Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Would you have supported this? Gun Control
From the Joey Bishop Show ^ | June 18, 1968 | Charlton Heston

Posted on 02/02/2003 5:56:41 PM PST by FSPress

Here are some to the same arguments that we hear today about guns. This was a plea that helped establish the Gun Control Act of 1967. Stop and Think. Would you have supported this legislation? The person who spoke the words is today a defender of the second amendment.

TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULLET. SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED. THE VICTIM MAY BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT, WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF THE GUNMAN....HE IS THE VICTIM OF INDIFFERENCE. THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL. THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED. OUR GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON....THE MENTALLY ILL, THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY WEAPON.

THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMARROW, THE DAY AFTER, AND ALL THE DAYS TO FOLLOW, UNLESS WE ACT!!! 6,300 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR WITH FIRE- ARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE.

LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION. WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS. THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS PRIVATE COLLECTORS. WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE WRONG HANDS. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH....NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, THE CARNAGE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MEDGAR EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.

NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER AND KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD......BY RIFLE. FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW... BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU, THE VOTER, SPEAKS OUT....UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW.

THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. IN THE SENATE, IT IS S-3633. IN THE HOUSE IT IS HR-)7735.

THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE AND DIRECT. IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS CONSTI- TUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF AMERICANS. IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES.

FIRST, IT WILL OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES. IF THIS LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD FROM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ONE MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS.

SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS - PEOPLE TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.

THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

WE URGE YOU, AS A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE BILLS. IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT IS BILL HR-17735.

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY....IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE....FOR THE COMMON SAFETY OF US ALL.... FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT....IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; copernicus5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: FSPress
I didn't support it then, and I do not support it now.
61 posted on 02/02/2003 9:10:02 PM PST by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Problem is, eddie, if I wanted to I could make one.

And I am stoooopid about these things - the Afghans made them for years. It was a cottage industry.

Think about it.

62 posted on 02/02/2003 9:13:32 PM PST by patton (Killing babies is murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: All
It may be that those who find 'penumbras' in the commerce clause, --- for gun regulation, --- can find in these same legal fictions a 'right' by governments to prohibit most anything. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820965/posts
63 posted on 02/02/2003 9:13:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: patton
Think about it.

I haven't disagreed with a single thing you've said.

64 posted on 02/02/2003 9:15:31 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
jonascord;
Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here.


Obviously.
I am not talking about corrupt governments (that's another topic) but the about the document that outlines ours.
Make your case that "not infringed" is the same as "completely unfettered".
56 -ew-

Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd.
65 posted on 02/02/2003 9:24:12 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
If memory serves me correct, when Lyndon B. Johnson signed that travesty(the 1968 gun control act) into law he made this statement:
"Today we make America safe by taking guns out of the hands of criminals."

Before the ink was dry the anti-gunners wanted more.
1972 "We only want to ban saturday night specials."
1978 "We only want to ban all handguns. Rifles and shotguns will not be affected."

1981 "The NRA is a rifle organization! They should give up their handguns and they can keep their rifles!"..Lee Grant on Good Morning America.
1981 From HCI. "We only want to control handguns. Long guns will not be affected!"

1986 "We only want to ban handguns and Assault Rifles. Sporting rifles will not be affected."
1989 "We want to ban all handguns and all semi-automatic firearms. Sporting rifles will not be affected."
Need more?
They lied to us in 1963.
They lied to us in 1968.
They lied to us in 1972.
They lied to us in 1978.
They lied to us in 1981.
They lied to us in 1986.
They lied to us in 1989 and they are lieing to you now!

