Gun control debate history

[flowrie]

Comments on the accuracy of this article?

http://www.dentonrc.com/business/busine ... ef-history

[TreyHouston]

Comments on the accuracy of this article?

http://www.dentonrc.com/business/busine ... ef-history

Broken link

[flowrie]

Interesting.
I copied the link, posted it, then tried it and it worked.
Just tried it again and now it’s not working.
Checked the Denton Record Chronicle online, can’t find the article.
Guess they pulled it.
Will keep looking.

[sjfcontrol]

Must not have been very accurate.

[flowrie]

Finally!
I read this article on the Denton Record Chronicle website.
I posted the link, tested the link (tested OK), then afterwards the link did not work.
Went back to the DRC website and the article was removed.
However, I was able to save it from my browser history, I have attached it as a pdf.
Hope it works.
Just wondering why the DRC would put it on their web and then remove it?

Any commentary on the article?
Especially regarding the NRA history?
Thanks!

[flowrie]

Found another link on the author's website

http://www.dentonlaw.com/?page_id=2112&preview=true

[philbo]

The article reads as a synopsis of a book published a few years ago called The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman. Follows the same outline and stresses the same events. Historically it's accurate, but like the book the article is focusing those facts in a conclusion that is more left leaning than perhaps the history of the events actually support.

Here's a good example to ponder: Karl Frederick - President of the NRA and former Olympic shooter who assisted in drafting proposed gun laws at the state and national levels made the following statement while testifying to congress on the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934:

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." Following discussion on the criminal element obtaining weapons, he said "I believe in regulatory methods. I think that makes it desirable that any such regulations imposed should not impose undue hardships on the law-abiding citizens and that they should not obstruct him in the right of self-defense, but that they should be directed exclusively, so far as possible, to suppressing the criminal use, or punishing the criminal use of weapons." http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm

So, the NRA did play a role in passing gun control regulations. Whether one was working for the NRA or the Brady campaign, you could parse those statements in a way to support either side and be correct, if incomplete, in your conclusion. The same could be said about Ronald Reagan's role in the passage of the Mulford Act in California in 1967.

Review the following acts and the history that led to their passage and you should notice that in every instance that gun control has increased, it has been bipartisan (both Democrat & Republican support), and seems to be a fear reaction to recent violent events.
Sullivan Act in New York - 1911: First of the state control laws passed after a grisly public shooting and suicide , and yes the NRA was there.
National Firearm Act of 1934 and again in 1938: Reaction to violence linked to prohibition and weapons utilized by criminals.
Mulford Act 1967 in California: Reagan supports and signs law limiting public carry after incidents with the black panther party.
Gun Control Act of 1968 - Multiple public assassinations and very public riots led to this law.

Modern gun control didn't start in the 1980's, and an understanding of those early laws is essential to understanding how we have gotten where we are. Read some of the comments made in 1911 both for and against the Sullivan Act ad you can quickly find the same statements being made today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

[Acronym Esq]

The article is reads as a synopsis of a book published a few years ago called The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman. Follows the same outline and stresses the same events.

Funny. Looks to me like the outline and language was lifted from an October 2017 podcast by More Perfect called The Gun Show. I didn't read the book.

Historically it's accurate, but like the book the article is focusing those facts in a conclusion that is more left leaning than perhaps the history of the events actually support.

That was my interpretation of the podcast too. I particularly enjoyed the conclusion that because there were no supreme court cases relating to the 2nd amendment until Heller (ignore Miller I guess), that obviously everyone knew it was a "collective right." My interpretation was the exact opposite: everyone knew it was an "individual right." Seemed obvious to me that the NFA essentially says - we can't ban these weapons, but we can tax and regulate them to oblivion.

I enjoyed the podcast, but I think it's selectively recounting history.

acronym 3/20/2018 11:40 AM