When did the Anti-gun movement start? - Page 3

ohiosam · February 22, 2014, 07:55 PM

Must have been gun grabbers before 1787 or the Founders wouldn't have thought to included it in the Bill of Rights.

Lucas McCain · February 22, 2014, 08:37 PM

I had a copy of Sports Afield magazine dated 1939 and there was an article in it about the various groups and political factions that were against the second amendment. It was quite an article about the dangers of Nazi's and Facists and all the various world problems at that time. They put a huge importance on the need for militia's.

Slotback · February 23, 2014, 09:00 PM

David Kopel's book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy is a excellent read on gun (weapon) control in different parts of the world-especially from a historical context. So much of it having to do with the individual culture.

Rifleman1776 · February 24, 2014, 09:54 AM

The anti-gun, or anti-weapon in the hands of the ordinary citizen, began back in mediva/feudal times. The concept of a right of the average citizen to have weapons for personal defense began in the 1600s in the New World, America. The antis are still with us.

**44 AMP** · February 24, 2014, 03:56 PM

One thing to remember about gun control in the past, (or swords/crossbows..)
it was about the group in power wanting the arms out of the hands of specific groups of people (the ones they didn't want capable of resistance).

Generally they were fine with guns in the private hands of the people on their side. Or allowed them anyway, within a regulated system. For those of proven loyalty/acceptable politics/religion/ethnicity, etc.

Today (and in the recent past) the focus is on getting the guns out of the hands of EVERYONE, because of the "harm" that they do. Police, military and private security get exceptions.

The Crown isn't trying to take your fowling piece because they are worried you are shooting Redcoats with it. They want it because its "bad" and causes "gun violence".

I see that as a significant difference.

you may argue that the change in focus is merely a change in tactics, but I would say that the change is fundamental, and is the origin and identifying feature of "modern" gun control.

Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret · March 2, 2014, 12:36 PM

In 1547 a German archbishop declared that rifles were the work of the devil. To prove his point he had two marksmen fire 20 rounds, one of lead balls, the other of silver balls stamped with a cross and blessed by a priest. The silver Holy balls all missed the target, proving him correct. He declared that anyone who makes a rifle is to be burned at the stake.

Tales of The Gun-bullets and ammo. 6:10 minute mark

Mainah · March 2, 2014, 12:51 PM

Both Ronald Reagan (then Gov. of CA) and the NRA supported gun control measures after the Black Panthers started using guns as a means of defense, and as a pr tool. Things change, the great thing is that our rights do not change. Fascinating thread.

thallub · March 2, 2014, 02:12 PM

After armed Black Panthers entered the legislature in a peaceful demonstration, members of that body became really scared. The result was the Mulford Act that Reagan signed into law. i don't remember the NRA supporting the Mulford Act; but it may have.

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/RT.../BGY506180077/

"Gun owners champion" is a myth.

SPEMack618 · March 3, 2014, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sodbuster

Well, as Smedley is my favorite Marine (sorry Chesty), I'm not so sure he had ill-intent when speaking of nationalizing ammunition manufacture. Just going off the top of my head without doing further research, I would imagine that to be an extension of his overall view of the military-political machine. He knew all about it before Ike referred to it as the military-industrial complex decades later. An ardent big business foe regarding war profiteering, I don't believe his intent was to restrict an individual rights. Needless to say, Congress liked big business, not Smedley Butler. I'll have to reread his Congressional testimony.

I was always partial to Dan Danly myself.

That being said, based on what I've read of General Butler, he didn't have much to say regarding domestic ammunition manufactures. Most of his ire was directed at big armament type guys.

However, that didn't stop from assorted progressives of the time trying to tie that into nationalizing the ammunition industry, which is most definitely a form of gun control.

February 22, 2014, 08:37 PM	#52
Lucas McCain Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2013 Location: Callaway, MN Posts: 361	I had a copy of Sports Afield magazine dated 1939 and there was an article in it about the various groups and political factions that were against the second amendment. It was quite an article about the dangers of Nazi's and Facists and all the various world problems at that time. They put a huge importance on the need for militia's. __________________ If you have time to do it twice, then you have time to do it once right and put your name on it

February 24, 2014, 03:56 PM	#55
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,835	One thing to remember about gun control in the past, (or swords/crossbows..) it was about the group in power wanting the arms out of the hands of specific groups of people (the ones they didn't want capable of resistance). Generally they were fine with guns in the private hands of the people on their side. Or allowed them anyway, within a regulated system. For those of proven loyalty/acceptable politics/religion/ethnicity, etc. Today (and in the recent past) the focus is on getting the guns out of the hands of EVERYONE, because of the "harm" that they do. Police, military and private security get exceptions. The Crown isn't trying to take your fowling piece because they are worried you are shooting Redcoats with it. They want it because its "bad" and causes "gun violence". I see that as a significant difference. you may argue that the change in focus is merely a change in tactics, but I would say that the change is fundamental, and is the origin and identifying feature of "modern" gun control. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

February 22, 2014, 07:55 PM	#51
ohiosam Junior Member Join Date: April 29, 2010 Posts: 4	Must have been gun grabbers before 1787 or the Founders wouldn't have thought to included it in the Bill of Rights.

February 23, 2014, 09:00 PM	#53
Slotback Senior Member Join Date: May 30, 2010 Posts: 162	David Kopel's book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy is a excellent read on gun (weapon) control in different parts of the world-especially from a historical context. So much of it having to do with the individual culture.

February 24, 2014, 09:54 AM	#54
Rifleman1776 Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,309	The anti-gun, or anti-weapon in the hands of the ordinary citizen, began back in mediva/feudal times. The concept of a right of the average citizen to have weapons for personal defense began in the 1600s in the New World, America. The antis are still with us.

March 2, 2014, 12:36 PM	#56
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret Senior Member Join Date: May 30, 2012 Location: Oh, Jesus. Posts: 226	In 1547 a German archbishop declared that rifles were the work of the devil. To prove his point he had two marksmen fire 20 rounds, one of lead balls, the other of silver balls stamped with a cross and blessed by a priest. The silver Holy balls all missed the target, proving him correct. He declared that anyone who makes a rifle is to be burned at the stake. Tales of The Gun-bullets and ammo. 6:10 minute mark

March 2, 2014, 12:51 PM	#57
Mainah Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2007 Posts: 1,119	Both Ronald Reagan (then Gov. of CA) and the NRA supported gun control measures after the Black Panthers started using guns as a means of defense, and as a pr tool. Things change, the great thing is that our rights do not change. Fascinating thread.

March 2, 2014, 02:12 PM	#58
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	After armed Black Panthers entered the legislature in a peaceful demonstration, members of that body became really scared. The result was the Mulford Act that Reagan signed into law. i don't remember the NRA supporting the Mulford Act; but it may have. http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/RT.../BGY506180077/ "Gun owners champion" is a myth.