66 posted on 02/02/2003 9:24:54 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
I know a man who had a felony conviction from 1940. He left the scene of an accident. The accident was not his fault. He was forgiven by everyone, BUT because he left the scene he was given 3 years in the pen.
Upon completion of his time he joined the military, was sent to Patton's 3rd army, given an M1 and shot his way across Europe.
He got an honourable discharge, married and raised 3 children. He later bought his children their first rifle, a Springfield .22.
Then in 1968 LBJ decided the old man was no longer to be trusted with firearms because of his 1940 felony.
Was it fair? When they needed for him to shoot his way across Europe no one complained-until 1968.
There are many others who have been denied their rights due to fistfights and other minor brawls back in the dark ages but have not been a problem since.
67 posted on 02/02/2003 9:38:48 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd

The Constitution states that you have a RKBA.
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.

68 posted on 02/02/2003 9:41:58 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Until 1934, "shall not be infringed" meant the same as "unfettered". That's when, in case you've forgotten, our first Socialist President decided to disarm the revolutionaries who were at that time literally camped on his doorstep. See the "Bonus Army" for further data.

The "Taking guns from criminals" was so much smoke and misdirection. Bonnie and Clyde stole BAR machine guns from a NG armory, because they never made enough robbing banks and grocery stores to buy them over the counter. At least Capone bought his from a dealer, (he could afford it, what with dealing illegal drugs and all. That could open a WOD rant, but I'm tired.)

Corrupt government only started to affect the population when Democrats, "for their own good" , started to do a clog dance on the Bill of Rights. They've been at it ever since. The Republicans do it to, but they really lack a true enthusiasm for it. The are still wisps of guilt floating around the GOP.

69 posted on 02/02/2003 9:46:05 PM PST by jonascord (Fie on Marxist quotes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
tpaine:
Make yours that there is some penumbra in the commerce clause that allows the '68 GCA to infringe upon the clear words of the 2nd


The Constitution states that you have a RKBA.
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.
68 -ew-

I see fit to have my brother in Minnesota send me [in CA] a Mdl 12 shotgun my father owned.
-- Under the 'law' you support, both of us would be felons, if he did so.

Is that enough of an 'undue impediment' to you?
70 posted on 02/02/2003 10:01:54 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
And, by the way, are Marines crazy? If uncivilized behavior and violent expectations are your criteria for insanity, an 18 year old Marine is about as close as you can get in this country. If a Drill Sergeant told a boot to back a bus over a baby, somewhere around Week 6, that boot wouldn't blink an eye or take a deep breath.

Back in the mid 90's, at MCB 29 Palms, a Navy head candler, to support his doctoral thesis, polled the enlisted Marines on base to find out whether they would be willing to go house-to-house, in the US, confiscating guns, if ordered to. They said yes. The poll results were pleasing to clinton, and the naval shrink ran for cover, and got Riffed, while the Pentagon frantically tried to spin it as "one man's opinion."

The Gun Grabbers are out There, waiting. They don't quit, They don't give up.

71 posted on 02/02/2003 10:07:51 PM PST by jonascord (Fie on Marxist quotes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Under the 'law' you support, both of us would be felons, if he did so.

No you wouldn't.
(Are we reading the same thread?)

72 posted on 02/02/2003 10:12:45 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
That you are not allowed to purchase them IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT, does not infringe on that right, as long as there is no undue impediment to your aquiring the gun.

Let's try these on for size, shall we?

Which one of these is closer to what is actually written in the Bill of Rights? And which one more accurately reflects what you believe is or ought to be the case?

73 posted on 02/02/2003 10:40:31 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
His brother would be a felon under GCA 1968 since he gave possession of a firearm to a person he knew to be a resident of another state. And he would be a felon also.

THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

The original Joey Bishop show statement, being pure propoganda, uses the word STRANGERS to sell the restriction to the listeners.

If you have done this type of thing with a family member who resides in another state without using an FFL on both ends of the transaction you have committed a felony under GCA 1968. If arrested and convicted for doing this you can no longer own or be in possession of a firearm. IT's JUST THAT DAMN EASY TO GET SOMEONE.
74 posted on 02/03/2003 2:45:00 AM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
It is obvious that gun control laws have not decreased violent crimes. Many of our society have become cold in their hearts and do not value human life. Disrespect, dishonesty, and the love of money in our society fuel violent behavior. No gun control law will ever put love back into the hearts of those who have no regard for others.
75 posted on 02/03/2003 3:37:39 AM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
All the below happened because the general population had no firearms. Gun registration was used to track down the owners of firearms so they would be no opposition to the bloody plans of these tyrants.

