Ronald Reagan, the Gun Owner’s Champion

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012, at 8:00 PM

In September of 1975, Ronald Reagan, then two-time Governor of California, penned this column. (this one's a bit long, but worth the read if you're one of us). A man of conviction, "Uncle Ronnie" was true to these words before and during his eight year Presidency.

"Daily we read in the newspapers, or see or hear on the air, stories of death and crime and violence involving the use of guns. There are tales of robbery victims that are shot down in cold blood or executed "gangland style." There are stories of deranged parents killing their children or deranged children killing their parents.

There are reports of snipers, and now and then the headlines blurt out that an assassin has struck again, killing a prominent official or citizen. All of these stories involve the use of guns, or seem to..

As a result, there is growing clamor to outlaw guns, to ban guns, to confiscate guns in the name of public safety and public good. These demands come from people genuinely concerned about rising crime rates, persons such as Sheriff Peter Pitchess of Los Angeles, who says gun control is an idea whose time has come.

They come from people who see the outlawing of guns as a way of outlawing violence. And they come from those who see confiscation of weapons as one way of keeping the people under control.

Now I yield to no one in my concern about crime, and especially crimes of violence. As Governor of California for eight years, I struggled daily with that problem. I appointed judges who, to the best of my information, would be tough on criminals.

We approved legislation to make it more difficult for persons with records of crime or instability to purchase firearms illegally.

We worked to bring about swift and certain punishment for persons guilty of crimes of violence. We fought hard to reinstate the death sentence after our State Supreme Court outlawed it, and after the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit, we won.

Now however, the California court that sought eagerly to be the first to outlaw the death penalty is dragging its heels as it waits for the U.S. court to rule. The Chief Justice in California, whom I appointed with such high hopes, in this regard has disappointed many of us who looked to him to help again to make our streets, our shops, and our homes safe. I find it difficult to understand persons like President Ford's new Attorney General, Edward H. Levi, who would ban guns in areas with high rates of crime.

Mr. Levi is confused. He thinks that somehow banning guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals. New Yorkers who suffer under the Sullivan Act know better, they know that the Sullivan Act makes law abiding citizens sitting ducks for criminals who have no qualms about violating it in the process of killing, robbing and burglarizing.

Despite this, Mr. Levi apparently thinks that criminals will be willing to give up their guns if he makes carrying them against the law. What naivity! Mightn't be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons, and put the word out to the underworld that it is no longer totally safe to rob and murder?

Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection. No one knows how many crimes are committed because the criminal knows he has a soft touch

Nobody knows how many stores have been let alone because the criminals knew it was guarded by a man with a gun, and manned by a proprietor who knew how to use a gun. Criminals are not dissuaded by soft words, soft judges or easy laws. They are dissuaded by fear and they are prevented from repeating their crimes by death or incarceration.

In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea. We are never going to prevent murder, we are never going to eliminate crime, we are never going to end violent action by the criminals and the crazies------with or without guns.

True, guns are a means for committing murder and other crimes, but they are not an essential means. The Los Angeles Slasher of last winter killed nine men without using a gun. People kill with knives and clubs, yet we have not talked about outlawing them. Poisons are easy to come by for the silent killer.

The automobile is the greatest peacetime killer in history. There is no talk of banning the auto. With the auto, we have cracked down on drunken drivers and on reckless drivers. We need also to crack down on people who use guns carelessly or with criminal intent.

I believe criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime, should be given mandatory sentences with no opportunity for parole. That would put the burden where it belongs------on the criminal, not on the law abiding citizen.

Let's not kid ourselves about what the purpose of prison should be: It should be to remove criminals from circulation so that they cannot prey upon society. Punishment for deterrent purposes, also plays a part. "Rehabilitation", as many experts, including California Attorney General Evelle Younger, have discovered, is not a very good reason for imprisoning people. People don't rehabilitate very well in prison.

There is an old saying that slaves remain slaves while free men set themselves free. It is true with rehabilitation also. Criminals rehabilitate themselves, there is little you and I can do about it.

But back to the purpose of this article, which, hopefully, is to make the case against gun control.

