For years, so-called conservative political pundits and Republican establishment candidates have done everything they can to convince you that they are staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment. But one look at these people’s voting records and past statements shows how full of crap they really are.
But, but… the NRA, Glenn Beck, and the so-called conservative talk show hosts told me that the Republicans supported the 2nd amendment…
Time to bust a couple of bubbles and offend the sycophants who hang on every word that comes out of the mouths of talk show hosts like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, believing everything they say is somehow conservative gospel that can’t be questioned.
Republicans have Caused Nearly as Much Damage to our 2nd Amendment Rights as Democrats
The truth about many of the Republicans who have been written into the history books as pro-gun conservatives is that very few actually support the 2nd amendment. Oh, they talk a good game, and some of them may even be pro-gun, but pro-gun doesn’t always mean pro 2nd amendment. In fact, when some of these guys say they are pro-gun, it usually doesn’t extend very far past “sporting purposes.”
We must remember our history and what past so-called pro-gun Republicans have brought us.
Let’s start with someone who seems to be off limits; a president who has become the face of conservatism. You know; the guy who was once a Democrat until he became the savior of the Republican Party….
Ronald Reagan: The truth about Reagan’s Anti-Gun Agenda
Ok, here is where the people who believe everything they hear on The Glenn Beck and Mark Levin show start to lose it… “How dare you say anything about the great Conservative Ronald Reagan!”
Well, let’s take a look at the real Ronald Reagan and his record on guns.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
While the NRA likes to pretend the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was “the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history,” the facts don’t really support that claim.
On May 19, 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Sounds great until you realize the bill actually banned the sale of all full-auto firearms to civilians, which eventually opened the door to restricting civilian access to semiautomatic firearms.
Reagan Helped Push the Brady Bill & Mandatory Background Checks
Two years after he left office, Reagan helped push through one of the most significant attacks on the second amendment to be signed into law, the Brady Bill. In 1991, he wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, which helped galvanize Republican support for the bill. Without his efforts, the bill would have never passed
Helping to Ban Semi-Auto Rifles – or so-called “assault weapons.”
While this law was passed well after his time in office, Reagan played a critical role in pushing through the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. He used his power and influence as a former President to lobby Republican Congressmen and Senators into supporting the bill.
“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.”
Conveniently, Levin, Beck, and Limbaugh always seem to leave these facts out when talking about the so-called “great one.”
Richard Nixon: Another Anti-Gun Republican
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. “Guns are an abomination,” Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon confessed, “Free from fear of gun owners’ retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.”
In remarks recorded in the Oval Office on May 16, 1972, Nixon showed his hatred for the 2nd amendment.
“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”
Nixon said, “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”
George Bush Sr. – The first Disastrous Bush Presidency
Not to be outdone by his predecessor, Bush is responsible for banning more guns than any other President before him.
President George Bush, Sr., banned the import of so-called “assault weapons” in 1989, and promoted the nonsensical – and very unconstitutional- view that Americans should only be allowed to own firearms suitable for “sporting purposes.”
In March of 1989, Bush banned the import of foreign-made, semiautomatic assault rifles deemed not to have “a legitimate sporting use.” This helped pave the way for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
George W: Like Father like Son
When he ran for office in 2000, President George W. Bush campaigned on extending the Assault Weapons ban, which was first passed by his father in 1989 and then expanded under President Clinton in 1993.
While the bill never made it to his deck, Bush was praised by Congressional Democrats for vowing to reauthorize the 1994 assault-weapons ban. He stated that should congress reauthorize the bill, he would sign it and make it permanent.
Gun Control Measures that Bush Supported throughout his Political Career.
- Banning Importation of Large Magazines
- Gun Free Zones – Banning Guns within 300 ft. of Schools
- Changing Gun Ownership Age from 18 to 21
- Requiring Instant Background Checks at Gun Shows
- Requiring Trigger Locks
Those who believe in our Second Amendment rights need to pay close attention to what’s happening here. With one deciding vote on the Supreme Court being the only thing keeping the wolves at bay, this coming election could have dire consequences for gun owners.
President Donald Trump: The biggest attack on Gun Owners Yet!
