hand grenades, it is likely a few more people would have been wounded but fewer killed.”

              Gee, so perhaps we should give grenades to everyone. But of course you’re assuming that grenades would be the only weapons the “bad guys” would use.

              “What do you suppose would have happened if just ONE PERSON — like me — had been allowed to carry his/her weapon when these grenade-throwing mad men had started their killing spree???”

              Many of those people would end up shooting bystanders, shooting themselves, or leaving their guns in public restrooms so that kids could accidentally kill themselves. You might not — but you’re far better trained than 99 percent of gun owners. And I’m sure that you oppose mandating training to carry weapons.

              “James, you are looking more and more like Homer Simpson here.”

              And you’re looking more and more like Wile E. Coyote.

              • James,

                Never heard you speak out against the drones. Silence in the face of tyranny is support. Again: logical extension. Look it up. No, here, let me help.

                If you always attack those defending their rights. And you always defend the govt. and its “right” to do whatever it wants, then you support the govt. and oppose the individual right being defended. IN THIS SENSE, what I have said to and of you is accurate and plies, and thus, is NOT fallacious because it all rests on what you HAVE said in the past [note to readers: James is depending on the fact that you do not know his history, but there are those here who do and who will attest to the truth of what I am saying]

                James, the times when this has happened speak against you. Most of us who would carry a weapon in public are VERY familiar with them. At that point, you look to see what is down range as a reflex. We are not the out-of-control people you are, which is why you can harm the kids you claim to be teaching whereas I would not hit an innocent even if I fired at a man behind them holding them at knife point. As opposed to you, I actually AM a professional. And I know how many others are, too — BECAUSE I HELPED TRAIN MANY OF THEM!

                BTW: Wile E. Coyote was a certified genius. 🙂

                • “Never heard you speak out against the drones.”

                  That’s hardly my fault. I think I’ve done so here, and have repeatedly done so elsewhere (including on my own blog). http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/comparing-obama-to-other-presidents-and-to-mermaids/

                  That’s what happens when your “extension” so commonly becomes hyperbole.

                  “you always defend the govt. and its “right” to do whatever it wants, then you support the govt. and oppose the individual right being defended.”

                  Yet another example of your hyperbole/lying, as can be seen by anyone spending 30 seconds on the post I linked above.

                  “Most of us who would carry a weapon in public are VERY familiar with them.”

                  A very debatable point. I grew up in Idaho, own several guns, and have taught gun safety myself. I also encounter a lot of idiots — or simply people who have never faced extremely stressful situations — who won’t react as you probably would. I have never suggested that you personally would be a menace in such a situation; frankly, I’d want you with me in such a case. But you’re not 99 percent of folks.

                  “Wile E. Coyote was a certified genius.”

                  Perhaps. But he never won. 🙂

                  • YOU DO NOT DO IT HERE, JAMES!

                    And that is ALL that matters for the point of this conversation. And that makes EVERYTHING I have said valid — here. And since the readers should not be expected to chase after you all over the net, then you either re-stste what is needed here or accept that I have accurately portrayed you here.

                    But it is more. Anyone who was NOT looking to deceive would naturally do this. They would not have to have it explained to them.

                    • “YOU DO NOT DO IT HERE, JAMES!”

                      Ah, the infamous trio of elements that makes Joe’s rhetoric complete — a Nazi reference, lots of capital letters, and exclamation points. I also do not support drones here, which makes what you said about my feelings about drones irrelevant and misguided.

                      You’ve become a self-parodying joke, Joe. But at least you can delete my comments here, as the “non-censoring” RNL has done in the past. 😉

                    • OK, James, you win. So why are you attacking me. EVERYONE knows I have always agreed with you on everything. haven’t you read my other blog pages?

                      [He won’t get that, either 😉 I can’t wait until Augger shows up…hehehe]

                    • “I can’t wait until Augger shows up.”

                      I’m sure you can’t. He won’t have any facts to back up an argument, but he will offer more creative insults than you do. And God knows, no one else here will willingly step more deeply into the issue of when/if guns should be regulated.

                      And I suspect that neither you nor anyone else here has seen fit to delete Augger’s comments, as the gutless wonder here have with mine. Beep beep!