The starting point must be the Constitution, because above all, we are a nation of laws, and the foundation of our laws, or lack of same, is the Constitution.

It is amazing to me how so many people pay lip service to the Constitution, yet set out to twist and distort it when it stands in the way of things they think ought to be done or laws they believe ought to be passed. It is also amazing to me how often our courts do the same thing.

The Second Amendment is clear, or ought to be. It appears to leave little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate. It reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are those who say that, since we have no militia, the Amendment no longer applies, they would just ignore it. Others say nuclear weapons have made the right to keep and bear arms irrelevant, since arms are of little use against weapons of such terrible destructive power.

We may not have a well regulated militia, but it does not mean we shouldn't be prepared to have one, the day could easily come when we'll need one.

There is little doubt that the founding fathers thought they should have this right, and for a very specific reason: They distrusted government.

All of the first TEN amendments make that clear. Each of them specifies an area where the individual must be protected from the government. The founding fathers had seen, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, what a despotic government can do to its own people. Indeed, every American should read the Declaration of Independence before he reads the Constitution, and he will see that the Constitution aims at preventing a recurrence of the way George III's government treated the colonies.

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, even 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.

When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier for the rulers to enforce their will upon the ruled.

Now, I believe our leaders are good and well meaning people. I do not believe they have any desire to impose a dictatorship upon us, but this does not mean that such will always be the case. A nation rent internally, as ours has been in recent years, is always ripe for "a man on a white horse." A deterrent to that man, or to ANY man seeking unlawful power, is the knowledge that those who oppose him are not helpless.

The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is SERVANT and not MASTER of the governed.

When the British forgot that, they got a revolution, and as a result, we Americans got a Constitution. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.

I am not ready to take that risk. I believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms must NOT be infringed, if America is to survive.

Ronald Reagan---------Sept, 1975

"You betcha' Boss!......................................let 'em TRY!"

Comments

View 35 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Go Zook!

-- Posted by KH Gal on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 8:55 PM
Reagan was MY favorite!

-- Posted by jessiemiller on Sun, Jan 22, 2012, at 8:59 PM
Well Mike, he does have one point. Under Reagan, 3 million illegals were given amnesty. That is historical fact.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:17 AM
I will let Pat know he might be able to find one of those AK-47's but at 500 a pop.... I don't think its anything he really needs at this time :)

Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegals wow I didn't know that.. Wasn't Bush putting something in place for illegals concerning amnesty before he left office? Not sure about that, but it seems like I read something somewhere about that.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:27 AM
Yes Bush had a plan, but it never got off the ground.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:30 AM
So is that what Obama is doing wanting to carry over something Bush put in place or got started on?

Is Obama's different then what Bush had in mine?

I'm asking because I don't know and I'm not trying to stir up the pot like someone on here likes to accuse me of doing from time to time.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:45 AM
Buckshot, might I suggest you read the history of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The whole history, including the opposition of the US Chamber of Commerce to employer sanctions and the loophole concerning subcontractors. I'm including this link since it is Reagan's statement on signing the bill. Strange thing, he makes no mention of any means to secure our borders.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/110686b.htm

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:15 AM
MsM, here is the history of the attempted 2007 Immigration Reform Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:28 AM
Same old same old. God forbid you read Reagan's own words.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:30 AM
Thank You Roy very interesting. Bush was upset with congress that it didn't pass. Would Bush be labeled a RINO?

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 10:37 AM
How do we stop illegals from coming in air planes?

There will always be someone who will fly them here and let them off somewhere in the boonies.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 11:48 AM
I'll say this much about Uncle Ronnie's time in office.

We had a national debt of less than 1 trillion when he took office, and when he left it was almost 2 trillion.

For the first time in our history, we went to foreign governments and banks to borrow money.

You can scream all you want about how the dems kept spending, but the fact is, the tax cuts (trickle down economics) were unfunded and we spent like crazy on Star Wars, as it was called. Government spending created tons of jobs in the private sector. No, wait. That's impossible, or so I hear. I know I worked for a defense sub-contractor and made great money. But that's impossible because the government doesn't create jobs.

Of course I made great money because the government had no problem paying $2500 a copy for a circuit board worth about $500. Of course the company I worked for made tons of money, but at least they were willing to share it with those who provided the labor.

