NRA Calls Jim and Sarah Brady Liars

[CO Liberal]

I found this in my e-mail this morning from www.stopthenra.com. There seems to be no limit to what the scumbags in the NRA leadership will do. - Wayne

* * * * *

Dear Friend,

How low can the NRA go? This low.

Following Ronald Reagan's death, the NRA called Sarah and Jim Brady liars for saying that President Reagan supported and fought for the ban on assault weapons. Never mind that Jim Brady, who was shot alongside Ronald Reagan, should know where the president stood on this issue. Never mind that President Reagan signed a letter urging Congress to ban assault weapons. But what else would you expect from an organization that wants to put AK-47s back on the street?

It's now or never to stop the NRA. The campaign to persuade President Bush to renew the Assault Weapons Ban continues to accelerate. With only 25 legislative days left to renew the ban we must step up our advertising and public relations campaign. If you want to help, help now.


What's been going on?

Our television ad is continuing to air, and we are currently producing a new ad. With your help we can keep our commercials on through the summer.

National organizations are lining up in favor of renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. Here are just a few:

National League of Cities
US Conference of Mayors
National Association of Counties
US Conference of Catholic Bishops
National Education Association
American Bar Association
NAACP
Church Women United
Episcopal Church, USA
American Public Health Association
National Association of Social Workers

Here's what Robert A. Ricker, former assistant General Counsel to the NRA, says about the Assault Weapons Ban and the NRA:

"awmakers are catching on to the gun lobby's emperor-has-no-clothes vulnerability... I can tell you firsthand that the power of the gun lobby is more perception than reality. After all, there are 80 million gun owners in America; only 4 million are NRA members. And many of these join only to get the gun magazines or insurance. They believe in the Second Amendment but understand that an AK-47 isn't a hunting rifle... Given this dynamic, my advice to Bush is: Stop dancing with the devil... The gun lobby doesn't have the power to protect you if you let new American-made Uzis, AK-47s and Tec-9s flood America's streets. Voters won't buy a 'blame Congress' excuse. They'll blame you."

Latest NRA outrage:

Recently the NRA announced a plan to sidestep the new campaign finance laws. The New York Times reported yesterday that "In a direct challenge to federal limits on political advocacy, the National Rifle Association plans to begin broadcasting a daily radio program."

Will they stop at nothing?

Here's what you can do to help the campaign to renew the Assault Weapons Ban:

1. Contribute to our campaign.

2. Sign our petition if you haven't yet.

3. Forward this e-mail to everyone you know.

Thanks for all your support. More soon.

stoptheNRA.com

[slackmaster]

1. I won't waste any time or money on extremist groups

IMO anyone who is bothered by who runs an organization or what it says can either join it and work to change it from within, or speak out against it as the stopthenra.com people are doing. The NRA is not my problem, and I will not give money, put my name on a list, or spam my friends to fight it.

[billbuckhead]

2. At the end of the day the NRA is more dangerous than Al Queda

to the average American.

[slackmaster]

3. As a danger to the average American both groups pale in comparison

to all the knuckleheads driving around on our streets and highways.

The probability of a typical person getting killed because of the actions of Al Queda or the NRA is pretty close to zero.

[Lefty48197]

4. Depends on which day you're talking about

Tim McVeigh's attack was relatively small compared to the 9-11 attacks. Even Koresh only killed a handful of people.

[slackmaster]

5. Is a group always defined by the actions of its most extreme members?

McVeigh and Koresh were aberrations, no more representative of the NRA than they were of Christianity.

Do you not remember that McVeigh thought the NRA was too soft on gun owners' rights?

[Paladin]

8. McVeigh Wasn't The Only One

On a number of occasions right here in the Gun Dungeon, some RKBA activists have expressed a preference for the Gun Owners Of America (GOA), because they feel, like McVeigh did, that the NRA has gone soft on gun rights.

It's a more-or-less free country, and they're entitled to their opinions. I just hope they stay the hell out of my neighborhood.....

[slackmaster]

9. Yes, and how many of them have blown up buildings?

n/t

[Paladin]

35. Blowing Up Buildings Isn't The Point

The point is that the NRA-is-soft notion extends well beyond McVeigh and turns up in this forum amongst you "non-extreme" gun militants.

[FeebMaster]

14. The NRA is soft on gun rights. (nt)

[Paladin]

36. Like I Was Saying.........

N/T

[JayS]

29. handful? n/t

n/t

[FatSlob]

25. I have never seen a more dumber statement on DU.

Congratulations. A new low has been achieved.

[iverglas]

48. "I have never seen a more dumber statement on DU."

I almost find myself saying "ditto". More dumber ...

[RoeBear]

6. Would it be too much to ask...

...for a link to the statement from the NRA about Brady?

[iverglas]

22. well, you know what I do

Ask google.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=+site:www.nraila.org+nra+brady+reagan

That's what you get when you ask google for nra brady reagan (boy, are my fingers tired) and then click on the link for "More results from www.nraila.org". And this is the first thing you get.

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Exploiting tragedy for political gain is nothing new for the media and the Brady Campaign, but this morning's appearance on NBC's Today Show reached a new low. Katie Couric and Sarah Brady used the tragic occasion of President Reagan's passing to shamelessly forward the gun-ban agenda with deliberate misinformation. Led by carefully crafted questions from Couric, Sarah Brady claimed that President Reagan wasn't actually an NRA member, and that he "worked hard" for passage of the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

Okay, here we have two statements by Brady: I've underlined them for clarity and ease of reference.

In fact, President Reagan, the owner of an AR-15, was a strong and consistent supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. He was a long time member who actively courted the NRA's endorsement in both of his presidential campaigns, and was the first presidential candidate in history to receive that endorsement. He appeared on the cover of NRA magazines four times. In 1983 he was offered, and accepted, an NRA Honorary Life Membership, the highest honor bestowed by the NRA.

He was the first, and to date, only, sitting president to speak at our Annual Meetings, saying, in part, "The NRA believes America's laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." In 1986, President Reagan signed the landmark Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), and he never blamed law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals.

