• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Supported the Mulford Act and Why? (1 Viewer)

sanman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
12,622
Reaction score
4,993
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What were the reasons behind the 1967 Mulford Act, and who supported it?
 
What were the reasons behind the 1967 Mulford Act, and who supported it?


Reagan did and lots of white liberals and black liberals and probably some racist whites. . It was a reaction to black panthers openly carrying weapons in public
 
What were the reasons behind the 1967 Mulford Act, and who supported it?

The acting out of the rights under the second amendment by black people scared Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association. So, the constitutional right of others to keep and bear arms was not a right, and still isn't a right unless the NRA says it is. We also see today that the Obama government can tell Republicans that they don't have the right to keep and bear arms at the Republican convention and the gun nut crowd and the NRA say it's alright.

Si=o, it;s never been about the rights of American citizens. It's always been about the agenda of the radical right.
 
The acting out of the rights under the second amendment by black people scared Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association. So, the constitutional right of others to keep and bear arms was not a right, and still isn't a right unless the NRA says it is. We also see today that the Obama government can tell Republicans that they don't have the right to keep and bear arms at the Republican convention and the gun nut crowd and the NRA say it's alright.

Si=o, it;s never been about the rights of American citizens. It's always been about the agenda of the radical right.

the Bannerrhoid movement-its not about stopping criminals with guns, its about bashing the NRA for not supporting left wing candidates
 
Do you oppose the mulford act?

I oppose any laws that prevent law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms. iF those panthers had clean records, the law was racist and wrong
 
The acting out of the rights under the second amendment by black people scared Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association. So, the constitutional right of others to keep and bear arms was not a right, and still isn't a right unless the NRA says it is. We also see today that the Obama government can tell Republicans that they don't have the right to keep and bear arms at the Republican convention and the gun nut crowd and the NRA say it's alright.

Si=o, it;s never been about the rights of American citizens. It's always been about the agenda of the radical right.

Pretty obtuse even for you jet
 
Pretty obtuse even for you jet

Nothing obtuse there Bret. I remember all of that very well: the panthers originally formed as a police watch dog group because, just like in south central L.A. at the time, blacks were being unnecessarily roughed up by the cops. So the panthers armed with rifles, followed black and white units all over Oakland and were present for stops and interaction with black citizens.

You can read about Reagan's participation here How Ronald Reagan learned to love gun control

You can also research it yourself and see that their's nothing obtuse going on. Nor is there anything obtuse about the way that the NRA and the radical right selectively use the second amendment and constitutional rights Republicans Want Guns In Schools But Not At Their National Convention | ThinkProgress
 
Nothing obtuse there Bret. I remember all of that very well: the panthers originally formed as a police watch dog group because, just like in south central L.A. at the time, blacks were being unnecessarily roughed up by the cops. So the panthers armed with rifles, followed black and white units all over Oakland and were present for stops and interaction with black citizens.

You can read about Reagan's participation here How Ronald Reagan learned to love gun control

You can also research it yourself and see that their's nothing obtuse going on. Nor is there anything obtuse about the way that the NRA and the radical right selectively use the second amendment and constitutional rights Republicans Want Guns In Schools But Not At Their National Convention | ThinkProgress

:roll:
 
The acting out of the rights under the second amendment by black people scared Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association. So, the constitutional right of others to keep and bear arms was not a right, and still isn't a right unless the NRA says it is. We also see today that the Obama government can tell Republicans that they don't have the right to keep and bear arms at the Republican convention and the gun nut crowd and the NRA say it's alright.

Si=o, it;s never been about the rights of American citizens. It's always been about the agenda of the radical right.

The NRA is your white whale.
 
What were the reasons behind the 1967 Mulford Act, and who supported it?
I posted this classic first pic in another thread recently, but it's also very appropriate here. I added a second for grins.

These guys in the picture (along with their associates) were giving the heebie-jeebies to Ronnie Reagan, the coppers (virtually all white), and white folk in general - in Oakland, California.

They would patrol their neighborhoods monitoring police activity, coining the term "copwatch".

So rather than let these guys walk around strapped, Mulford & Reagan et al pulled the plug on carry.


17_panthers_04.jpg

220px-Black-Panther-Party-armed-guards-in-street-shotguns.jpg
 
Last edited:

If you want to deal with truth Bret, you have to be able to handle it. There's nothing obtuse about factual information. Ronald Reagan and the right-wing only care about the constitution when it suits their agenda. I've shown you two proofs of that fact.
 
If you want to deal with truth Bret, you have to be able to handle it. There's nothing obtuse about factual information. Ronald Reagan and the right-wing only care about the constitution when it suits their agenda. I've shown you two proofs of that fact.

Of course you did.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066060981 said:
The NRA is your white whale.

No, the NRA is a right-wing lobbying institution that needs to be marginalized. They are a danger to the second amendment and a front group for the radical right-wing agenda in this country.

You should also remember, that peace is peace until war comes along.
 
I posted this classic first pic in another thread recently, but it's also very appropriate here. I added a second for grins.

