text: Guns and Ammo Magazine ^ | September 1975 | Ronald W. reagan
  Posted on 06/21/2006 8:27:22 AM PDT by tcostell
  In our September 1975 issue, Ronald Reagan, then two-time Governer of California, penned this column. A man of conviction, Ronaldus Magnus was true to these words before and during his eight-year presidency.
  (Excerpt) Read more at gunsandammomag.com ...
  KEYWORDS: banglist; ronaldusmagnus
  Didn't Reagan support the Brady bill some time later?
  No. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was signed by Clinton in 1994. Reagan signed the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act that modified the Gun Control Act of 1968. While it made somethings easier, like transferring long guns across State lines, and outlawed other things, like tracking ammo purchases, it did hit us with a couple of hidden "poison pills" like the '86 limit on machine gun transfers.
  Considering none of the Federal gun laws pass a Constitutional smell test, by anyone other than gun grabbing moonbats, one good SCOTUS case could clear the slate repealing everything back to the onerous National Firearms Act of 1934.
  41 posted on 01/19/2007 6:42:52 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
  "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."
  42 posted on 01/19/2007 6:45:03 AM PST by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
  I'm ready for the old "heave ho!" How about you?
  43 posted on 01/19/2007 7:19:45 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
  With the Republicans being "punished" gun control forces are back up off the floor, re-energized and ready to go.
  44 posted on 01/19/2007 7:25:30 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
  I think it is inevitable.
  45 posted on 01/19/2007 7:48:30 AM PST by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
  Gun confiscation during a natural disaster is one thing. Gun confiscation for no reason is another. If the dems suddenly banned guns for no justifiable reason, our troops probably wouldn't do go through with it. They aren't the dumb idiots the RATs take them for.
  46 posted on 01/20/2007 7:23:10 AM PST by RWB Patriot
  ammo dump and gun store delivered right to your home
  47 posted on 01/20/2007 7:31:34 AM PST by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
  CA's 'law' is even worse. Certain semi-auto firearms supposedly cannot be sold - period. When you die they are to be confiscated by the State.
  They can't be sold to another person in California. They can be sold to someone outside of California. If you fail to sell the firearm to someone outside California before you die, it will be confiscated and probably destroyed. Better to find a new home for a good firearm and recover the value of the asset for yourself or your estate.
  48 posted on 01/20/2007 7:36:47 AM PST by Myrddin
  Gun confiscation during a natural disaster is one thing.
  natural disasters are the times one would really need their firearms.....look at Katrina.
  49 posted on 06/29/2010 9:03:49 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
  I was referring to the military following an order to confiscate guns.
  50 posted on 06/29/2010 11:52:26 AM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")