                    • James,

                      Why do you still persecute me, after I have admitted that everyone reading our exchange knows I agree with you in all things? As you say, they know you are a pure and faultless soul by reading your other pages, and so it is they know I share in your pure and faultless ideology because they have likewise read my other things.

                      [he STILL doesn’t get it 😉 ]

                    • “he STILL doesn’t get it”

                      Actually, I (and everyone else) got it, Joe — it just wasn’t clever enough to be worthy of mention. Especially since we know it was simply intended as a diversion from the fact that you have no meaningful answers.

                      Feel free to keep the thread going to remind folks of that, though. And of course you can go back later and delete this, too.

                    • James,

                      I did not delete anything. If anyone deleted anything, prove it. All we have is your word, and we already see that can mean 1 thing here, and quite another on some other page (or so you claim).

                      [Nope, I didn’t think he’d get it — even when I gave him a hint he could read (and replied to). Sad, especially when one considers he has a ‘doctorate.’ Then again, that could be the problem 🙂 ]

                    • “If anyone deleted anything, prove it.”

                      As difficult as it is to “prove” that something was once there and no longer is, I think even you can figure it out. (I’m not sure of that, though, considering how inept that censorship was.)

                      The most popular RNL post of 2013 somehow has no comments from me, despite the fact that I had quickly pointed out its errors. Yet it still has comments from others that respond to my now-omitted comments that are no longer there.

                      And you actually wrote a later RNL post (which is still there) devoted in large part to a weird twisted justification for the distortions offered in the post I had criticized: https://therionorteline.com/2013/07/02/sbj-tries-to-claim-high-ground-by-lying-to-rnl/

                      Of course I have no way of knowing how many comments you boys may have deleted. I only noticed the hack-job censorship there because you had posted your stats for the year, and the number of comments listed seemed lower than what I thought it should be.

                      “we already see that can mean 1 thing here, and quite another on some other page”

                      Another lie, of course — nothing I said here contradicted what I had said elsewhere. Your own distortion of what I said contradicted what I had said elsewhere.

                    • Most popular and no posts from you??? Maybe you didn’t post and now you’re just crying sour grapes?

                      Seriously, dude. Neither Utah nor I would delete your musings, so I have no idea what the heck you’re whining about. It is not in my nature and if Utah will leave up some of the rows he and I have had, I would think your posts would be water off his back.

                    • Unless it was caught in the spam filter, which I no longer check for legit comments because we get too much spam to go through, I have not now or ever deleted any of the Professor’s posts, comments, rants, or examples of “progressive” moronic convergence. I simply don’t care enough to waste my time.

                      The professor is nothing but a troll who only comes over to agitate, he has no interest in doing anything other than making himself a target for you, augger or dusty so he can claim to be both superior and a victim at the same time. There is no point – that’s why I have largely refrained from commenting and just put the posts up and if you like them fine, if not, fine as well.

                      If I didn’t mean it, believe it or have researched it, I wouldn’t have posted it in the first place.

                    • Utah,

                      I think the thing that speaks the loudest here is that the Professor comes over and comments on a site he says is of no importance, yet he has to point out that the things he claims he says that DO NOT condemn him are posted on a site no one apparently reads. If they did, there would be no reason to tell us that is where we can find it. And if no one reads the RNL, there would be no reason for him to be here.

                      In short: he is here because it is the only way he can get any attention.

                      Still boss, it is fun to swat at moon bats from time to time, don;t you think? They make such neat little squeals when you hit them 🙂

                    • It should be obvious to anyone who looks that someone has deleted my comments over there, and equally obvious that both Joe and Utah are unwilling to take responsibility for what happens on their site.

                      This from guys who think Obama should know everything that goes on in his administration, and who repeatedly claim that “in politics, there are no accidents. The RNL is a pitiful, hypocritical joke.

                    • Well I am here now, and have read the thread up to this point, and in the spirit of “facts”, I will just repeat my request for factual quotations as a start …

                      “That’s why Joe thinks we should all be able to own and carry hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, land mines and nuclear weapons”

                      Show me the quote where Joe actually said we should all be able to own and carry hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, land mines and nuclear weapons.

                      This, I have got to see.

                    • Augger is about to watch the FSU game, Joe. He’s had a boston butt in the smoker for 23 hours, and the brats are on the grill. Once the keg and company arrives …it’s game on.

                      Someone else can pith McPherson this evening. 🙂

                • “Show me the quote where Joe actually said we should all be able to own and carry hand grenades, anti-aircraft guns, land mines and nuclear weapons.”

                  In this case, it’s just “logical extension. Look it up.” 🙂

                  But if I was wrong, Joe could have corrected me — he didn’t.

                  • So basically McPherson has got nothing … except a lie.

                    That’s all I needed to point out. Now it’s off to the pre-game show. Stay warm, McLiar. It’s a cold night where you are I would presume.

                    • Sorry, Augger, but you didn’t “get” Joe’s joke. He never disputed my claim, and can’t — it accurately portrays how he feels. I’d be interested to know if you agree, though I suspect you’ll be afraid to tell me because you don’t want to risk crossing Joe.

                      So the only “lie” is the one the RNL boys are perpetuating about not deleting previously approved quotes. I don’t know why they bother, since it’s so easy to check — other than because their heads might explode if they actually had to admit the truth.

                      I’ll bet even you could figure it out, just by checking comments on the original: https://therionorteline.com/2013/06/30/amazing-the-cover-of-liberal-newsweek-magazine/ and then Joe’s follow-up, which now refers to comments no longer on the site: https://therionorteline.com/2013/07/02/sbj-tries-to-claim-high-ground-by-lying-to-rnl/

                      But you probably won’t, preferring not to get sideways with Joe and Utah. The RNL has become pitifully dishonest, it appears.

                    • Let’s just make sure we have a couple of things clear here, McPherson, shall we?

                      – If you are going to assert something with absolutes, and treat it as if a quote, then by all means quote it, otherwise it’s becomes more a silly bombastic pile of hyperbole that you are so well known for, and subject to being called out on.

                      – Lies — now isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? Remember your most recent lie, McPherson? You know the one where you lied and said you never used profanity on this site? Well, we all know how that worked out for you, don’t we?

                      – As far as my fear of Joe? More hyperbole. I am not beholden to Joe, Utah, yourself, or anyone else here.

                      – As far as your comments being deleted; I do not know who did it, nor do I care. The two do not dispute that your posts are missing, and both freely admit that they do not understand how it happened, or that they give a shit either way. So my advise to you is to get some cream for your rash, McPherson … you’ve already used up all the mileage that anything cared about concerning this long ago, and especially from me. I simply heard you the first time. I didn’t care then, and I care even less now.

                      All you sound like now, is a pissed off little toddler who wants his pacifier back.

                    • To whomever may still be reading this:

                      If either Utah or I had deleted James’ comments, then why wouldn’t we delete those he has been posting here?

                      Please, think about that for a moment. IF we had done what he claims, this would imply we care about what he says or how he makes us look to other readers. IF we cared, then how could his constant attacks here NOT make us even more concerned about how we look to the readers? IF we had deleted anything he said, wouldn’t it make sense that we would stay on top of and continue to delete anything he said related to those deletions?

                      Folks, the simple truth here is this: Utah does not care about what James says. I do not care about what James says. We have both refuted him using sound logic and he has demonstrated — by his own words — that he has a very poor command of logic. IN this sense, his comments condemn him, which — if you know either Utah or myself — you then know we would PREFER you to read. It saves us the trouble of having to respond to him.

                      Then there is the work Augger has done to expose James. James likes to play innocent (most authoritarians do — it is the fallacy of appeal to emotion). However, in his own ‘adorable’ way, Augger has shown — using his own words — that James is less than honest with people (not to mention himself). In fact, Augger has pretty much put James on par with Obama, and all he has had to do is quote James.

                      In effect, James is good for the RNL. Not only does he willingly illustrate our points, thereby proving the soundness and validity of the majority of our arguments, he’s good fun, too. So, seriously, why would anyone want to willingly do anything to delete that which validates our world view?

                    • A correction: It’s not that James wants to be ‘innocent’— oh no, James wants to be a ‘victim’.

                      But why is James so clearly upset? It simple really. He gets much better exposure here than he does on his own pathetic corner of the internet.

                      Call it a nerd rage if you will.

                    • @Augger: About my supposed “lie”? I made a mistake in what I said (considering that we consider different terms to be “profane,” and promptly admitted it and apologized for it when you pointed it out. Joe continues to mislead, while taking no responsibility for what appears on his site.

                      @Joe: Nice job of parsing words, and of trying to throw Dusty under the bus without naming him. As I’ve now pointed out repeatedly (though I know you’re a bit slow), I never accused either you or Utah of personally deleting comments. I even arrived at the conclusion that it was probably Dusty, and said so — you’ve continued to act as if no censorship occurred, while taking no responsibility for what happens in the posts on your site. It was pitiful enough when Dusty was just regurgitating BS, with your tacit approval. Now you’ve OKed the policy of any writer here going back and deleting comments. Pitiful.

                      You’re right about one thing, I am good for the RNL and obviously drive up your traffic. (I’m hardly concerned about my own, having mostly given up my own media/politics blog, where I wrote only eight posts in all of 2013. Hell, you’ve written that many in a day.) http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/

                      Sadly, your site can no longer be trusted on any level. So once we’re done discussing this issue, unless an issue or writer addresses me, I won’t comment here anymore.

                    • Consider this issue done, and I expect you to keep your word concerning your silence. Now toddle along McPherson, and rest assured … we will try, really hard, to miss you.

                    • Now that neither Joe nor Utah “dispute that your posts are missing,” and thereby confirm that they have no concern about whether others who post here engage in censorship (funny, considering how much they whined about me approving their comments on my site too slowly), I’m happy to “toddle on” — unless you keep addressing me, of course.. 🙂

    • Those who would “thumb down” this comment illustrate why our society is in decay.

      if you do it because you do not approve of the founders’ words, then you do not understand or embrace the principles of liberty.

      If you do it because you do not like me — even when I state a universal truth — then you illustrate that you have renounced the use of reason.

      in BOTH cases, there can be no “compromise” because there is no way to compromise with someone who either embraces forced tyranny or is irrational — or both!

  4. Reagan supported the Brady bill after he left office, the Brady bill did not ban “assault weapons” that was done during Clinton under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB),a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – which sunset in September of 1994. What Reagan did support was the strengthening background checks and waiting periods on the purchase of HANDGUNS which are what we essentially have today, saying:

    “While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.”

    Reagan’s op ed in the New York Times voicing his support for the Brady Bill does not mention “assault weapons” at all. The frequently employed liberal crutch, Politihack Politifact, says that Reagan supported such a ban as a way of enabling it to give a “True” designation to an Obama statement but never addresses where specifically Reagan supported such a ban. It even notes that:

    In a 1991 New York Times op-ed titled “Why I’m For the Brady Bill,” Reagan detailed his support of a seven-day waiting period for gun buyers. “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics,” Reagan said in the op-ed. “… 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.”

    “Reagan supported the Brady Bill. That was after he had left office, but he did support it,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. “His views are a little complicated because he also signed legislation easing the (1968) Gun Control Act, so you can take Reagan either way.”

    There is not a single statement that Politihack Politifact offers to support Obama’s assertion that Reagan supported such a ban.

    Reagan was also a NRA member. More via Breitbart:

    The United Network of Rational Americans (UNRA) is running an ad that shows footage from the attempted 1981 assassination of Ronald Reagan, then references Reagan’s 1991 pro-Brady Bill op-ed to make it sound as thought the Gipper supported universal background checks for firearms purchases.
    However, the truth is that Reagan supported the kind of background checks that emerged from the Brady Bill–i.e. the kind of background checks we have right now.

    In addition, when Reagan wrote his op-ed in 1991, his focus was on establishing a background check system for people who buy handguns. His op-ed did not say anything about shotguns or rifles.

    So the background check system Reagan wrote passionately about was not even as broad as the one we have in place right now.

    Since you seem to have a new found respect for what Reagan said and did, how about I return the favor and tell you I think we should respect the tax cutting proposals of John Kennedy?

    • Utah, I made no claim about any Obama assertions, so I don’t know why that’s relevant. I simply said that Reagan supported gun control — as you’ve verified yourself. And yes, he was a member of the NRA — but so were a lot of other folks who have since dropped their memberships as the organization has become more strident.

      The thing is, Reagan knew that there should be limits on what weaponry people should be allowed to possess. That’s a problem in general for many Reagan-myth-promoting conservatives, who refuse to say where (or sometimes if) the limits should be. I assume you’ll refuse to do so, as well.