The Fruits of Gun Control

The Totalitarian Body Count

The syndicated columnist, Walter Williams, who happens to be a college professor, has recently finished a study of governmental murder and has concluded that in the twentieth century far more people were killed by their own governments than died in war. Statistics are always questionable, but Williams' come out as follows:

Killed in Warfare: 39,000,000

Killed by Lenin and Stalin: 62,000,000

Killed by Mao Tse-tung: 35,000,000

Killed by Hitler: 21,000,000

These are the leaders, and the figures are beyond comprehension, but coming down to more comprehensible numbers we find that 2 million were killed in Turkey, 2 million in Cambodia, 1.5 million in Mexico, and 1 million by Tito in the Balkans. It should be noted that the time over which these atrocities were perpetrated has a bearing on the magnitude of their atrocity. Combined executions committed by Lenin and Stalin, for example, were spread over 70 years between 1917 and 1987. Mao's murders took place over about 37 years between 1949 and 1987, so his intensity could have been greater. Hitler's 21 million were murdered over a much shorter period, and so the intensity factor pretty well evens out, but the fact remains that vastly more homicide was perpetrated in this century of slaughter by governments against their own people than by armies against enemies. Man's inhumanity to man seems more virulent when it is domestic.

76 posted on 02/03/2003 4:19:24 AM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Je$$e Jack$ons' right to "free speech" has caused more problems for society than guns ever could or will.


Stay safe; stay armed.


77 posted on 02/03/2003 4:44:19 AM PST by Eaker (I assemble automatic weapons in my sleep.......no wonder they never work!!!!!!. . . . .;>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
This is mostly a two part problem:

1. Known criminals are released from jail too soon.

2. The 2nd Amendment provides protection to the individual(unless you are a fan of the 9th District Court)for the right to keep and bear arms.

3. The concept of "felony" has been stretched to the the point where almost anyone, if put under enough scrutiny by the authorities, can be classified as a "felon".

78 posted on 02/03/2003 4:49:48 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
but I would think the Founders meant that you must be of, at least, "militia" age. I would also think that being neither crazy nor criminal could be assumed.

Sure. But understand and make a distinction between a SOCIAL web of restraint and a LEGAL/POLITICAL web of restraint.

Understand further that some of the most proficient adults both then and now were given adult sized responsibilites at ages as young as 10 or 12.

It is a great curiosity that people who see nothing wrong with teaching their kids to skate at speeds of 30-40 miles an hour as young as the age of 5 so they can practice as early as 6 AM to compete in the Olympics consider necessary survival training in use of firearms and weapons too dangerous until children are at least 18.

Some of our best shooters-1996 Olympic Medalist Kim Rhode- started shooting AT the age of 5. ( Shhhh. Don't tell the liberals!)

Never give Government an inch at any time for any reason. They will always take a mile or more.

Best regards,

79 posted on 02/03/2003 5:44:11 AM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
I know a man who had a felony conviction from 1940.
And the gun control act of 1968 includes a provision by which convicted felons who have led blameless lives after their release can petition to have their firearms rights restored. The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1985 provided that for state offenses, firearms rights would be restored when all other civil rights were restored, unless the judge specifically stated otherwise. I prefer the method we use with state offenses to that we use for federal offenses, especially since the feds have put a freeze on restorations. But I'd not get in a snit even if there was no restoration. There are fundamental issues of individual liberty involved in imposing restrictions on individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. Much of the GCA 1968 are of that sort. There are not fundamental issues of individual liberty involved in imposing restrictions on individuals who have been convicted of a serious crime, as a part of their sentence. We can argue that these restrictions may be excessive in some cases, or that there should be a way for the restrictions to be lifted under certain circumstances, but it's a utilitarian argument, not involving fundamental issues of individual liberty.
80 posted on 02/03/2003 6:48:08 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson