Posted on 10/30/2019 5:51:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law's primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. Today's gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15. By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.
Let's look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in their 2018 report on Crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles. A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders -- 6,603.
What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buyback plan that 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating for knife control, hammer control and feet and fist
Gun controllers' belief that "easy" gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase. With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here's my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today? That's really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.
Let's examine some elements of this decline.
If any American who passed away before 1960 were to return to today's America, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior acceptable today. They wouldn't believe that youngsters could get away with cursing at and assaulting teachers. They wouldn't believe that cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis and Baltimore hire hundreds of school police officers and that in some schools, students must go through metal detectors. During my own primary and secondary schooling in Philadelphia, from 1942 to 1954, the only time we saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture from Officer Friendly on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn't believe that we're now debating whether teachers should be armed.
Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation's homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they've eliminated our means to defend ourselves.
Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro banned private gun ownership in 2012. The result is that Venezuelans had no way to protect themselves from criminals and government troops who preyed upon them. After Fidel Castro's demand for gun confiscation, he said, "Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") Cubans later found out.
“Like the author, I am very concerned about what their plans are for us once we lack the means to potentially resist those grand dreams.”
Same as the Turks’ plans for the Armenians.
All evil flows from the same toxic spring.
If I take the time to attempt to discuss with gun grabbers I will start with...
Have you EVER sexually assaulted or raped anyone?
If answer is no, I will say that we are going to cut off your ‘tallywacker’ to help cut down on rapes.
THEN they (rightfully so) say that is foolish.
Well I have never shot anyone so how does taking away MY gun help?
***Let’s gloss right over the National Firearms Act of 1934.***
The only reason the Miller Decision passed muster is Miller never showed up to contest the SCOTUS case on the 1934 firearms act. It seems he was by then dead.
He had tried to go from Oklahoma to Arkansas to rob a local bank, using a sawed off shotgun. The shotgun was what the case was over.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174
The record shows that no arguments were made and no evidence presented on behalf of Jack Miller or the Second Amendment. The Justice Department attorneys were able to present their case without any opposition.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm
Jack Miller, a bank robber and moonshiner with many enemies, felt the need to carry a sawed off shotgun without paying the tax.
He and his associate, Frank Layton, had the misfortune to be caught transporting it from Oklahoma to Arkansas and were arrested in June of 1938 by federal agents on charges of violating the Firearms Act.
Miller had no resources to finance his argument against the government’s appeal and it is doubtful that he had any interest in defending Constitutional rights. In fact, he died before the decision was rendered.
His body was discovered in April of 1939, with multiple .38 caliber bullet wounds. His own .45 pistol lay by his side with four rounds expended. Perhaps he had a legitimate need for that shotgun after all.
Those lamps are better than the Leg lamp in "A Christmas Story"
When looking at that price, you also have to keep in mind that a Model-A Ford was $500.
Thanks for the information.
Liberal logic:
12,000 gun homicides per year - outlaw guns.
70 drug deaths per year - legalize drugs.
Me neither.
That look on Schumer’s face says it all.
Start by DEFUNDING all armed protection for THEM and make it so they ‘lose’ their right to carry once elected to anything.
I can ‘dream’ can’t I?
12,000 gun homicides per year - outlaw guns.
70 drug deaths per year - legalize drugs.
Boy, I sure blew that. It should read;
Liberal Logic:
12,000 gun homicides per year - outlaw guns.
70,000 drug deaths per year - legalize drugs.
Nah. No real doubts about it. But there IS a remedy:
U.S. Code § 2384:
Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
The Miller decision was lied about for 70 years by the lower courts.
The Supreme Court was presented by the government with two arguments to justify the National Firearms Act of 1934.
One argument was that a person needed to be a member of a militia in order to be protected by the Second Amendment.
The other argument was that a weapon must be useful to a militia in order to be protected by the Second Amendment.
The Miller Court didn't even respond to the first argument. If they had, they would have found that Miller was not a member of a militia and the case would have been decided against Miller. It would not have mattered what kind of arms he was keeping or bearing.
What the Court did decide was that the second argument was valid. That is, a person, whether or not that person is a member of a militia, may keep and bear arms that are useful to a militia. The Court did not have evidence regarding the usefulness of a short-barreled shotgun. For that reason, they remanded the case back to the lower court for further litigation.
Neither Miller nor his co-defendant Layton was available for further trial, so no further litigation occurred.
Many lower federal courts LIED about the Miller decision for the next seventy-five or so years, claiming that the Second Amendment protected a "collective right", presumably of organized militias.
The Heller Decision in 2008 established that the Second Amendment protects a personal right (similar to the Miller decision) but expanded the Miller decision to include weapons useful for self-defense. This would be in addition to arms useful to a militia.
True. And, although the price of new Fords is about $23K and up, I can still buy a new Ford - not through Sears, but . . .
Maybe, since Sears is going out of business, they might have some old stock from the thirties they need to dispose of . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.