Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,alt.checkmate Subject: Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Between Being Safe and Imminent Slaughter By Other Americans Carrying Guns Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:21:21 -0700 Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: <2ef0d415-ec91-4536-9483-54677a43a873@googlegroups.com> <1274428934567726606.289811ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net wX4VLrr8aPK2fiKvHR6YIQPUiFcgqcnuUpx6s6Yx/jP2DXY61H Cancel-Lock: sha1:JAZQfye3PKzVqCmoJDV/JnOZCKg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com alt.atheism:2571329 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:2109679 talk.politics.guns:1151173 alt.checkmate:242729 On 12/28/18 7:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 12/28/2018 7:07 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 12/28/18 6:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 12/28/2018 3:18 PM, Ted wrote: >>>> >>>> ... the NRA of 80 years ago was heavily involved with >>>> gun safety regulations. >>>> >>>> Problem is, nowadays, there are [those] who don't want us >>>> to have *any* guns and they're trying to gradually whittle >>>> down those rights.  So that provokes a reaction from the other >>>> side to oppose all suggestions of gun control, even those that >>>> would be almost universally deemed sensible 80 years ago. >>> >>> The year was 1938. >>> What gun control regulations was the NRA heavily involved with? >> >> http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/ >> ----- >> In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA >> responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted >> by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five >> years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on >> gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the >> purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made >> available to police. > > It was the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws that proposed the Uniform > Firearms Act of 1930.  Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, > Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington adopted it. Cite. >> And then in the 1930s (the time you asked about): >> ----- >> The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons >> images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President >> Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The >> NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and >> the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These >> laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that >> were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns >> and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with >> the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not >> only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in >> 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified >> before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general >> practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general >> promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted >> and only under licenses.” > > I don't dispute that the NRA might have supported the 1934 and 1938 > Acts, but I'm not going to take the unsupported assertionof a N.Y. Times > hack writer that the Acts were actually drafted by FDR and the NRA. Cite. >> And it was not just then: >> ----- >> For the next 30 years, the NRA continued to support gun control. > > "Support" and "heavy involvement" are two different things. > What gun control did the NRA continue to support? See the article. >> By the late 1960s a shift in the NRA platform was on the horizon. >> >>> What gun control was almost universally deemed sensible? >> >> See above... and the article. >> >>> Please don't just regurgitate what laws existed then, I want >>> to see the support for your claims about NRA involvement and >>> about what was generally deemed sensible. >> >> Trivial to find... and interesting how little you knew about it. > > If it's trivial to find and you know so much about it, then why do > you offer no evidence whatsoever that the 1934 and 1936 Acts were > "almost universally deemed sensible"?  Is it because that statement > is your unsupported opinion, not a demonstrable fact? See the article. And if you think there was heavy rejection then show it. But you will not. This is 100% predictable. Why do you think it is so predictable that your biases will not be supported? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.