The Gipper on Arms

[avatar4321]

Bonzo the President was a lot less ridiculous when he was making bad movies.

Common sense is ridiculous now? If its so ridiculous why not refute rather than resort to petty name calling?

[avatar4321]

Was this before or after Reagan went brain dead?

Again, if you have some sort of problem with what he said, why not refute it rather then attack the President?

[avatar4321]

I love our country. People like you are the ones that wish to destroy it through poor leadership.

The country isnt made great by it's leadership. Its made great by the people taking responsibility for themselves and seeking out their own greatness.

[typomaniac]

I don't know why I bother trying to discuss anything with a troll like you, but I guess my hope springs eternal.

Right. It was all scripted by the trilateral Commision. That and the Black Helicopters.

Damn straight it was scripted. Most of the time that (nearly) every president spends with his mouth open is spent saying the words he's been coached to say. By his party's policy wonks, typically, not the trilateral commission.

Face it man, he was the greatest leader of the 20th century. If he had been a Democrat y'all would name your sons and streets after him.

Not even close. He was a mediocre actor who played in mediocre movies - and, predictably, he did a mediocre job of being president. Sadly for the Republicans, he's about the best the party had since Eisenhower, so the spin docs worked with what they got.

[glockmail]

I don't know why I bother trying to discuss anything with a troll like you, but I guess my hope springs eternal.

Damn straight it was scripted. Most of the time that (nearly) every president spends with his mouth open is spent saying the words he's been coached to say. By his party's policy wonks, typically, not the trilateral commission.Not even close. He was a mediocre actor who played in mediocre movies - and, predictably, he did a mediocre job of being president. Sadly for the Republicans, he's about the best the party had since Eisenhower, so the spin docs worked with what they got.

This post is so baseless I am speechless.

[typomaniac]

This post is so baseless I am speechless.

You're hopeless. As I thought.

[avatar4321]

I don't know why I bother trying to discuss anything with a troll like you, but I guess my hope springs eternal.

Damn straight it was scripted. Most of the time that (nearly) every president spends with his mouth open is spent saying the words he's been coached to say. By his party's policy wonks, typically, not the trilateral commission.Not even close. He was a mediocre actor who played in mediocre movies - and, predictably, he did a mediocre job of being president. Sadly for the Republicans, he's about the best the party had since Eisenhower, so the spin docs worked with what they got.

What does it matter who wrote what Reagan said? (I happen to majorly disagree with you because Ive studied the administration and know that Reagan wrote and tweaked alot of his public statements).

Who wrote it is completely irrelevant to the point being made. So do you have a problem with what he said? If so deal with the substance and stop playing these insult games.

[typomaniac]

What does it matter who wrote what Reagan said? (I happen to majorly disagree with you because Ive studied the administration and know that Reagan wrote and tweaked alot of his public statements).

Who wrote it is completely irrelevant to the point being made.

The only point that I raised relating to this was: did Mr. Reagan BELIEVE what was written down (by him or someone else) and said by him? If you think he did, I'd be happy to hear your reasoning behind it.

So do you have a problem with what he said? If so deal with the substance and stop playing these insult games.

As I've said before, no. This wasn't meant to be an insult game, but a serious attempt to address glock's post. Like I'll ever try THAT again...

[gabosaurus]

American Presidents, Dem and GOP, are only as good as their advisers and script writers. Reagan was not called the "Teflon President" for nothing. He was responsible for all sorts of sh!t, but nothing stuck to him.

[Joe Steel]

If you despise the Constitution that much I suggest that you move to France.

What are you trying to say?

[Joe Steel]

Common sense is ridiculous now? If its so ridiculous why not refute rather than resort to petty name calling?

"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.

[glockmail]

What are you trying to say?

Do you need a spoon?

[avatar4321]

"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

President Reagan is in good company. Because the founders who established the Constitution previously wrote this declaration. They would be in complete agreement.

[glockmail]

"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.

FEDERALIST No. 60

The Same Subject Continued
(Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members)
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, February 26, 1788.

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:
WE HAVE seen, that an uncontrollable power over the elections to the federal government could not, without hazard, be committed to the State legislatures. Let us now see, what would be the danger on the other side; that is, from confiding the ultimate right of regulating its own elections to the Union itself. It is not pretended, that this right would ever be used for the exclusion of any State from its share in the representation. The interest of all would, in this respect at least, be the security of all. But it is alleged, that it might be employed in such a manner as to promote the election of some favorite class of men in exclusion of others, by confining the places of election to particular districts, and rendering it impracticable to the citizens at large to partake in the choice. Of all chimerical suppositions, this seems to be the most chimerical. On the one hand, no rational calculation of probabilities would lead us to imagine that the disposition which a conduct so violent and extraordinary would imply, could ever find its way into the national councils; and on the other, it may be concluded with certainty, that if so improper a spirit should ever gain admittance into them, it would display itself in a form altogether different and far more decisive.
The improbability of the attempt may be satisfactorily inferred from this single reflection, that it could never be made without causing an immediate revolt of the great body of the people, headed and directed by the State governments. It is not difficult to conceive that this characteristic right of freedom may, in certain turbulent and factious seasons, be violated, in respect to a particular class of citizens, by a victorious and overbearing majority; but that so fundamental a privilege, in a country so situated and enlightened, should be invaded to the prejudice of the great mass of the people, by the deliberate policy of the government, without occasioning a popular revolution, is altogether inconceivable and incredible.

[diuretic]

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” —Ronald Reagan

Anyone who depends absolutely on government for their security is - foolish. Reagan was right in that. It's been decided in the US courts that a police department can't be held liable for a crime committed against an individual person. The message is that you are responsible for our own security. Makes perfect sense to me.

Of course the fact that the police force exists in the first place does tend to afford more general security than if it didn't exist but since police officers can't be everywhere (and who in their right mind would want them to be everywhere anyway) it means that individuals have to look after themselves in whatever situation they find themselves in. They can, of course, call the police and if sufficient police resources are available they will get help, but it's a foolish citizen anywhere who thinks that the police are going to keep them safe all the time. It won't ever happen.