Wait. The “revelation” that disgraced Republican president Richard Nixon wanted to ban handguns is supposed to convince conservatives that it’s OK to ban guns? I don’t think so. Lest we forget, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan set the Golden State down the path to draconian gun control. As CIC, Ronnie elevated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to federal agency status. Reagan supported the Brady Bill. And yet, magically, Americans from all sides of the political spectrum continue to cherish their right to keep and bear arms—regardless of politicians’ willingness to throw that right under the proverbial bus. And even if a majority does want to ditch firearms freedom, it’s protected by the U.S. Constitution. FWIW.

36 Responses to OMG! Nixon Wanted to Ban Handguns! OMG!

    • The thing with Nixon’s drug war was that he recognized it needed two sides: he had roughly equal funding for enforcement and for treatment. It was sown to work. But then subsequent administrations found that the public didn’t have much sympathy for drug users, and treatment slowly got cut, and the focus shifted to enforcement, because voters responded to “tough on crime”.

      But for a successful drug policy, treatment is imperative. The original widespread support for having a drug prohibition is not because uptight killjoys want to stop kids from getting buzzed, but because the effects of certain highly addictive, damaging drugs (H, coke, meth, etc) is devastating to the addicts and their families – the same people who could really use treatment.

  1. I bet that guys book on how to speak like B.O. only has these words “learn to read a teleprompter”.

    Who cares if Nixon was a republican or a democrat, he was a crook and nothing more.

    • don’t forget expansion of government-funded health care. Barry-O succeeded where Tricky Dick and Slick Willie both failed.

  2. If you want to be taken seriously you must be careful with language. The constitution does not guarantee firearms freedom. Firearms freedom is a slogan. The constitution’s language is more nuanced. The amendment you appear to rely on uses also the words “well regulated” and regulation has been found constitutional by your supreme court. Am I alone in finding your whiney absolutism somewhat tedious? Do you not see that you have a problem? Can you not accept that rights also come with responsibilities? Do you intend ever to propose anything constructive or will it be forever only this perpetual bleat of victimisation?

    • Go do some research on the meaning of “well-regulated” from the time the document was written, and then get back to us. I can guarantee you can find some right here on this very site, but I’m not doing it for you, because you don’t learn anything that way. Here’s a hint to start you out: it did not mean what you so clearly assume it did.

    • 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.
      Thats the Second Amendment, now lets break it down.
      1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
      A militia is nothing more than ordinary citizens, armed and organized.
      Remember that our Founding Fathers had defined a State being a sovereign entity United with other States by a Federal government.
      2.The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
      A very important piece of punctuation is the comma. This separates two individual thoughts. The second thought begins with “The right of the people” A right has defined by the founding fathers is an unalienable right endowed upon us by our creator. “We the people” is well just that the people.
      Continuing on with the second thought, it says to keep AND bear arms. In this instance “bear” is being used as a verb and when defined as a verb it means “to hold” which means we have to right to own firearms and hold them which also has the implied meaning if you can hold it you can use it.
      and finally “Shall not be infringed” which means that the government can not take the right away.
      So in plain english the ordinary citizens being armed in an organized way is need to keep the State free, The people have the unalienable right to own,hold, and use the firearms in protection of the free state and the free people.
      Also another interesting point the Second Amendment is the only in the bill of rights that the Founding Fathers felt the need to state what the purpose of that right was intended for.

    • The word regulated as used in the Second Amendment means drilled, i.e., the ability to execute the Prussian Manual of Arms as taught by Baron von Steuben.

      Here is a Facimile of the “Regulation” issued in 1794:

      http://www.amazon.com/Baron-Steubens-Revolutionary-Drill-Manual/dp/0486249344

      Go read it, and learn what the founders meant by regulation. If you didn’t have arms it would be impossible to be “well regulated” when you were called to the colors.

    • except that if you go through state constitutions written on or about that time, its pretty clear that it grants an individual right to bear arms. Many are written much more clearly.

      I personally like this one from the 1818 Connecticut constitution:

      Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

      Or this one from Pennsylvania:

      Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
      1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

      What is even more interesting in my mind is how this notion was incorporated into Western state constitutions later, for example Washington State in 1889:

      Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

      the historical record I think is definitively clear on this. The individual has the right to bear arms for self defense, that should really never have been in doubt.

      the real question, is what restrictions are “reasonable” and what the burden of proof is on the state to restrict it.

      http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

      • I would add the Virginia Constitution to the list. Article I, Section 13 from the Virginia Bill of Rights was written by James Madison and offers a fuller explanation of the Founding Fathers’ views on the right to bear arms.

        “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “

  3. Some were afraid of a Romney presidency, because “only Nixon could go to China.” This is someone trying to actually use Nixon, and I find that somewhat comical.

  4. Despite the propaganda, Nixon was not a “conservative.” He was a solid eastern establishment Republican who had more to do with creating the modern welfare state than did LBJ. If NIxon were alive today, he would be Lincoln Chafee.

    • Please, Nixon wasn’t neithre a Jew or an Irish Catholic. He was an anti-communist internationalist long before neocons existed. It went along with being an eastern establishment Republican.

      • Being a neocon is not dependent upon race or religion. Nixon increased the size of government (see Environmental Protection Agency) and was a firearms Prohibitionist.

        • You don’t know what a neo-con is, or more properly was. A neo-con was Democrat, primarily an Irish Catholic or Jewish former Democrat, who rejected the New Deal and accomodationist policy visa via the Soviet Union. Francis Fukayama was last true neo-con. You can see his views in his “The End of History and the Last Man. Obviously, history didn’t end. There are no more neo-cons because the Soviet is no more. Neo-con are generally not pro-gun control as you suppose or for expanding the government. Your use of the term was coined by Pat Buchanan to mean Jew or supporter Israel who was a Republican. It is now a code word used by many traditional anti-Semites.

          Once again I have to say it is better to remain silent and have people thing you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

        • Yup.

          Neocons are essentially the old anticommunist wing of the Democrat party. They are distinct from the ‘Realist’ faction of the Republican party, although they often get lumped together.

      • I don’t care what some modern internet dictionary says. I was in college when the neo-Conservative movement got off the ground. As far as Nixon goes you should bone up on history and read an actually book on the Kitchen Debates and then tell me that NIxon was a neo-con. He was a Rockefeller Republican.

        I guess as far as you are concerned if it’s on the internet it must be true. Tell me are you a millenial?

        • I doubt there is any source of information that you would acknowledge unless it agrees with your opinions. Then you try to build your credibility based on your age and education. Is that the best you can do old-timer? I’m disappointed since I thought you could do better, given your previous diatribe.

  5. Did anyone else hear that this is from New York and think, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday night!” Please, this guy’s faking the tone of their fake news reports.

    But to the point, I worship no politician. I don’t care what Nixon claimed to be. He wanted to be a tyrant and did as much as he could to act like one. The fact that he got torn down eventually shows both the strengths and weaknesses of our system.

  6. “its not something he said 15 years after his presidency”… ummm correct. it is something he said after a guard was shock and it was a quick say something hasty comment.

    • It would be if his ideas or image still had influence on conservatives. I’m doubtful about that proposition. I think that’s true of Reagan, but not of Nixon.

  7. Anyone bother to notice how he said “good republicans” support guns for all? I was a little kid when Tricky Dick was President. I, later in school came to learn that RMN was impeached…….somehow I honestly believe that this “tiny, little ol” fact removes Mr. Nixon from the “good” list……….just sayin’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *