.
Feedback

President Ronald Reagan on Gun Control

The 40th President weighs in.

Nationwide focus this week is on what President Obama had to say Wednesday about gun-control (and in New York on the passage of Governor Cuomo’s gun-control bill). But I'd like to look back for a moment on an earlier time, the time of President Ronald Reagan.  

It’s natural that as the debate on gun control moves forward, folks will pick up this quote or that—a sound bite here or there—and use it to buttress their position. I’ve seen this happen with the words of Ronald Reagan who, as President, was of course shot and almost killed in an assassination attempt.

“Those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun-controllers,” is one quote that is getting a lot of attention today. But there was another quote, one we don’t hear as much, which he made as Governor of California:

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”  

As folks parse and grapple with President Obama’s words this week, it might behoove us to consider President Reagan’s. Rather than lining up behind one of the above quotes or the other, is it possible to see them both as true?  

It’s hard to disagree with President Reagan’s statement that those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. Fazed means disturbed or disconcerted. Those who seek to inflict harm are by definition disturbed, undeniably disconcerted. The question is: Should they be allowed to be legally walking the streets of our cities and towns with loaded weapons? The Second Amendment notwithstanding, Ronald Reagan’s answer to that question—“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons”—bears consideration:

It’s true that President Reagan’s position on gun-control shifted a few times. But in 1991 he decisively, passionately and eloquently threw his support behind the Brady Bill, requiring background checks and a seven day waiting period for handgun purchase. In an Op-Ed piece published in the New York Times looking back on the assassination attempt he survived, the former president said: 

“This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now—the Brady bill—had been law back in 1981... If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” 

Around the same time, at a gathering at George Washington University marking the 10th anniversary of the attempt on his life, he was quoted as saying:   

“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns." 

Update on Initiatives

Back in Newtown, CT, scene of the latest massacre, folks have created Sandy Hook Promise, a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging and supporting “common sense solutions that make their communities and our country safer from acts of violence like that which occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December, 14, 2012.” 

Thomas Bittman, co-founder of the group, embraced his entire community when he said “The middle ground, and the answers, I actually think are going to come from gun owners themselves." Indeed, the latest poll from Pew Research Center  does indeed show support for reasonable controls from gun owners and non-owners alike. Also in Newtown, the mother of the youngest victim, Noah Pozner—whose body was riddled with eleven bullets—is expressing her own very personal views. 

Let’s continue to pay attention to the voices of Newtown, as sound bites vie for our attention. A soon-to-be released study from this week’s Johns Hopkins University symposium on gun violence will go a long way in helping us get past these sound bites toward newly helpful policy. More on that next week.

In the meantime please contact the White House to express your support for the new gun control measures. Here’s the link:  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence#share

Please sign the petitions at Demand A Plan, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, One Million Moms for Gun Control, We The People, and Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Please read my previous posts on gun control: Repairing the World: The Truth About Ending Gun Violence Now (December 20);  There is No God: Continuing Thoughts on Gun Control (December 27); Sabbath to Stop Gun Violence (January 3); and Christina’s Letter: More Thoughts on Gun Violence (January 10). 

Your comments are welcome.

Rabbi Mark Sameth is the spiritual leader of Joyful Judaism: Pleasantville Community Synagogue an inclusive, progressive synagogue – with members from twenty towns, villages and cities all across Westchester and “A Hebrew School Your Kids Can Love.” Read The New York Times article. Follow Rabbi Mark on Twitter . Weekly meditation at the synagogue every Saturday morning at 9 am is open to the public; everyone – without exception - is welcome and warmly invited. OUR MEMBERSHIP DRIVE IS ON. See “Top Ten Reasons to Join PCS” - as well as service times and events - at www.ShalomPCS.com.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 18, 2013 at 06:06 am
Thanks, Jon - you raise important considerations and in a calm, dispassionate way, which IRead More appreciate. As for alternative funding mechanisms, in hindsight I believe they should have been examined and addressed this earlier this year had the decision-making been opened up to the public in a completely bidirectional manner much earlier in this year's budget cycle. A real take-away from this situation, in my opinion, is that we in the community were not given the opportunity to sit down together with sharpened pencils in a public forum and allowed to vet and actually challenge the Administration's assumptions in order to arrive at budget alternatives with the Administration and Board. The comparison you make with Washington is indeed apt in that it reflects the way decisions have slid back to being made in a vacuum and handed down to the voters instead of in a democratic fashion based on budget-to-actuals instead of budget-to-budget figures combined with the practice of over-reserving for expense items while under-estimating revenues. Although the Board did indeed reach out to me and 2 others asking for suggestions, when we re-iterated our request for an open meeting format to include other financially savvy community members, these requests were consistently ignored. Which is why we are in the current position we are in having to decide on Tues on a tax levy cap-busting budget requiring 60% super-majority. Which the public will decide, of course, and we will live with the consequences: either it passes, or the Board and Administration will be forced to rein in the excesses. And much as I love open debate, I restate that online posting leaves does leave a lot to be desired. Let's continue to share, but not face-to-face. Respectfully - Sonny
Jon Satran May 18, 2013 at 12:16 am
Sonny, I like the idea of brainstorming together, thinking outside of the box, but there are someRead More major obstacles that I think you need to consider: 1) A Bond referendum requires a 45 days’ notice period. It cannot be presented for a vote before this year's budget process is concluded. 2) To release reserves based on the hope that a future bond vote would be successful is reckless. What happens if reserves are released and then the bond referendum fails? You would not risk your home finances with this type of risk, would you really risk your school’s financial health? 3) Our tax certiorari reserve was just recently reviewed in consultation with our attorneys and we are appropriately reserved for today’s commercial real estate market. 4) Most importantly, this proposal would create a larger and tougher tax increase next year. In other words, adding $1,000,000 of revenue this year through a loan would require replacing that revenue with an additional $1,000,000 again next year and the year after. Borrow and spend economics does not work as we have seen from the national level. Deficit spending, which has been suggested may or may not work in Washington, but it certainly does not in Briarcliff Manor. When the school’s reserves are exhausted, we will face impactful program cuts or much larger tax levy increases. Respectfully - Jon Satran
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 17, 2013 at 02:23 pm
Thanks for the insight. I would encourage all interested parties to weigh in on these importantRead More issues.
JanFisher May 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm
It is so wonderful that, recognizing the importance of STEM and following the recommendation of ourRead More educators, Sal Maglietta and Jon Satran agreed to bring on the district's first director of instructional technology.
McKey Rivers May 10, 2013 at 07:36 pm
Thank you Dr. Sternberg for your thoughtful letter. You hit on an important facet of this electionRead More few if any others have stated: electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder will provide the added benefit of diversity of thought as the Board continues to address difficult, ongoing educational and financial issues. There is a woeful absence of synergy produced by articulation of different views among the current Board members. The absence of a “check and balance” on the current Board is reflected in the inexplicable decision to cancel the May 13 BOE meeting (scheduled since last summer), which is the last meeting prior to the May 21 budget vote and board election. Is there no business for the Board to conduct at this critical juncture or could it be that the Board does not want Briarcliff residents to hear members of the community question the Board about the proposed budget right before the election? Electing either Mr. Linder and/or Mr. Wasserman will immediately benefit the public as the highest vote getter will be seated on May 22 and thus participate in formulating a second budget for public vote that, notwithstanding current BOE scare tactics, can be tax levy compliant and not involve additional program elimination or reduction. There is no doubt that electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder to the Briarcliff School Board will substantially benefit the entire Briarcliff community and provide a much needed check on Board decision making.
Herman Sexton May 10, 2013 at 03:48 pm
Electing Paul Wasserman alone would add a diversity of thought. The guy hears at least a dozenRead More voices in his head. Have you ever spoken to him? Did you pay attention when he was running for Congress for a few weeks? Ugh.
W Obermeyer May 10, 2013 at 03:41 pm
Not too diffiicult to play with figures. Look at the budget decrease and the increase in state aid,Read More then claim the budget is actually less.
Mike Valenti May 1, 2013 at 04:50 pm
Second, Mr. Sternberg comments “The previous Board reversed that trend but now a new schoolRead More Board reversed that and we are back to square one.” This is without question factually and ideologically incorrect. The previous Board, populated by Janet Marinaccio, Guy Rotundo, Eric Bashford and Rosella Ranno, were sponsored by the folks in our District who are of the fiscal conservative/tea-party-like taxation ideology. Yes, they aggressively cut the school budget over the course of their term. However, this year’s school budget is actually lower than last years. So, to suggest that the current Board has reversed tack on this issue is factually incorrect.
Mike Valenti May 1, 2013 at 04:49 pm
I commend Mr. Sternberg for his thoughtful, well written letter. However, I must take issue withRead More several of his points. First, he offers an analysis of various interests in our District and their motives regarding our school budget. If I may, here is another more simplified viewpoint. The predominance of District residents moved here for the school district (whether for its value to their children or its value for their real estate). These folks have a very supportive ideology with respect to taxation in support of the District. On the other side of the ledger stands a group who has a fiscal conservative, tea-party-like taxation ideology. They seek to cut, cut, cut with disregard to the integrity and depth of the educational program and resources. (continued)...