Of course, I know I'll be dismissed as a ranting unhappy LIBERAL.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 2:02 PM
CJW

I asked a couple sincere questions was Bush considered a RINO and how do we stop illegals from coming here in air planes and you attack me with this

MsM,

Arguing with swine or something like that... Just not going to bother... I have learned that when it comes to your emotional responses NOTHING logical or sensible will sway you or slow your fingers on the keyboard, it seems clear thought out responses only serve to irritate you and drive you to even MORE emotional tirades, insults, and snide comments meant to inflame the argument vice adding sincere adult input.

Brenda if your reading did I deserve to be attacked like I just was........... for asking 2 questions? Was I off on a tirade, insulting and making snide remarks?

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 2:15 PM
CJW I don't recall directing my questions to you in the first place I was talking to Zook, you know the one that wrote this blog.

It seems to me you don't want bygones to be bygones, your trying to bring attacks up all over again.

I'm not sure what your agenda is.

You are correct I thought you were somebody else and then I realized your a friend of a friend of mine and then I told you.

I know who you are.

If I see you out and about I will say Hi to you.

To say I said nasty name to you, If I did sorry I offended you.

Just to refresh my memory please tell me what those nasty names were? It had to have been my evil twin sister that called you those names!

Now I must get back to my mop bucket, evil twin sister keeps me busy. She tries to keep me off the computer so she can hog it up.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 2:56 PM
Your memory is not correct. I have never called you stupid or any other name. In fact I have never called anyone stupid in my lifetime. Those that know me can vouch for that. I don't cuss either and those that know me know that too.

Today none of my comments were even for you, when I am talking to someone I always start my comment with their screen name first, unless its the blogger who I am responding to. so why did you have to butt in and leave your nasty comment?

Here's what you can do don't talk to me on here.

If you see a comment with my name at the bottom of it, don't read it, just skip over it as if it was pooooof gone !

I don't expect anything from you dear boy... You just keep leaving your snarly comments and I will leave mine. I will ignore yours, you ignore mine.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 3:21 PM
When someone writes a blog and I leave a comment I don't usually put their name. I figure they know I am talking to them.

When someone leaves a comment and I want to say something back about that comment I will put their name first so they know I am directing my comment at them. Those questions were for Mike and looking at the comments left on the blog I am not the only one who doesn't say Mikes name when talking to him.

As far as calling you stupid I stand by what I said "I didn't call you stupid" It's not in my vocabulary. I have never called anyone stupid. If you were called that name then it came from someone else.

Accusing me of something and not proving it doesn't mean what your saying is true either..

I hope this will put an end to this and please don't keep bringing it up on mikes blog. I feel it is taking his blog way off topic.

Just ignore my comments and I will ignore yours.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 4:32 PM
Please Stop! Both of you. Thank you. It really does not matter who started what with foolishness like this. If I had a nickel for every time someone on here commented "I will not respond to you again" or something of that line I would be a very rich women. Why even waste the finger energy to get that one last comment in. Reminds me of little kids having to get the last word in. Enough already. I have not commented to anything in a very long time but really this last week has been just crazy for the arguing, nasty, I am the only one with the right answer kind of silliness. Let me be clear, not nasty vulgar which is a big no-no but just mean nasty; your comment can not be right because it's not mine kind of mentality. Please, I ask you Stop Everyone. Just stop and think a minute of whether the shoe fits or not. Otherwise, I thank you for your sharing your varying of opinions in a nice civil manner. I apoligize to the owner of this blog and the direction your story has taken but this seems to be the latest of battlegrounds so to speak.

-- Posted by Brenda Fincher Publisher MHNews on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 4:35 PM
Thank You Brenda

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 5:18 PM
One last item. As Mike likes to point out, the man in the oval office has that veto stamp to stop runaway spending. Ronnie didn't seem to use it.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 6:37 PM
I fail to follow your logic Buckshot. Fact 1 National debt at the beginning of Reagan's terms in office, just under 1 trillion.

Fact 2 At the end of Reagan's terms in office the national debt stood at just shy of 2 trillion dollars. The only thing he could have paid down was debt in excess of 2 trillion dollars, and if that's the case, he deficit spent even more than what I brought up.

So which is it?

CJW, I understand what you wrote. My question is, is it in reference to hiring more ICE agents to insure that companies aren't hiring illegals and thereby open up jobs for American citizens? If as has been said, illegals don't pay taxes and a drag on society, then driving them out out jobs that should go to American citizens would seem to be a good thing. More employed American citizens would seem to imply more taxpayers contributing. Am I wrong?

Am I wrong to assume that governments job is to protect American citizens? If it is, then isn't the proper role of government to insure that illegals aren't depriving American citizens of jobs?

I really do try and be civil. If you or Buckshot find any part of this comment rude or offensive, please point that out to me, as far as terms used, etc.

Roy

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 6:59 PM
Buckshot, I was simply pointing out that Reagan wasn't the end all be all that he seems to be made out to be.

On a side note, historically, for some reason since Reagan, all Presidents have seem to manage to double the national debt if they served 2 terms.

I liked Reagan, I just don't worship him. Carter was a good man, just a lousy President. Reagan lost many points with me for selling arms to Iran.

Bush 1 was basically a decent President. Clinton had the morals of an alley cat, but in the end, after taking a more centralist position and working with Newt and crew, ended on a decent note. Bush 2, no comment that can be allowed here. Obama, I think he started off a basically good man with some very idealistic ideas. History may show him to be in the same category as Carter. For some reason you seem to think I have a very high opinion of Obama, Mike knows otherwise, as do others. I do have a very low opinion of many parts of the private sector, and with good reason. The rampant hiring of illegals is one of them, and that's why I support more ICE agents to enforce the current laws when it comes to employment. Like I said before, I think it would be a great idea to hire strictly returning vets for these jobs, as I see them as most deserving and least likely to take a bribe. You never did answer my logic behind hiring them did you?

In case you might have missed it on some other blogs, here goes.

American oil for Americans

American refined gas for Americans

American refined diesel for Americans

American refined jet fuel for Americans

American jobs for American citizens

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:15 PM
Well CJW, I do recall you post as to working in the fields. For some reason in the early 60's I got a different reception, possibly because I worked with legal guest workers.(Braceros)

As far as teachers, we need to hire less administrators and put more resources in the classroom where they are needed.

In my opinion, the very sad and sorry fact is that it will take many more government agents and HUGE fines to get the illegals out of the workforce.

Taking away the benefits and the jobs will make a big impact on the number of illegals here.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:31 PM
:)

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Jan 23, 2012, at 9:48 PM
Interesting scenario you have for the future of the USA bazookaman. The way I see your plan is:

1. Implement an isolationist doctrine.

2. All incumbents thrown out of office ASAP and replaced with newbies.

3. (My Assumption) Term limits for federal senators and congress members and possibly all elected officials country-wide.

4. (My Assumption) Cut the military by 1/3 or greater. Rationale...we won't need a 1.5 million member military to guard are borders.

5. Institute the Draft. (My Assumption) Slowly over the next 5-15 years we rid ourselves of the all volunteer force and replace it with draftees.

Boazookaman, I don't want to put words in your mouth but that is what I see as your stand. I'm sure you have many other proposed solutions to fix the problems we face now and in the future. The reason I bring this up? It would made for a really interesting blog post.

-- Posted by bondyweb on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 11:30 AM
Well all, since my post from this morning was deleted, I'll give it another try, sort of.

Mike, first, putting armed active duty military on our borders runs into posse comitatus act issues. Second, using armed military to raid businesses looking for illegal workers? Come on Mike. Active duty military do not qualify as federal employees, at least in the classical sense. Currently ICE has about 20,000 employees stationed in the USA and 57 other countries. 20,000 can't do the job even if all of them were in the USA.

The reason the Federal government is suing states like Az. is that they are passing state laws in regards to Federal issues. This is a no-no. If the Federal government isn't doing enough to enforce existing laws, the new elected federal officials are needed.

To grasp the enormity of the situation, assuming 3 agents per business, only 6000 businesses can be checked at one time, and that is only if every agent is called back from other countries and off our borders. That isn't going to work. Right here in Idaho, I doubt there are 100 agents available to investigate employers and pickup illegals from various jails and prisons. Ridding this country of illegals is going to require an enormous work force, no way around it.

It's like when we talk about reducing the deficit, eliminating foreign aid off all kinds would only reduce deficit spending 3%.

History has shown that businesses will not police themselves when it comes to hiring illegals, they need to be actively policed. In order to do that, you need people, and lots of them, at least in the short term.

I'm open to any other Constitutional suggestions.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 1:26 PM
Buckshot, did you read how thinly stretched the ICE is?

Given Sheriff Joe's history of shall we call it disregard for the enforcement of even local laws, local law enforcement doesn't enthuse me. On the same note, did you see the story from I believe Alabama, where the local LEA detained a worker and a company official for 2 different foreign automakers who have plants down there because they couldn't produce what the locals considered acceptable documents? The state is now reconsidering it's position on local LEA trying to enforce Federal Immigration laws. The people that were detained, one German and one either Japanese or Korean were none too happy about their treatment. As Mike would say, I really wouldn't like to see a LEA on every street corner demanding your documents.

I guess my whole point is that in many areas, if your not white or if you speak with an accent, LEA feels justified in demanding your documents, even if they don't know what documents are acceptable.

Cripes, jobs are few and far between as it is, just think if the Germans and the Japanese and the Koreans decided to pull up stakes over how their corporate officials are treated.

There are a whole bunch of issues that need to be considered before you turn the likes of Sheriff Joe or those LEA's in Alabama loose.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 6:12 PM
WHAT GOES AROUND........ COMES AROUND....IT'S WHO GETS HURT IN THE MEAN TIME.......Guess what,, those people did nothing wrong and now they have arrest records......is that FAIR better still is it RIGHT?????

-- Posted by lamont on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 6:28 PM
Buckshot, I know you don't like my blogs, but seriously, you may want to look at the latest. Absolutely nothing political about it, just me.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Tue, Jan 24, 2012, at 8:11 PM
I GOT STOPPED LAST FRIDAY FOR SNOW ON MY BACK WINDOW.....THAT WAS A JOKE FELL OF THE TOP AND WAS SITTING ON THE SPARE.....ANYHOW THE COP GETS ALL INFO SAYS I AM GIVING YOU A WARNING AND THEN ASKS HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN MTN HOME......WELL I TELL HIM AND THEN I THOUGHT ABOUT IT.....SO I CALL AND FIND OUT PROCEDURE......UNLESS YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE AND REGISTRATION OR PLATES DONT MATCH THEY SHOULD NOT BE ASKING THAT QUESTION........SO MY QUSETION TO THE BLOG IS HAS ANYBODY ELSE BEEN ASKED????????hello

-- Posted by lamont on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 9:13 AM
Deal!

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 12:32 PM
THANKYOU BUCKSHOT.......I DONT FEEL PICKED ON......I WANT THEM TO STICK TO THE RULES AND REGS NOT SOME PERSONAL GARBAGE......AGAIN YOU WERE STOPPED FOR NO REASON THAT MAKES COMMON SENSE. SOME MIGHT CALL THAT ABUSE OF POWER......THAT IS THE IMPLICATION ANYHOW.....IN MY OPINION.....DID HE ASK YOU HOW LONG YOU LIVED HERE????????????? they get on my nerves with there garbage.....latter,,,,,,,, dont forget to clean your license plate....smile

-- Posted by lamont on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM
AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by lamont on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 6:44 PM
If you are ever follow by a marked car, DO NOT pull over and and ask why they are following you. THEY WILL FIND A REASON.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Jan 27, 2012, at 6:15 AM
I got pulled over for changing too many lanes too soon. When he saw I wasn't who he thought I was he just said leave. Of course I look suspicious so you can't blame the officer.

-- Posted by skeeter on Fri, Jan 27, 2012, at 6:28 AM
I AM SURE US RETIREE'S ARE SUSPICIOUS......WE ARE LIVING TOO LONG......ISNT THAT SUSPICIOUS??????

-- Posted by lamont on Fri, Jan 27, 2012, at 3:42 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register