And here we have the NRA refuting the statement that Reagan was not a member of the NRA. (I note that what we have are assertions w/o proof, but I don't have any particular reason to disbelieve the assertions.)

Don't allow these offensive lies to go unchallenged! Please immediately contact Tom Touchet, Executive Producer of the "Today Show," to express your outrage and demand that equal time be given for a rebuttal.

And hmm, here we have an allegation of "lies" -- plural (underlined by me for clarity and ease of reference).

I see only one claim being refuted. If the claim "that President Reagan wasn't actually an NRA member" is untrue (and of course if it was made by someone who knew or ought to have known it to be untrue), then it was a lie. Not lies.

In order for there to have been lies, the claim "that he 'worked hard' for passage of the so-called 'assault weapons' ban" would also have to be a lie.

And I just don't see any attempt at all to refute that statement.

And surely Reagan's support for or opposition to the assault weapons ban is of a little more importance, and was a little more central to what Brady was saying, than whether he was a member of the NRA.

So surely if the claim made could be refuted, the NRA would have done so. I'd 'a thunk.

Which leaves me thinking that it just might be true. And that the NRA is the one being less than truthful when it characterizes what Brady said as "lies", plural. Pretty neat trick, though.


Interesting how the first endorsement of a presidential candidate by the NRA coincides pretty precisely with the death of anything resembling principled conservatism in the US.

[iverglas]

23. and oh look

I apologize most sincerely for the tainted source, but I would suggest that the facts reported are readily verifiable.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,571498,00.html

Reagan's Assault Weapons Ban Legacy
6/11/2004

Commentary
by Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

The folks over at KeepandBearArms.org are calling Ronald Reagan a traitor during this week of remembrance (yep, that's Reagan they're talking about). On Target wondered why they would call America's 40th President, who Guns & Ammo magazine once hailed as the "Gun Owner's Champion," a traitor. It seemed rather, well, unpatriotic.

So this week On Target takes an in-depth look at Reagan's stance on gun safety, and how his direct involvement helped make the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban law.

... John Hinckley's deed left Brady paralyzed -- and determined to end America's "no questions asked" firearm policies. Brady and his wife Sarah got behind a proposal that would require criminal background checks for firearm sales through licensed dealers. It later became the Brady Bill.

President Reagan played an instrumental role in passing this landmark legislation. In late March of 1991, ten years after the shooting, Reagan joined his former press secretary at George Washington University Hospital. There, at the very hospital at which both men were treated for their near-fatal wounds, Reagan said "You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

... Later, in 1994, Reagan directly lobbied Members of Congress to pass the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed the U.S. House of Representatives 216-214, a margin of just two votes. One of those votes was cast by former Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who credited Reagan's direct involvement for his "aye" vote. Swett told the Boston Globe, "he made up his mind after being lobbied by the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan."

Reagan also won over the second vote that made the Assault Weapons Ban law. According to Wisconsin's Capital Times, former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) voted for the assault weapons ban only after a "last-minute plea" from Reagan.

Said the Times: "For Klug...the defining moment came when he received a personal message from former President Ronald Reagan. A handwritten note from Reagan was faxed to Klug, asking the Wisconsin congressman to support the ban. The note said, in part: 'Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.'"

Now let us compare and contrast; according to the NRA:

Sarah Brady claimed that President Reagan wasn't actually an NRA member, and that he "worked hard" for passage of the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

Hard to imagine how much harder he could have worked for it, I'd say.

Surely the NRA just didn't mean to give the impression that it was calling Sarah Brady a liar for claiming that Reagan supported the assault weapons ban, or that it was claiming the Reagan did not work hard for the assault weapons ban, hm?

Nooo, when it went to such great lengths to refute her claim that Reagan was not a member of the NRA and said nothing at all about her claim that he worked hard for the assault weapons ban, and then accused her of telling "lieS", it just wasn't expressing itself real clear ...

[Bowline]

7. I guess the stoptheNRA folks didn't get the memo...

Uzi's, AK-47s and other fully automatic weapons are
A) Still legal and readily available to the general public, for a price
B) Were already heavily regulated under several pre-AWB laws,
C) Were not affected by the 1994 law.

[slackmaster]

10. Oh crap, you made me look

What's wrong with this statement?

1. Colt AR-15



Manufactured by Colt Industries of Hartford, CT. It's the civilian version of the company's M-16 machine gun used by the U.S. military and some law enforcement agencies. A gas-operated, magazine-fed weapon, it's still general-issue in the armed forces, which adopted it because of its ability to spray a high volume of ammunition within a distance of 100 meters. It is 39 inches long and comes with a 5-round magazine but can accept higher-capacity magazines....

No mention of the fact that the civilian AR-15 fires semiautomatically, or that post-ban versions have been available since Day 1 of the "ban".

My default of zero respect for stopthenra.com has hereby been replaced with negative respect. Their duplicity proves they are fanatics and unworthy of my support. Not that I was about to give them any in the first place.

[Bowline]

11. Don't go confusing their argument with facts!

Next you'll be asking us to believe that people, not the guns themselves, are responsible for the actions of people.

[slackmaster]

12. What really pisses me off about that kind of crap...

A person who knows nothing about the subject and goes to that site would get the idea that the AW ban is the only thing keeping the market from being flooded with real military fully automatic weapons.

If that's not propaganda, if it's not a deliberate lie of omission, then how else could one reasonably describe it?

[Bowline]

13. The misinformation is most certainly deliberate.

The anti-gun crowd sees the writing on the walls. Their precious ban is about to expire and there's nothing they can do about it. It never was about stopping crime or protecting the public...it was always about banning guns, one gun at a time. Remember gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

[FeebMaster]

15. 100 meters?

I thought those things went forever.

[slackmaster]

19. No, whoever said that was mistaken

Outside of 100 meters you're completely safe from the 5.56 mm NATO round.

:freak:

[FeebMaster]

20. That's a relief.

I thought these things were dangerous to airliners at several hundred miles.

[MrSandman]

55. And safe in high volume...n/t

[FeebMaster]

16. It's always entertaining to see people try and spin

Reagan as some pro-gun dynamo. It turns my stomach, but I'm going to have to agree with the stopthenra folks on this one. Reagan was as gun grabby as they come.



I notice they didn't list those Malvo and Muhammad guys who shot all those people. I believe they used an AR-15 and it was pretty high profile. I wonder why.

[Quint57]

17. Reagan was an NRA member

Sorry to bust your bubble but Sarah Brady did indeed lie when she said on national TV that Reagan was never an NRA member. He was and was the only president to address the general body at an annual meeting. He was also an honorary life member.

As far as Malvo goes, yes he did use an AR-15 but could have done much more damage with any hunting rifle and at much farther ranges.

The AW ban does nothing to stop crime. It did nothing to reduce the numbers of US made military style weapons and was a complete waste of time.

[FeebMaster]

18. Well I thought the the stopthenra folks

were saying the NRA was upset because someone claimed Reagan supported the Brady Bill and a ban on assault weapons.

Sorry to bust your bubble but Sarah Brady did indeed lie when she said on national TV that Reagan was never an NRA member. He was and was the only president to address the general body at an annual meeting. He was also an honorary life member.

An honorary life member? Wow. Did they bestow that honor upon him before or after he banned the civilian production of machine guns?

Bush 1 was a member too, roughly from the time he ran for president until he banned the import of a bunch of semi-auto weapons. Being in the NRA is nothing special, anyone can join.


"As far as Malvo goes, yes he did use an AR-15 but could have done much more damage with any hunting rifle and at much farther ranges."

Which has exactly nothing to do with anything. They used an AR-15 and the stopthenra folks didn't see fit to mention it.

"The AW ban does nothing to stop crime. It did nothing to reduce the numbers of US made military style weapons and was a complete waste of time."

I am aware of the inadequacies of the AWB.

[Quint57]

21. Sorry, post not ment just for you reply...

FeebMaster,

Part of my reply was to the first post saying that the NRA accused Jim and Sarah Brady of lying. Here is the copy they are talking about,

THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, AND NBC'S KATIE COURIC, TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY

Exploiting tragedy for political gain is nothing new for the media and the Brady Campaign, but this morning's appearance on NBC's Today Show reached a new low. Katie Couric and Sarah Brady used the tragic occasion of President Reagan's passing to shamelessly forward the gun-ban agenda with deliberate misinformation. Led by carefully crafted questions from Couric, Sarah Brady claimed that President Reagan wasn't actually an NRA member, and that he "worked hard" for passage of
the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

In fact, President Reagan, the owner of an AR-15, was a strong and consistent supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. He was a long time member who actively courted the NRA's endorsement in both of his presidential campaigns, and was the first presidential candidate in history to receive that endorsement. He appeared on the cover of NRA magazines four times. In 1983 he was offered, and accepted, an NRA Honorary Life Membership, the highest honor bestowed by the NRA.

He was the first, and to date, only, sitting president to speak at our Annual Meetings, saying, in part, "The NRA believes America's laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'" In 1986, President Reagan signed the landmark Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), and he never blamed law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals.

Reagan was made a life member on May 9th, 1983. I believe the law you are talking about was the Firearms Owner's Protection Act which was signed in 1986. I am not sure about banning the civilian production of machine guns. I had always thought that was regulated in The National Firearms Act (Title 2 of the Gun Control Act of 1968). From what I have read the law signed in 1986 prohibited the purchase of machine guns that were not already registered by the NFA. This is an area that I have always felt the NRA went soft on, one of the reasons that I am also a SAF member.

I vaguely know of the law that Bush signed. Was it the importation of Chinese and Russian weapons? Do you know the exact name of it?

The Brady campaign and the VPC and the Million Mom March have all made issue of the AR-15 Malvo used and have even went as far as calling for suits against Bushmaster.

[FeebMaster]

26. Yes

the FOPA basically said any only machine guns registered under the NFA legally by May 19, 1986 could be transfered by civilians. No machine gun manufactured after that date can legally be transfered to a civilian.

As for the 89 import ban, it was really just a reevaluation, I guess, of the restrictions on importing guns in the GCA. There's that whole "sporting purposes" crap in there. So Bush told ATF to start considering a whole list of weapons unsuitable for sporting purposes and to stop allowing them to be imported. It wasn't a new law. A lot of people call it an executive order, but as far as I know it wasn't an actual executive order. It was more like telling ATF to read the law a different way.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/assault/treasrelease.htm

In 1989, the "sporting purposes" provision led ATF to ban the importation of several semiautomatic versions of assault weapons possessing military features such as bayonet mounts, pistol grips, night sights and grenade launchers. After the 1989 prohibition, certain semiautomatic assault rifles that had failed the sporting purposes test were modified to remove all military features except the ability to accept a large capacity military magazine (LCMM) that holds more than 10 rounds. The LCMM rifles are models based on AK-47, FN-FAL, HK 91 and 93, Uzi and SIG SG550 military assault rifles.

I suppose maybe ATF did it on their own and Bush was simply powerless to stop them. :eyes:


Reagan owned an AR-15? Should have gotten himself an M-16 before he banned new ones. An honorary life member from 1983 you say. Before the FOPA, then. They should have tossed his gun grabbing ass out after that one. But the NRA never was very big on really protecting gun rights.



The Brady campaign and the VPC and the Million Mom March have all made issue of the AR-15 Malvo used and have even went as far as calling for suits against Bushmaster.

Except we aren't talking about the VPC or the MMM or the Brady Campaign, we're talking about the stopthenra folks.

[Quint57]

33. Stopthenra.com = The Brady Campaign

Except we aren't talking about the VPC or the MMM or the Brady Campaign, we're talking about the stopthenra folks.

I always thought they are one in the same.

This is on the bottom of the stopthenra website,


Brady Campaign united with the Million Mom March
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

[FeebMaster]

37. Fine. They're the same.

Reagan should have joined up before he died, being one of the greatest gun grabbers in American history and all.

[Bowline]

24. They neglected to mention Malvo because...

His rifle was completely and totally in compliance with the AWB and he didn't spray bullets all over the place. One shot, one kill doesn't support their party line.

[Free Citizen]

27. Reagan life member in the NRA

I am sorry to inform you that Ron Reagan was a life member of the NRA. As President of the United States he was speaker at the annual meeting. He was also proud owner of an assault rifle. How much more does it take to prove that Ron Reagan was inline with NRA philosophy?

Plus I don't understand how a gun control fits in with Ron Reagan's political philosophy. He was a champion of individual freedom and the tenets in the Bill or Rights including the 2nd Amendment. In the end he forgave his assassin. He held no bitterness or anger over being shot. So I don't understand how he was emotionally moved to change his opinion on firearms.

[FeebMaster]

28. That's priceless.

"Plus I don't understand how a gun control fits in with Ron Reagan's political philosophy. He was a champion of individual freedom and the tenets in the Bill or Rights including the 2nd Amendment."

It didn't seem to trouble him when he banned the future civilian production of machine guns. I hear he signed a law giving California a 15 day waiting period while he was governor, too. Did that fit into his political philosophy?

[Free Citizen]

30. Please verify

You "hear"? You don't seen too sure? Please advise? I "hear" lots of things that I'm not sure of and I certainly don't take to heart because I "hear" of them. Please advise?

[FeebMaster]

32. Well, it was a bit before my time and I live

several thousand miles away from California. I'm sure they keep track of that sort of thing somewhere, but since it predates the internet by a good long while I doubt there is an unimpeachable source of information on the subject available on the internet. Personally, I don't have trouble believing Reagan was a gun grabber while he was the Governor of California since he was a gun grabber while he was the President of the United States.


http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2955

Here's a biased source that mentions a Mulford Act that Reagan allegedly signed in 1967. Apparently it prohibited the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.


Let's not forget the Firearms Owners' Protection Act which Reagan allegedly signed in 1986. I didn't personally see him sign that one either, but I hear he did it.

[Free Citizen]

34. Reagan's own words as Govenor

Here is a re-print of a letter to Guns and Ammo from Ronald Reagan when he was govenor of California. Please note:

"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan, Govenor of California September 1975

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/classics/reagan_1007/

[FeebMaster]

38. Right.

I have to give Reagan credit. The man was possibly the greatest actor ever to walk the Earth. Guy gives a couple speeches about government not being the answer, every small government Republican out there is ready to blow him. Same thing with some pro-gun people. Reagan gives a couple speeches, writes a letter to Guns and Ammo, even speaks before the NRA. Shit. Guy is the most pro-gun president we've ever had. You'd think he personally repealed the GCA and NFA.

[Free Citizen]

39. OK then what does all that you just said, imply?

OK. Then everything you just posted about Reagan being pro-gun, then what does that mean for the orginal text posted in this thread?

"Following Ronald Reagan's death, the NRA called Sarah and Jim Brady liars for saying that President Reagan supported and fought for the ban on assault weapons. Never mind that Jim Brady, who was shot alongside Ronald Reagan, should know where the president stood on this issue. Never mind that President Reagan signed a letter urging Congress to ban assault weapons. But what else would you expect from an organization that wants to put AK-47s back on the street?"

So then where does Ron Reagan stand on this issue? What does this all mean with your post above and the very first post in this thread?

So then is the NRA correct? Sarah Brady is a liar?

[FeebMaster]

41. Imply?

"OK. Then everything you just posted about Reagan being pro-gun, then what does that mean for the orginal text posted in this thread?"

I didn't respond to the original post in this thread, I responded to you and your claim that gun control didn't fit in with Reagan's political philosophy and being a champion of individual rights and the 2nd amendment and all of that.

I thought I was clear in my last post. I admired Reagan's ability to convince small government Republicans and pro-gun types that he was actually for smaller government and gun rights despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

"So then where does Ron Reagan stand on this issue? What does this all mean with your post above and the very first post in this thread?"

He's not doing much standing at all at the moment. It's clear to anyone who looks at his actions rather than the empty rhetoric in his speeches where he stood on the issue.

"So then is the NRA correct? Sarah Brady is a liar?"

Of course Brady is a liar but the NRA has nothing to do with it.

[Free Citizen]

43. Sarah Brady a liar.

Oh OK. Sorry for the confusion

Will you join with me to stop to help stop www.stopthenra.com ? Don't you agree that public policy based on lies and deceit like www.stopthenra.com is not a good idea?

[FeebMaster]

45. No.

I care even less about www.stopthenra.com than I do about the NRA.

[Free Citizen]

40. "Hearing" stuff

Did you get a chance to check out the stuff you "heard"? Please advise.

[FeebMaster]

42. Not really.

No word on a waiting period anyway, but I don't really care about California or what Reagan did while he was governor. He allegedly signed something allegedly called the Mulford Act which allegedly made it illegal to allegedly carry alleged weapons. If that's true, does it somehow make him more of a gun grabber than he was after his actions as president? Less? Maybe the same?

[Free Citizen]

44. Are you sure?

You still sound a little unsure. Please advise. Are you trying to convince me or argue something? Please advise. If you are why are you trying to convince me or argue something that you yourself seem to be unsure of? Please advise.

[FeebMaster]

46. I'm sure Reagan was a gun grabber.

Am I sure he was a gun grabber while he was governor of California? Well, people have claimed he signed this Mulford Act and if he did then I guess he was a gun grabber long before he ever became the President. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter to me. It's not like I'm on some crusade to convince all the Reagan worshipers out there that he was nothing but hot air. If they can't see past the speeches he made to the actions he took, then I'm certainly not going to be able to convince them otherwise. The man's record speaks for itself.

[Free Citizen]

50. I don't understand

Your sure he was a gun grabber? You still don't sound to sure? "people claim" still sounds like your not sure? It still sounds like 'stuff you hear' on the street?

Plus how does "Am I sure he was a gun grabber" - FeebMaster Jun-20-04 06:28 PM

and

"Guy is the most pro-gun president we've ever had"- FeebMaster Sun Jun-20-04 12:54 PM

Can those two statements be true at the same time? You mean from he was govenor to the time he was president he did a 180 on gun control? Do I intrepret these to statement correctly? Hmmm.

[FeebMaster]

52. I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood.

When I said "Guy is the most pro-gun president we've ever had", I was making fun of people who think he was pro-gun. Here was the whole thing again: Same thing with some pro-gun people. Reagan gives a couple speeches, writes a letter to Guns and Ammo, even speaks before the NRA. Shit. Guy is the most pro-gun president we've ever had. You'd think he personally repealed the GCA and NFA.

As for the "Am I sure he was a gun grabber" part, well the whole sentence was "Am I sure he was a gun grabber while he was governor of California?" This Mulford Act thing has come up a couple of times. It has been claimed that Reagan signed it and that it prohibited the carrying of weapons or something. I don't know that he actually signed it or that it actually prohibited the carrying of weapons and I don't particularly care. Since Reagan was a gun grabber while he was president, it's not a stretch for me to believe he was a gun grabber while he was the governor of California.


I am quite sure that Reagan was a gun grabber. Do you think otherwise?

[MrSandman]

56. That convoluted RKBA logic...

:yourock:

[Free Citizen]

57. Strange

A gun grabber who owns an AR-15? Ron Reagan owner of an assault rifle is a gun grabber? That is strange?

I can say for certain you don't have all the facts straight and if you do you got lucky because you really don't know if you got the facts straight. How can you make such a conclusion if you don't have all the facts straight. You keep seeming to default to a 'I heard' type attitude. Do I get it correct within this media? That you really don't know all the facts? Yet your sure that Ron Reagan is a gun grabber?

I don't know for sure he was a gun grabber. I know for sure he penned these words:

"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive."

I know for sure he was a great believer in individual responsibility and freedom of the individual. I know he was a man just like anyone else subject to human frailty and weakness. That he was a great believer and champion of Jeffersonian ideas of freedom and citizenship; and that gun control is NOT in keeping with the ideas of Jeffersonian democracy. Also that the same men who founded the tenets of Jeffersonian democracy were also subject to human weakness and frailty; and also quite did not live up to them. In the same breath the founding fathers who did not live up to ideas of freedom and liberty, were not necessarily pro-slavery (even the founding fathers who were slave owners).

[FeebMaster]

58. How is it strange?

Owning a gun doesn't make you pro-gun. Maybe it just means he was a hypocrite.

"I can say for certain you don't have all the facts straight and if you do you got lucky because you really don't know if you got the facts straight. How can you make such a conclusion if you don't have all the facts straight. You keep seeming to default to a 'I heard' type attitude. Do I get it correct within this media? That you really don't know all the facts? Yet your sure that Ron Reagan is a gun grabber?"

The only area where my facts were unclear was Reagan signing a waiting period while governor of California. As I said, I wasn't clear on that. Apparently what he signed was the Mulford Act which prohibited the carrying of weapons. I know that Ronald Reagan signed the FOPA. I know the FOPA was one of the gun grabbiest pieces of legislation to ever be signed by a US president. I can only conclude from this simple fact that Ronald Reagan was a gun grabber.


"I don't know for sure he was a gun grabber. I know for sure he penned these words:

"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.""

Words? Words are meaningless. I can come up with all sorts of bullshit about how I support the Republican party or something. But if I turn around and donate $20,000 a year to the Democrats, who am I fooling?


"I know for sure he was a great believer in individual responsibility and freedom of the individual. I know he was a man just like anyone else subject to human frailty and weakness. That he was a great believer and champion of Jeffersonian ideas of freedom and citizenship; and that gun control is NOT in keeping with the ideas of Jeffersonian democracy. Also that the same men who founded the tenets of Jeffersonian democracy were also subject to human weakness and frailty; and also quite did not live up to them. In the same breath the founding fathers who did not live up to ideas of freedom and liberty, were not necessarily pro-slavery (even the founding fathers who were slave owners)."

Hmm. For being such a champion of individual responsibility and freedom of the individual he sure signed an awful lot of gun control. I think he was just a gun grabber.



Oh. The AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Well, unless it was converted to full auto, which I suppose is possible since he allegedly bought it before he banned that sort of thing.

[slackmaster]

47. CA waiting period became 15 days in 1975

So says Clayton Cramer:

California has also had a waiting period for handgun sales since at least 1923. The California Legislature increased the handgun waiting period from one to three days in 1955, to five days in 1965, and to the current 15 days in 1975....

http://www.claytoncramer.com/cawait2.html

Reagan was governor of California from 1967 - 1975. Jerry Brown took office in January 1975, so it was probably Brown rather than Reagan who signed the 15-day wait into law.

http://www.infospect.com/Governors.htm

The waiting period was reduced to 10 days in the late 1990s at about the same time the federal Brady Law took effect IIRC. Before that all long guns were cash-and-carry in California.

[Free Citizen]

51. Funny something is missing

Hmmm. That link: http://www.claytoncramer.com/cawait2.html

Never mentions Ron Reagan in the whole text? Ron Reagan is missing in the whole link? Funny.

Maybe Jerry Brown signed this into law? I'm not sure. Can you check?

As a side note, what I do find interesting in this link regarding waiting periods is:

"The increase from one to three days in 1955, and from three to five days in 1965, had no apparent effect on rising murder rates. Indeed, the California murder rate went from a bit above 2/100,000 people in 1952, to over 10/100,000 by 1975. While it is certainly true that murder rates rose throughout the United States during this period, as Figure 1 shows, California's murder rate rose even faster than the murder rate for the rest of the United States"

As a another side note, I don't know what the above quote means. It is just interesting. Is that a pro or anti-gun website? Are you pro or anti-gun?

[slackmaster]

54. I don't care who signed it

Never mentions Ron Reagan in the whole text? Ron Reagan is missing in the whole link? Funny.

That page is about waiting periods, not about who was governor at any particular time.

As I said it was probably Jerry Brown, but I'm not going to spend any time researching it.

As a another side note, I don't know what the above quote means. It is just interesting. Is that a pro or anti-gun website? Are you pro or anti-gun?

I think it means the waiting period has no obvious effect on the murder rate.

Clayton Cramer is pro-gun.

I am pro-gun.

Have a good week.

[iverglas]

49. and I deeply regret having to inform you

... (as I already had informed anyone who care enough to read before spouting) that the credit for the passage of the US's assault weapons ban must apparently be given to Ronald Reagan, who supported it so strongly that he personally persuaded the two members of Congress whose votes were crucial to its passage to vote for it, resulting in a 216-214 vote, as I recall the figures.

Of course, if you'd bothered to read the information available in this thread, you'd know that.

Looks like Ronnie Raygun wasn't one of the "the NRA is soft on gun rights" crowd. And since he hasn't been around to comment on the NRA's positions and activities in the last quite a few years, and was already quite disengaged from both public life and reality at the time he "officially" withdrew and likely not putting a lot of thought into the NRA and its policies and activities, the fact that he was a member of the NRA and accepted a life membership over 20 years ago just doesn't tell us what he'd be saying about it today.

Sarah Brady may have intentionally or negligently stated falsely that Reagan was not a member of the NRA.

What I wonder is why the NRA said (as it really seems to have said) that Brady was lying when she said that Reagan strongly supported the assault weapons ban, when we can be very sure that the NRA knew full well that Reagan was instrumental in its passage.

What's the real issue, anyhow? Whether Reagan belonged to the NRA, or whether he supported the assault weapons ban that was the subject Sarah Brady was addressing?

Perhaps those who agree with the NRA that Brady was lying when she said Reagan was not an NRA member would like to tackle the question of what the NRA meant when it referred to Brady's "lies" but only refuted one of the two things she said. No takers so far, I see.

[Free Citizen]

53. Why?

Do you know why he did this? Why? Was it because of his political views regarding firearms, freedom, and democracy? Or was it because some one took a bullet for him? Our of personal loyalty he did this for Jim Brady?

There is a reason why Reagan suppoted Jim Brady. There is a reason why he caved in his political beliefs. Someone took a bullet for him, not because he is anti-second Amendment.

[CO Liberal]

59. And Perhaps Reagan Suported the AWB....

...because it was the right thing to do.

[Lamorat]

61. If Reagan is not on record

then there's no way to tell which way he felt on it. It doesn't even matter, the disaster of the AWB needs to go away.

[CO Liberal]

62. I Found The Following Thru Google

At this site:

http://www.kallini.com/comments.php?id=P1642_0_1_0

In point of fact, Reagan *did* endorse both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon's Ban. In fact, Sarah Brady's husband was badly injured in the assassination attempt.

However, his only support of the AWB was signing a letter with Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter encouraging Congress to listen to the advice of law enforcement. He neither worked long nor hard on it, that's just absurd.

So now we jusat have to find that letter. Seems Reagan, Ford & Carter trusted the opinions of law enforcement, which is more than can be said of many pro-gunners who are constantly cop-bashing on this forum.

[slackmaster]

64. Yes, I'd like to see what the letter actually says

Assuming that it exists at all.

"Law enforcement" has never been consistent in its support for the AWB. Generally speaking, the more politically inclined like groups of chiefs of police tend to support restrictions on civilian gun ownership but those do not necessarily reflect the views of rank-and-file police officers.

I have yet to meet a patrol officer or detective who favors it.

[iverglas]

66. "So now we jusat have to find that letter."

I give up. Are my posts actually invisible?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=66212&mesg_id=66243&page=

In THIS thread.

I repeat for everyone's convenience, again emphasizing the really important bits:

Later, in 1994, Reagan directly lobbied Members of Congress to pass the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed the U.S. House of Representatives 216-214, a margin of just two votes. One of those votes was cast by former Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who credited Reagan's direct involvement for his "aye" vote. Swett told the Boston Globe, "he made up his mind after being lobbied by the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan."

Reagan also won over the second vote that made the Assault Weapons Ban law. According to Wisconsin's Capital Times, former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) voted for the assault weapons ban only after a "last-minute plea" from Reagan.

Said the Times: "For Klug...the defining moment came when he received a personal message from former President Ronald Reagan. A handwritten note from Reagan was faxed to Klug, asking the Wisconsin congressman to support the ban. The note said, in part: 'Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.'"

I just don't know what could be clearer ...

[CO Liberal]

68. Sorry...

I've been in and out of DU today, and did not see your post. The evidence seems to be on our side, that The Great Communicator was in favor of the AWB.

[slackmaster]

63. Groups on both extremes seem to disagree on the issue

The anti-gun extremists at jointogether.org claim Reagan did support the federal AW ban:

Later, in 1994, Reagan directly lobbied Members of Congress to pass the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed the U.S. House of Representatives 216-214, a margin of just two votes. One of those votes was cast by former Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who credited Reagan's direct involvement for his "aye" vote. Swett told the Boston Globe, "he made up his mind after being lobbied by the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan."

The same jointogher page claims that their loyal opposition fellow extremists at keepandbeararms.org are claiming Reagan was a traitor for supporting gun control and give a link:

http://www.keepandbeararms.org/polls/pollmentorres.asp

Which mentions his support of the Brady and Mulford acts, yet conspicuously misses a great opportunity to complain about the Gipper supporting the AW ban. KABA people are pretty thorough, and I'd be surprised if they'd let something like that slide.

The pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation mentions Congressman Swett in a discussion of gun control legislation, but only to say that he claimed in 1994 to have received death threats pursuant to his tie-breaking vote on the AW ban (which itself is well documented in the public record).

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Herz1.html

In summary, if you do a quick Google search for

Reagan "assault weapons" "Dick Swett"

You get a bunch of liberal to left-wing sites making the same claim as jointogether.org, and conservative/right-wing/pro-gun sites that don't say anything about Swett being pursuaded by former President Ronald Reagan.

And if my name was Dick Swett, I'd change it. :D

[iverglas]

67. well here ya go

The anti-gun extremists at jointogether.org claim Reagan did support the federal AW ban: ...

Yeah. And said extremists cited the Boston Globe. It strikes me that only really stupid people would go around making up citations like that, no matter how evil they were.