On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump promised to abolish gun-free schools on his first day in office; HE NEVER DID! When presented with an opportunity to push national concealed carry into law, Trump rejected it. And on suppressors, Trump later said he didn’t “like them at all.”
Trump helped push through more gun control than Obama!
In February of 2018, Trump signaled his disdain for the second amendment when he told reporters we should ” take the guns first, go through due process second.”
In December 2018, we reported on how Trump announced the Bump stock ban; The sellouts at the NRA helped him push it through. 520,000 Americans were told they had 90 days to turn in their bump stocks or destroy them under the Trump rule.
On March 23, 2018, Trump signed into law an appropriations act that included the Fix NICS Act, a gun control measure that helped violate veterans and other Americans 2nd amendment rights. According to the Gun Owners of America, “The dirty little secret of NICS is that hundreds of thousands of people in the database are law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong, unless you count ‘service to your country’ and/or ‘speeding.’
In December if 2018, the GOA put our a press release condemning President Donald Trump’s inclusion Gun Confiscation Orders (sugar-coated as “red-flag laws”) in his Commission on School Safety Report. GOA’s executive director, Erich Pratt responded, “Sadly, the President is continuing with his ‘take the guns first, due process later’ rhetoric. The Gun Confiscation Orders are a method to confiscate one’s guns — without due process.
In June 2019, he followed up the attacks on the 2nd amendment by nominating Anti-Gun Advocate Chuck Canterbury to Head the ATF. Yet again the Q crowd yelled, it’s 4D chess man, just wait!
In August of 2019, Trump again called for expanding gun control and expanding Red Flag Laws. “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms,” Trump said. “And if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for ‘red flag’ laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.”
In September 2019, Trump’s DOJ Ordered Apple & Google To Hand Over Names of Users Of Gun Scope App.
Great article and an eye opener for sure. People need to know who these people really are, because they sure aren’t the Constitutionalists that they claim to be.
Let’s take the great Mark Levin. The guy leaves this crap out about Reagan because he worked for Reagan, helped Reagan push through loads of unconstitutional garbage, worked for the Department of Education, but no pretends he isn’t part of the Establishment. How do you work for Reagan and Bush and then claim to be an outsider?
Main reason I’m weary of Cruz is because of Levin and Beck’s support for him and their hit job against Trump. Not many people realize that Cruz is no outsider either. He was the architect in getting G.W. Bush elected by deceiving evangelical voters. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Cruz is a behind the scenes Bush guy!
Who is the only candidate that George Bush Jr, who cannot even speak out against Obama, Reid, or anyone else talk crap about? Ted Cruz that who. Do some research before you tell untruthful things. Ted Cruz has fought for and won second addments rights before the Supreme Court.
I never understood the weird obsession and the retelling of history by these radio idiots. Reagan was no conservative, and people like Levin who worked for the guy know it.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times, tripled the federal budget deficit, grew the hell out of government, gave amnesty to 3 million illegals, funneled weapons to Iran, and supported gun control. Exactly which of those things was conservative?
Levin, Beck, Limbaugh are a bunch of phonies. These are all the same guys who pretend to support people like Cruz but wind up brining us losers like Romney, McCain and Bush. It’s sad so many people fall for the same scam every four years.
I am convinced that these conservative talk show hosts don’t actually want a Republican to win. It’s bad for business. That’s why Glenn Beck is attacking Trump and saying he will vote for Hillary over him. It’s all about protecting business and keeping the 2 party power structure.
I’m no Trump fan, but these talk show hosts and the fake republicans who can’t hide their hatred for him are pretty telling. The more they trash him the more the make me want to vote for him just to break up the 2 party power structure.
Don’t forget that Levin and his boss Regan’s U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese were heavily involved in illegally selling arms to Iran. Seems Levin likes to bash Iran now but had no problem working with the people who were supplying the terrorists with weapons.
Isn’t it odd how all these people ended up on Fox News? Oliver North, Levin, etc. Same faces, now trying to say they are not part of the system they helped create.
Republican, Democrat, same thing they the middle against itself.
Democrat/Republican: Different cheeks; same ass!
It is true that some Republicans have, generally under pressure from a democratic legislature, taken actions that have restricted firearms ownership.