      • In addition, as William has reminded me on my site, “As far as Reagan and gun control goes, he did sign the Mulford Act as Gov of CA (it was also supported by the NRA).” That bill was opposed by the Black Panthers, and would be opposed today by Tea Party folks.

        • Interesting McPherson, and it does lead me to a musing …

          The crazy fucking liberals will never get further gun control bans in place. After all, gun control has a history of harming the very black community that supports the crazy fucking liberals. 🙂

  5. I almost named my son Josey after the Clint Eastwood character from the show, The Outlaw Josey Wales. (Josey becomes a famous outlaw after single-handedly taking out a Union regiment that pulled a fast one.) He used the Puckle gun (or a modern-day variation?) If you have not seen this show, I highly recommend it as it intersperses facts with a great fictional story.

  6. Utah, you know you are a racist bastard for presenting any sort of opposition to the crazy liberals re-write of history, right?

    Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

        • If you do, I’ll cry…like Jimmy.

          I don’t think the good Professor understands that I don’t really care enough to delete anything he writes.

          • Pretty much. Like his brethren, Karl, McPherson does … if nothing else … offer humor. Anything that brings about a laugh is worthy to stay right where it is.

            I sort of think that maybe he deletes his own stuff to later use as fodder against Joe.

            • All I know is that there are only two folks who can delete another’s comments other than the person who wrote it. Joe and I – he says he didn’t and I have so much casual indifference, I know I didn’t…

              But H8ers gonna H8, if you know what I mean – and I know you do.

              • Dudes!

                I don’t even remember the post he is crying about, and even if I did, I neither have the time nor — if you know me — the ability to do what he claims. I can barely put up my own posts (as Utah can attest — he’s fixed them often enough).

                No, I think Augger may be on to something here. Especially since he is protesting so loudly.

              • Oh, I do. You should hear the hate coming forth from all of the Medicare patients who got dropped Jan 1, and find themselves as the triage desk looking for care.

              • “there are only two folks who can delete another’s comments other than the person who wrote it”

                Even if I’m the person who wrote a comment, I can’t delete it, as far as I can tell — which tells me that you should know who did. After all, if I hadn’t written the comments, Joe wouldn’t have had cause to write the later post, linked to above. And his post would have made absolutely no sense (as opposed the almost no sense, as is typically the case).

                • ROFLMAO!!! :))

                  James, you have not caused me to write a post in MONTHS! You egotistical little arse-wipe, you. My last couple posts were prompted by and in response to Dougindeep and Karl. I had forgotten you even existed.

                  This guy is a hoot. He really does think he is at the center of the universe…LOL

                  • “you have not caused me to write a post in MONTHS!”

                    Nor have I claimed otherwise. But hell, Joe, you’ve written nearly enough comments to me just today to make up one of your long-winded posts. In fact, you could have used some of that time to find out who deleted my comments. 🙂

                    • “You just said I was responding to your comments”

                      Try to keep up, Joe. I didn’t say your response or the comments came recently. Just look at the dates (or just follow the links I gave you). I was talking about comments from June 30 and July 1, and a post of yours from July 2.

                      Again, I only noticed that the comments had been cut (I’m guessing by Dusty, but have no way of knowing) because of your year-end statistics post. I have no idea how many of my old comments you boys may have cut or changed since then. Nor would you be credible with any claim you made in that regard, since you’ve refused to acknowledge the obvious case I’ve pointed out.

                      A smarter move, it seems, would have been simply to call it a mistake and move on. Instead, you and Utah chose to demonstrate both ignorance and dishonesty. Sad, but no longer surprising.

    • “McFearless would be a self-deleter”

      Once I’ve posted a comment here, I can’t delete it even if I want to (and I have admittedly said some dumb things that I would gladly cut). There’s probably no reason you should know that, jj, but Utah should. In this case, I only noticed that the comments had been cut (I’m guessing by Dusty, but have no way of knowing) because of the RNL’s year-end statistics post.

      I have no idea how many of my old comments they may have cut or changed since then (or before then, for that matter). Once I pointed it out — and made it obvious so that folks could check, it seems that it might have been smart to simply to call the deletions a mistake and move on. Instead, the boys here chose ignorance and dishonesty. Sad, but not surprising.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.