These guys in the picture (along with their associates) were giving the heebie-jeebies to Ronnie Reagan, the coppers (virtually all white), and white folk in general - in Oakland, California.

They would patrol their neighborhoods monitoring police activity, coining the term "copwatch".

So rather than let these guys walk around strapped, Mulford & Reagan et al pulled the plug on carry.


View attachment 67203967

View attachment 67203968

It's the reason that one cannot carry a loaded gun in California unless there is a special permit for it.
 
No, the NRA is a right-wing lobbying institution that needs to be marginalized. They are a danger to the second amendment and a front group for the radical right-wing agenda in this country.

You should also remember, that peace is peace until war comes along.

this is the sort of crap we get from those who want the rest of the country to live under the stupid laws that People like Jet live under-because people like Jet allowed Democrats to pass such laws.

He argues that since the NRA opposes "sensible" gun laws (have you read the crap california has enacted) that will upset the sheeple.

Jet's just mad that he cannot own stuff many of us can and he wants to spread the misery. He also is a Hillary supporter and he hates the NRA for opposing her
 
Yep, and you're obviously running from it.

LOL and you are afraid to address my posts and you have the nerve to claim "BretJ is running" from something
 
Yep, and you're obviously running from it.

Pretty funny stuff. You are denigrating the supposed right wing for doing the very thing you rabidly support. For you information, I am not a member of the NRA nor do I support what Regan or the NRA did in this case. So tell, me, was Regan and the NRA right or wrong in your view?
 
Pretty funny stuff. You are denigrating the supposed right wing for doing the very thing you rabidly support. For you information, I am not a member of the NRA nor do I support what Regan or the NRA did in this case. So tell, me, was Regan and the NRA right or wrong in your view?

Well number one, you're failing to see the obvious contradiction between what Reagan and the NRA supported and what the right-wing and the NRA support now. Both darlings of the conservative movement, Reagan and the NRA voted against the right to carry when it came to the Black Panthers which flies in the face of what both the NRA and right-wing support today: except of course when it comes to the 2016 RNC...

It is astounding to me that you don't see the obvious contradictions. THAT was the point and it is fact as my sources clearly show. You're being a member or not of the NRA has nothing to do with the fact that you are denying what is clearly true.

Was the NRA and Reagan right in the Act? I think that they were. The problem however, and I'll say it once again, is the lack of consistency on the part of the NRA and the right-wing on this issue of the second amendment. NOW they scream when someone says it's a good idea for no one to carry concealed OR open, which is exactly what the Mumford Act employed by stating that one could not carry a loaded gun. You however must believe that the Black Panthers were right. YOU are also denying the fact that while the NRA and right-wing scream about the right to carry, yet they clearly roll over when big gummit says that they can't carry at the RNC.

The contradictions just show what a phony bunch the NRA and the pro gun crowd is. THAT is the truth you are avoiding.
 
Well number one, you're failing to see the obvious contradiction between what Reagan and the NRA supported and what the right-wing and the NRA support now. Both darlings of the conservative movement, Reagan and the NRA voted against the right to carry when it came to the Black Panthers which flies in the face of what both the NRA and right-wing support today: except of course when it comes to the 2016 RNC...

It is astounding to me that you don't see the obvious contradictions. THAT was the point and it is fact as my sources clearly show. You're being a member or not of the NRA has nothing to do with the fact that you are denying what is clearly true.

Was the NRA and Reagan right in the Act? I think that they were. The problem however, and I'll say it once again, is the lack of consistency on the part of the NRA and the right-wing on this issue of the second amendment. NOW they scream when someone says it's a good idea for no one to carry concealed OR open, which is exactly what the Mumford Act employed by stating that one could not carry a loaded gun. You however must believe that the Black Panthers were right. YOU are also denying the fact that while the NRA and right-wing scream about the right to carry, yet they clearly roll over when big gummit says that they can't carry at the RNC.

The contradictions just show what a phony bunch the NRA and the pro gun crowd is. THAT is the truth you are avoiding.

So....did they do the right thing or wrong thing regardless of contradictions? I think they did the wrong thing regardless. What about you?
 
So....did they do the right thing or wrong thing regardless of contradictions? I think they did the wrong thing regardless. What about you?

I answered your question fully in my reply Bret. Go back and read it.

"Regardless of the contradictions"...

The contradictions are the whole point.

You're avoiding the truth again.
 
I answered your question fully in my reply Bret. Go back and read it.

"Regardless of the contradictions"...

The contradictions are the whole point.

You're avoiding the truth again.

The truth is I think they are wrong in this instance. Pretty simple. On the other hand, I could argue that Democrats looking to kill or injure folks at the RNC convention with a firearm are more of a threat than Republicans looking to kill or injure folks at the RNC. All one has to do is look at Dallas.
 
The truth is I think they are wrong in this instance. Pretty simple. On the other hand, I could argue that Democrats looking to kill or injure folks at the RNC convention with a firearm are more of a threat than Republicans looking to kill or injure folks at the RNC. All one has to do is look at Dallas.

It's the contradictions Bret: are there contradictions - or not?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom