When did the Anti-gun movement start?

[BigD_in_FL]

If we want to start about arms control, then it goes back to the Romans, Phoneicians, and others who invaded other countries and wanted to maintain total control

[Kevin Rohrer]

So where did this start?

April 19, 1775.

[Dfariswheel]

The first "modern" gun control plea I ever saw was in an early talkie movie about gangsters.

I "think" it may have been the original "Scarface".
It prominently showed gangsters using the then-new Thompson SMG.
At the end of the movie there was an added-on "public service" speech by some bluenose calling for the banning of these evil weapons of mass destruction.

A couple of years later, Congress passed the Gun Control act of 1934.

In the middle ages, knights didn't like the idea of some peasant being able to shoot them out of the saddle with a cross bow or early firearm.
A knights trained war horse cost the equivalent of a nice farm, and armor was on the level of buying a high end Mercedes.
All that could be defeated by a serf with a few days experience. So, they tried to ban them.

Mercenary's of the day often pooled their money and bought a cannon.
The aristocracy didn't like getting blown out of the saddle so they tried to ban cannons the hard way.
Cannoneers pulled the cannon around with ropes called petards.
Knights ordered captured cannoneers to be hanged with their own cannon rope, thus "Hoist by his own petard".

In the Renaissance, there were bans on wheel locks, along with very much the same hysterical claims that they were the cause of so much murder and crime.

In Japan the gun became quite popular, which negated the life time of training by the Samurai and his sword. So, Japan banned the gun, and there the ban worked. Most Japanese warlords gave up on the gun as dishonorable.

In America early gun control appeared in the cow towns of Kansas when carrying of guns was banned to keep down the shooting by cowboys.

However, the first true gun control in the US was in the South during Reconstruction to prevent blacks from arming themselves and resisting the KKK.
It just took the fun out of night riding while wearing a mask if some freedman could dispense a load of 00 buckshot into your sheet.

Bottom line, no doubt someone tried to ban the new flint ax some cave man developed because it was to much more deadly then the standard non-assault stone ax.

[thallub]

Yep, some southern states passed gun control laws after the Civil War aimed at disarming slaves. Later NY City passed gun control laws aimed at disarming immigrants.

Lobbying of congress by well organized anti-gun groups did not exist in the 60s. There were no organized gun control organizations at the national level until the 1970s.

There was The Emergency Committee For Gun Control run by John Glenn and Robert Kennedy. The committe was made up of Kennedy volunteer staffers. It received support from the AFL_CIO, the Conference of Mayors, the ACLU, the American Bankers Association and other professional and civic groups.

Congressmen from the northeastern states wanted gun registration and gunowner licensing. Those were shot down in congress. The driving forces behind gun control in the US senate were senator Thomas Dodd of CT and senator Joseph Tydings of MD. Tydings is the adopted son of senator Millard Tydings.

Dodd had been condemned by the US senate for using campaign funds for personal use. He lost his re-election bid in 1970.

In 1970 i was a US Army soldier stationed in southern MD. On election day i hauled a hundred or so Republican voters to the polls in my Ford Econoline van. MD voters did a trick on Joseph Tydings that election day.

To make a long story short, the deaths of JFK, Robert Kennedy, MLK and the demand for gun control by LBJ and the administration lead to the gun control act of 1968. While the Vietnam war raged, LBJ went on the air beating the drums for gun control; much like the present administration is doing today. Polls, if one can ever believe polls, showed 80 percent of US voters in 1968 wanted gun control.

[bbqbob51]

There is always someone trying to take your guns away. Even in the Old West the local marshal or sheriff frequently didn't allow the carrying of firearms in city limits. Wild Bill did it in Abilene and The Earp brothers did it in Tombstone. According to what I've read they usually had the overwhelming support of most of the citizens.

[pax]

Originally Posted by Kevin Rohrer

April 19, 1775.

Appleseed alumni?

pax

[Rifleman1776]

April 19, 1775

Really, the concept of passivism by the common people came from Europe and the feudal system.
For some, nothing has changed. There are those who want us to be 'subjects' unable to protect our freedoms.

[g.willikers]

The gunfight at the OK Corral was over gun control.
The Earps wanted the Clantons to give up their guns, while in town.
They didn't, and the rest is history.

[Newton24b]

in europe it started when the ruling classes discovered that an uneducated, unwashed peasent, after a few hours of practice could shoot them off a horse at 60 yards before the peasant could be speared or spitted upon the nobles sword blade, or trampled under the horse.

in america it started at the time the rich people wanted their policies forced on anyone. its easy when you look at the west. once the big money came in, and it was "do what mr ward says or the whole family starves to death because he decided to fire you for disagreeing with him"

[Axelwik]

Don't forget the gun control stuff that Reagan pulled in California when he was governor.

[mayosligo]

I know the Dred Scott Case involved a sort of gun control as southern democrats feared that freed slaves would have the right to bear arms.

[Tom Servo]

mayosligo, you are correct. From Scott v. Sandford:

[If the Constitution applied equally to blacks] It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

I quoted the whole block because the context is very important. One group wants to maintain dominion over another. The only way to do that is either through a monopoly or a sizable disparity of force.

This has been the way of things since our ancestors first realized that tools could be used to hurt another human being. Jews were often disallowed weapons in medieval Europe. The Muslims disarmed the dhimmi. The Byzantines disarmed the Turks. The Manchu disarmed the Dungan. The list goes on.

Now, do I believe Joe Biden wants me disarmed so he can put on a crown and prance around while he trashes my living room? Not really, but I'm guessing he won't fire his Secret Service detail either.

And in a free society like ours, that distinction should be considered repugnant and unacceptable.

[Quincunx]

Cannoneers pulled the cannon around with ropes called petards.
Knights ordered captured cannoneers to be hanged with their own cannon rope, thus "Hoist by his own petard."