Here's where they do it in even more detail:

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/bostonglobe5_15_94.cfm

Boston Globe
Gun-Control Battle Grows Hotter Still
By John Milne
May 15, 1994 <note the date>

US Rep. Dick Swett, a Democrat in a Republican district, has a reputation of moderation. And so when he cast one of the key House votes in favor of banning semiautomatic assault guns, he said he made up his mind after being lobbied by the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan.

That was tough ... asked google for "boston globe" swett weapons reagan.

I dunno. Maybe the anti-gun extremists made up the newspaper, the reporter, the member of Congress in question *and* the entire story.

(html fixed)

[iverglas]

65. for the love of all that is unholy

"If Reagan is not on record"

REAGAN IS ON RECORD, for fuck's sake.

Do you consider reading anything in a post before yammering about it?? I have posted, in this very thread, the partial text of Reagan's communications with members of the US Congress urging them in the strongest possible terms to PASS THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.

Covering one's ears and going wah-wah seems to be a popular pastime hereabouts.

[iverglas]

60. so many questions

So many answers right under your nose.

If you scan the short list of posts in this thread, you will find two with my name on them.

If you read those posts, you will find information regarding the questions you ask. You will, in fact, find Ronald Reagan explaining his actions in his own words (in my post "and oh look").

You say:

Do you know why he did this? Why? Was it because of his political views regarding firearms, freedom, and democracy? Or was it because some one took a bullet for him? Our of personal loyalty he did this for Jim Brady?

There is a reason why Reagan suppoted Jim Brady. There is a reason why he caved in his political beliefs. Someone took a bullet for him, not because he is anti-second Amendment.

For someone who appears to write quite deliberately, you've left me a little puzzled.

As to the questions in your first paragraph, my response would be: if you have some evidentiary basis for your questions, kindly present it. If your "question" (which is actually a statement with a question mark stuck on the end) "Ou<t> of personal loyalty he did this for Jim Brady?" is based on some knowledge that Reagan supported the assault weapons ban (which is what Sarah Brady's statement that the NRA appears to have called a lie was about -- not the Brady Bill) out of loyalty to Jim Brady, do please enlighten us. Or at least let us know what sense such a claim makes.

Your second paragraph states, twice, that there is a reason for Reagan having done something. (You characterize what he did as "caving in his political belief", but of course how you characterize or feel about what he did is not our concern.)

It then goes on to make a statement that appears to be an answer to your questions: "Someone took a bullet for him, not because he is anti-second Amendment."

On its face, that statement makes no sense: the reason someone took a bullet for him is not because he is anti-second amendment??

No, the only meaning one can take from what you said is that the reason Reagan supported the assault weapons ban (remember, we're not talking about the Brady Bill here) is because someone took a bullet for him.

And while your speculation is fascinating, it just ain't either reasonable or consistent with what Reagan himself said.

Maybe you'd like to try reading what he did say, and offering another theory that makes a little more sense.

[JayS]

31. Did Ricker get demoted?

He used to be described this way:

As a former NRA executive and top lobbyist for the firearms industry


Now he is described this way:

Here's what Robert A. Ricker, former assistant General Counsel to the NRA, says about the Assault Weapons Ban and the NRA:

[FatSlob]

69. So do I!

Jim and Sarah Brady are liars! (in general)

[iverglas]

70. well hmm

Jim and Sarah Brady are liars! (in general)

I suppose that tacking that "in general" on the end means you don't have to prove your incivil and contemptible allegation, eh?

Not.

[FatSlob]

71. Nope,

They are liars. Their "Handgun Control Inc." is well known for its lying also. They deserve no respect. Sarah has lied about "assault weapons" and many other issues.

[iverglas]

75. yada yada blahblahb

They are liars. Their "Handgun Control Inc." is well known for its lying also. They deserve no respect. Sarah has lied about "assault weapons" and many other issues.

Somebody really does seem to think that his saying it makes it so. Somebody must be positioning himself for this week's



award.

I sure do hear this "lying" accusation leveled at firearms control groups in the US and their leaders a lot. I sure have yet to see the evidence.

Blob blob, FatSlob. Or blah blah, or blub blub, or however you might like to represent the sound I hear when someone attempts to prove something by his/her own blatant and unsubstantiated assertion.

[FatSlob]

87. Well, I'll respond by noting that

everytime I hear Sarah Brady say that she doesn't want to ban guns, she is lying. How about the famous document where HCI wrote about discussing ballistic fingerprinting. It went something like this, "If confronted with scientific evidence, call your opponent a militent homophobe and refuse to continue a factual conversation." Sounds like a lying organization to me. Sarah Brady, as the founder and head, is responsible.

[MrBenchley]

88. Wow...guess we'd ALL love to see the link

How about the famous document where HCI wrote about discussing ballistic fingerprinting. It went something like this, "If confronted with scientific evidence, call your opponent a militent homophobe and refuse to continue a factual conversation."
I'm sure you'll have no problem showing us a link to this.

By the way, fat slob...are sure you're not mistaking an actual discussion of the sort of bigoted fuckwits who make up that Second Amendment Caucus? They're all aces with actual militant homophobes like AFA.

[FatSlob]

91. Whoops, I called home to have the Mrs. look at the copy.

Turns out that it could well be a spoof of a Brady page. I'll check more when I get home.

[MrBenchley]

92. No kidding?

[FatSlob]

93. Yeah, even Sarah B. herself isn't insane enough

to publish something like that. Brain FART moment by me.

[MrBenchley]

94. No, but gun nuts are plenty insane enough

and many are "militant homophobes" to boot...

[FatSlob]

96. Sounds like a line out of your epistles.

Maybe you read the mythical document?

[MrBenchley]

97. Sounds like the Second Amendment Caucus in the flesh

but then gun nuts have just the NICEST playmates.

[FatSlob]

98. Yup, it was nice seeing you again. Bye bye.

[MrBenchley]

99. And the downside for me is....

non-existent.

Of course, I wasn't the one tryuing to pass off a bit of rancid ditto-monkey "humor" as fact, either.

[iverglas]

89. that's a good one

It went something like this, "If confronted with scientific evidence, call your opponent a militent homophobe and refuse to continue a factual conversation."

Did it really now?

Well, I guess I'll just take your word on that one, and buy into your representation of whatever it in fact was, eh?


Sounds like a lying organization to me.

Well, if I could actually hear it (instead of hearing you saying that you heard it), who knows, it might sound that way to me too. As of right now, I have no idea and thus no opinion.

'Cause actually, right now, what I'm hearing is ... how'd that go? blub blub?


... oh ... my ... dawg ...

http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/faqs.htm

Q. I'm in a debate with a "gun nut" and he keeps using facts and logic on me. What do I do?

A. Simple, try to label him a 'racist homophobe'. See our new debate manual in the HCI catalog, entitled, "No Fair Using Logic!"

Dear Rover, tell me not.

[MrBenchley]

90. Too TOO funny...

[CO Liberal]

72. And Ted Nugent Is An Asshole (in general)

Right?

[FatSlob]

73. Yup, but he's great at grilling!

and plays a mean guitar.

[CO Liberal]

74. I've Seen Better Grilling

And heard better guitar playing. As far as I'm concerned, he's a no-talent asshole hack.

[FatSlob]

76. But have you tasted better grilling?

If so, how do you know?

[CO Liberal]

77. I Don't Have to Go Into a Sewer....

...to know that it's full of shit. That pretty much sums up my very low opinion of that useless child-molester scumbag.

And his guitar playing sucks big-time.

[FatSlob]

78. I'm asking about his grilling skills.

I hear they are pretty good. I wonder what kind of grill he uses. I use a Weber Genesis. How about you?

[CO Liberal]

79. I Use a Gas Grill

Personally, If Ted Nugent told me the sun was gonna rise tomorrow, I wouldn't believe him. Sorry, but I have absolutely no use for him.

[FatSlob]

82. I'll find use for him, if he's getting some venison for my table.

And if I'm at a retro party where cat scratch fever is played. Otherwise, I don't care too much about him. I ought to head over to Barnes and Noble and page through his book, "kill it and grill it", I'm in need of venison grilling tips. If I can get past the rhetoric, I'll be fine.

[Romulus]

80. I don't get the child-molester thing?

Was his wife underage when they met or something?

Or is it something else? :shrug:

[CO Liberal]

81. There Was Something Reported A While Back

Concerning Ted Nugent and either his daughter or a friend of his daughter. I'll try to find a link.

[Quint57]

83. huh???

Concerning Ted Nugent and either his daughter or a friend of his daughter. I'll try to find a link

So you are not sure but you will continue to call him a child-molester. Hmm, didn't you threaten to report anyone who called you a gun-grabber? But it is ok to refer to someone as a child-molester that may have never been accused or convicted of it? Hmm.. the word slander comes to mind.

I am not saying it is not true, although I can find no link to any story, but I wouldn't go around saying it without having some backing other than "There was something reported a while back".

[CO Liberal]

84. Read It And Weep, Quint57

As discussed here on DU a few months back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1475559

[Quint57]

85. Not weeping at all.....

You are kidding right?

This is what you have to go on? I saw the special they are talking about and his daughters were ribbing him about it.... it was tongue-in-cheek in my opinion. Totally misrepresented by tom_paine.

So where was he ever accused of child molestation? You are basing this all on a posters interpretation of what he saw on E TV?!?!?. Where are any of the other sources? Very sad.

[CO Liberal]

86. I've Read and Heard Enough About Ted Nugent.....

...to know that I consider him to be a totally useless scumbag asshole - a disgrace to the human race.

[iverglas]

95. the source that I'm aware of

was Courtney Love telling some TV personality that she had performed oral sex on Ted Nugent when she was 12. Google will find you the tale with no trouble. ... Oh, well, allow me; there are various secondary sources, and it was Howard Stern she told, yech. Apparently the NY Post reported it, and was unable to get comment from Nugent. I wouldn't ordinarily cite the NY Post, of course, but it was reporting something that was heard on radio (I gather; I'm not a Howard Stern expert), so I don't think the source's credibility is in issue.

I can't access an article at the Post, which seems to have been in March 2004, but it's referred to on a few sites.

http://tangybeebuzz.blogspot.com/

Meanwhile, Love went on Howard Stern's radio show yesterday and gave a rambling interview in which she claimed to have performed oral sex on rocker Ted Nugent when she was a 12-year-old groupie. Nugent did not return our call for comment.

(That is part of what appears to be a reproduction of the Post article.)

http://www.unearthed.com/news/2004/03/0000029238.shtml

Courtney Love phoned into "The Howard Stern Show" on Monday (March 22) before eventually coming into the studio where she made the shocking allegation that one of the first times she had oral sex was with Ted Nugent. She said she was young and she didn't want to say exactly how old she was, but eventually confessed she was 12-year-old - which would have made Nugent approximately 28 years old at the time. The New York Post attempted to contact Nugent for a response but was unsuccessful. Moderators at Nugent's official forum deleted the only thread asking about the topic as evidenced by the forum's search giving a file not found error for the matched thread. She added it was a long time ago and she didn't even have breasts yet.

That gives this link:

http://www.marksfriggin.com/news04/3-22.htm

Howard wanted to do a real interview with Courtney so he tried to calm her down and asked her about her past heroin abuse. She told Howard that she was the last person to lose her virginity in her peer group. She said one of the first times she had oral sex was with Ted Nugent. She said she was young and she didn't want to say exactly how old she was. It was a long time ago and she didn't even have breasts yet. She was only 12 and a half years old back then. She told Howard that she didn't have real sex until she was 18 but she admitted she was lying about 5 seconds later <this appears to mean lying about not having sex until she was 18>.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/25533.html

A couple of days ago, she said some potentially slanderous things about right-wing rocker Ted Nugent which I can't repeat here but involved a meeting she says they had when she was 12 years old. Yesterday she called again and cried when Stern told her there was a negative article about her in the New York Post that morning.

So I'd say that plainly Love said this, whether or not it is true.

I'm sure there are many who would find Ted Nugent more credible than Courtney Love, if he denied the report (which he does not ever seem to have done). Tough choice. It would help if Nugent had ever offered his own account.

If it is true, it is despicable, certainly criminal, but not, in my humble opinion, surprising at all.