However, the positions of democrats are far more draconian and anti-second amendment. Moreover, the Republican Party in general has grown more conservative and more pro-gun, even as the Democrats have grown far more extreme and far more anti-gun.
Many Republicans, largely driven by governors and state legislatures, are firmly committed to firearms rights, and we can see the growing prevalence of concealed carry laws as an example. This has spread to congress, as evidenced by the blocking of 0bama’s anti-gun agenda and efforts to pass national concealed carry reciprocity, removing suppressors from the NFA, and other pro RKBA actions.
I do not trust a bandwagon jumper and foxhole convert to conservatism like Trump to defend the Second Amendment (he has supported the Assault Weapons Ban, after all, and argued for longer waiting periods) but I do trust Cruz or Rubio to do so.
One thing is absolutely certain: if democrats gain congress or the White House in November, our firearms rights are in grave jeopardy. They have already made their legislative intentions clear, and with so many potential replacements to the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, we cannot afford to allow democrats to win.
Exactly. Here’s an example from today’s news.
I’ll agree with you that Trump might not be the picture perfect conservative, but how the hell do people get fooled into thinking these other people are. The Reagan example in this article is perfect.
Isn’t it a little hypocritical for all the Reagan worshipers to now be bashing Trump? Reagan was no conservative, yet he was put on the mantle as the best conservative president of all time. Reagan was a Democrat who helped push abortion while Governor in California. Shit it was Reagan and his Bush buddies who are to blame for the and assault weapons ban and the Brady bill to begin with.
I do think Trump may have some “liberal” leanings. But I DON’T CARE THIS TIME. He is Nationalist who actually loves this country, will shut down the damn border, and talks a better gun game then any of the fakers on stage. That is good enough for me.
By the way anyone who believes Cruz is an actual gun person or hunter needs to be checked by a metal professional. Cruz is the biggest faker we have ever had, just watch the outtakes on Youtube from his campaign commercials, even his own family thinks the guy is bat shit crazy. Watch him coach his mom into saying shit she doesn’t want to say.
David Duke on Rense Radio Archives, Friday February 12, 2016 talks about who has been behind gun control since 1967. It might surprise you.
As for the actor Ronald Reagan,
I have wondered for a long time why he was shot. I recently saw a video of him arguing against the six million. Don’t know if it was before the shooting. Nixon is right that kids often get killed by the guns of their parents. That fact made me against guns until I became aware that guns are the only thing that keeps governments, ours included, from dropping the hammer of totalitarian oppression down on our heads.
Actually very few kids kill themselves with their parents guns. That is a myth perpetuated by the left. Look up the actually facts on the FBI stat site. The reality is, most people shot by firearms are people that SHOULD be shot, so firearms are doing their job.
FINALLY!! I’m so tired of people trying to tell me how we need another Reagan. I always wonder why people selectively remember what he did. I always thought that if Romney had actually won we most likely WOULD have had an “assault” rifle ban because he passed one in his state. All those rhino Republicans are just as bad as the demoncrats and the people are finally figuring that out. Thats why Trump is popular. And this is why the GOP is absolutely besides themselves right now. They want someone in there they can control, someone that is part of the establishment and plays the game. They have lost their base and they know it. So my guess is they will now pull out all the stops and do anything they can to get their guy in there including having all the shill conservative talk show hosts talk up one candidate. Just pay attention the next few weeks and see if all those posers don’t start talking favorably about one person. And if that fails they will just use some other disgusting tactics. Just like Romney had his lawyers change the RNC rules so Ron Paul delegates had no voice.
True the Republicans and Democrats work together for a common agenda.
I would like to start out by saying that we have to realize that our freedoms come from our creator, not the established laws, permissions, judgments,consensus,or opinions of man. It is our responsibility to preserve these freedoms as well as to educate our fellow citizens, as to the source of these non – negotiable freedoms. We must also remember that there are no known examples of governance, that had not eventually betrayed it’s constituency, or at least made an attempt to do so.
Simply put, our freedom, is “our” responsibility, and ours alone.
That’s why I call them RepubliCONS. Many of them are globalists.
In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma
In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.
I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”
Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.
If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)
The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”
The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.
It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”
Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.
In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.
Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..
And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”
“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;
The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”
Clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.
I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.
William Heino Sr