IIRC, petards were small explosive devices used originally for breaching gates/walls. Thus, being "hoist with one's own petard" means being "blown up by one's own bomb," as it were. In Hamlet, the title character puns on the phrase using petar, referring to flatulence. A blast by any other name, so to speak...

[vito]

Gun control efforts have certainly been around since at least the Civil War, but the current climate of significant public interest in gun control is a relatively new thing. I'm pretty old, born in 1943, and I can tell you that even after the assassination of JFK there was relatively little public demand for new gun control laws. Things certainly escalated after RFK and MLK Jr. were killed, but the explosion of interest in this subject seemed to come after the TELEVISED shooting of Pres. Reagan and the universally reported shooting of John Lennon. The liberal minset, when faced with the evidence that high taxes and increased government spending does not bring about prosperity, say that what we need is MORE taxes and MORE spending and heaven on earth will arrive. Similarly, when obviously gun control does not change human nature and thugs keep using guns in a criminal manner, the liberal, aka progressive, says the problem is that we just didn't make the gun laws strict enough. Even if all guns were banned and confiscated, crime would not go away, so the do-gooders would say something like "the problem is knives, and clubs and bombs, so if we just pass more laws controlling these things everything will be fine". Just look at Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, someone I have mentioned many times on these forums. NY law insured that all the law abiding folks on the commuter train were unarmed, including her husband and son. But these laws did nothing to stop the Colin Ferguson from entering the train with a 9mm semi-automatic and shooting dozens of commuters who were essentially helpless to resist. Instead of recognizing that her husband might be alive today had he and/or others been armed and capable of stopping Mr. Ferguson, she continues to this day to just demand more and more restrictive gun laws that the criminals will continue to ignore. Remember, you can't fix stupid.

[Don P]

In my opinion it started, and the folks went up in arms about it, on April 19, 1775. The reason British troops came ashore in Boston harbor that day, to disarm the colonists and keep them under the thumb of the Monarchy.

[RangerHAAF]

For me it started towards the end of 1993 when Bill Clinton and the anti-gunners in Congress tried their big gun grab. The anti=gunners were voted out but like hungry wolves they hover on the fringe waiting to exploit any weakness they can find.

[thallub]

Holy thread ressurection, Batman!!!

[Merad]

IMHO that's true about the assassinations, but before jumping to the conclusion that gun control was an entirely leftist idea, let's not forget that the 1968 GCA would not have passed without the cooperation of the following groups:

Let's also remember that the NRA used to be only about owning guns for sporting reasons, and in fact supported both the 1934 NFA and '68 GCA. It was only in the mid 1970s that they had a little internal revolution and became the more libertarian staunchly pro-2A group we know today.

Edit: wow, year old topic. Didn't even notice.

[PawPaw]

I often have fun during these discussions, pointing out that the "Gunfight at the OK Corral" was about disarming cowboys who thought they should be able to carry guns on the streets of Tombstone.

And, the opening salvo of the American Revolution was fought when the British decided to move against militia supplies.

[g.willikers]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was reportedly heavily supported by owners of gun shops?
For purely business reasons, of course.
Eliminating the mail order buying of guns, and the requirement that gun sellers be licensed and restricted, was good for business.
An easy way to reduce competition is by government edict.

[44 AMP]

The 68 GCA also contained restrictions on imports. Totally arbitrary, but it gave the Sec Tres authority to decide what was "suitable for sporting purposes".

Gun A might meet the criteria, and be legally imported. Gun B, identical to gun A except for a 1/4" difference in height, or width, or length was "not suitable for sporting purposes" and could not be imported.

Part of the GCA 68 was about trade protectionism. US gunmakers were being hit by lower cost imports (including but not limited to milsurps), and either passively supported or did not strongly object to the GCA 68 because parts of it were good for their business.

[Sodbuster]

I doubt General Butler had that in mind when he testified before Congress

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.

[Buzzcook]

Modern gun control started with the assassination of JFK.
If you want to look before WWII then the violence surrounding prohibition sparked legislation. That brought us the National Firearms Act.

As has been mentioned there has been different types of weapons control for centuries before firearms. From keeping knightly weapons out of the hands of peasants to keeping firearms out of the hands of minorities, much of those laws were in support of an entrenched power structure.

Current entrenched power structure no longer use firearm restrictions to keep a segment of society under control. There are a host of other measure for keeping the peasantry in their place.

Most gun control advocates claim a compelling societal harm done by firearms. They feel that restrictions on firearms makes society and citizens safer.
If you visit the Brady web site they can give your their arguments.
http://www.handguncontrol.org/?q=bradycenter

The Bray campaign itself was instigated by the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and the wounding of Jim Brady.

[Tom Servo]

Actually, the earliest gun control laws in the US date back to the French Black Codes in Louisiana, which were written in 1751. Clayton Cramer's article on the history of gun control is good reading for context.

As was pointed out the last time this thread was active, it's not so much about guns as it is about disarmament in general. The idea that people should be disarmed for their own good by their betters goes back throughout recorded history. It's a bad piece of social engineering that says we can make people better by banning instruments.

[BDM 9MM]

A great source for the history of the 2nd amendment is:

The Second Amendment Primer
by Les Adams
Palladium Press , 1996

The Citizen's guidebook to the history, sources, and authorities for the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is a must read for all current defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. One great point it makes is that all current gun control laws are unconstitutional as the right to keep and bear arms is part of our Rill Of Rights and the only way to change it is thru passing an Amendment. The anti gun camp know that they can't do this so they make changes by the legislative action - that the President signs into law. This has all of the appearance of being legal - but is unconstitutional. Oh crap - that darn infringed thing.

The Strawstalker, behind enemy lines in Liberal Colorado.