You aren't supposed to know this...

DeanCDeanC MemberPosts: 156 Member
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/?single_page=true
In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. (Since the turn of the century, lawyers and public officials had increasingly sought to standardize the patchwork of state laws. The new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions.)

Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.

snip

When Congress was considering the first significant federal gun law of the 20th century—the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a steep tax and registration requirements on “gangster guns” like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns—the NRA endorsed the law. Karl Frederick and the NRA did not blindly support gun control; indeed, they successfully pushed to have similar prohibitive taxes on handguns stripped from the final bill, arguing that people needed such weapons to protect their homes. Yet the organization stood firmly behind what Frederick called “reasonable, sensible, and fair legislation.”

Replies

  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,227 Senior Member
    So?
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,616 Senior Member
    OK.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • gunwalkergunwalker Member Posts: 462 Member
    Then was then, now is now.
    We do not view the world as it is, but as we perceive it to be.
  • DeanCDeanC Member Posts: 156 Member
    So? Because the NRA is now working on HR 822 (national recognition of carry permits). What will they consider "reasonable" this time around? What is reasonable to people in the states that have "constitutional carry"?

    After seeing the NRA try to get themselves approved as the sole approved training operation for carry permits in MN & IA, I remain cynical.
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,815 Senior Member
    DeanC wrote: »
    So? Because the NRA is now working on HR 822 (national recognition of carry permits). What will they consider "reasonable" this time around? What is reasonable to people in the states that have "constitutional carry"?

    After seeing the NRA try to get themselves approved as the sole approved training operation for carry permits in MN & IA, I remain cynical.

    I'm pretty sure all the folks that were part of that movement within the NRA are DEAD!!!

    ALSO you might want to step back in time to the 20's in this country. Crime was running rampant at a National level. Headlines about guys like Al Capone, Dillinger etc were in the news every day. Cops were running around the streets with Colt or S&W .38s and criminals could buy Tommy guns and BARs from the Sears Catalog without a background check. The FBI was a handful of guys trying desperately to nail down criminals that had discovered how swiftly you can run from one state to another when you have automobiles. The Federal government was desperately trying to establish some control over a country ravaged by a depression, prohibition and the new generation of mobile criminals. Withinin this frame, does the proposal by the NRA make some sense???

    You can remain cynical as much as you like. The bare truth is that the NRA is the only big hammer us little gun owners have to stop the ongoing efforts by many folks within OUR government to eradicate the 2nd amendmentment. Without them we would have been toast a LOOOOOOOOONG time ago.
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    The NRA is a strong advocate for our 2nd. Amendment rights, but like any other politically active group, it needs to be purged of do-nothing slackers occasionally. I can remember when Harlon Carter shook up the organization a few years ago and successfully displaced the complacent old guard who didn't have the manhood to take on the government gun-banners. It looks like it's time to shake the tree again and let a few rotten apples fall. Just like RINO Republicans, the NRA has a few featherbedders in high places who have gotten far too comfortable with making deals with career politicians. They're more into fundraising and putting up a front than they are about vigorously defending our rights.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • DeanCDeanC Member Posts: 156 Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Withinin this frame, does the proposal by the NRA make some sense???

    No. The abolishment of Prohibition in Dec of 1933 was more effective and common sense than the June 1934 GCA. I don't think the GCA helped at all, actually.

    I'm not advocating anyone cancel their NRA membership - heck - I have 2 of them (stupid phone rep didn't extend my membership he gave me an additional one). But I recommend not forgetting that when an organization gets this big a certain inertia sets in. And they do have a checkered past. What I do advocate is also supporting the Cato Institute who actually brought the Heller Case which the NRA wanted to avoid initially. And also a more nimble group like the http://gunowners.org/.
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,815 Senior Member
    DeanC wrote: »
    No. The abolishment of Prohibition in Dec of 1933 was more effective and common sense than the June 1934 GCA. I don't think the GCA helped at all, actually.

    I'm not advocating anyone cancel their NRA membership - heck - I have 2 of them (stupid phone rep didn't extend my membership he gave me an additional one). But I recommend not forgetting that when an organization gets this big a certain inertia sets in. And they do have a checkered past. What I do advocate is also supporting the Cato Institute who actually brought the Heller Case which the NRA wanted to avoid initially. And also a more nimble group like the http://gunowners.org/.

    I didn't say they were right. I said it made sense they felt that way for that time in history.

    As far as GOA is concerned, I will give them my money as soon as they stop putting headlines like this one on their site/newsletter: Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control
    I like GOA but they are a little too much "Sky is Falling" at times. Not to say the NRA has not bent a headline or two in search of members funding. I guess it comes with the territory. A newsletter that says "All is good, we are on the right track!" won't bring any money in...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Teach
    Re: You aren't supposed to know this...

    The NRA is a strong advocate for our 2nd. Amendment rights, but like any other politically active group, it needs to be purged of do-nothing slackers occasionally. I can remember when Harlon Carter shook up the organization a few years ago and successfully displaced the complacent old guard who didn't have the manhood to take on the government gun-banners. It looks like it's time to shake the tree again and let a few rotten apples fall. Just like RINO Republicans, the NRA has a few featherbedders in high places who have gotten far too comfortable with making deals with career politicians. They're more into fundraising and putting up a front than they are about vigorously defending our rights.
    Jerry
    Teach has a point. My experience in life I have seen all kinds of organizations that start with the "best intentions" and given enough time they will need some purging. The NRA started in 1871 by Col. william C. Church and Gen. George Wingate the primary goal at that time was to encourage rifle shooting on a" scientific basis" due to the lack of marksmanship in the Union.

    Even back then there was political opposition to this newly formed organization. The NRA started a lot of good youth programs, and hunter safety courses, firearms training etc. etc. and other programs, but most of us over the last 2 or 3 decades me included have felt that the NRA has gotten to soft, and spends too much time in 'BED' with the wrong politicians....
    ... Remember in the late 1990's when Neal Knox a former vice-president of the organization attempted to depose both Wayne LaPierre and Tanya Metaksa, the former executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, which Knox described as putting down a "mutiny"?????
    .....Not only that turmoil, in addition, to a lot of generic criticism voiced by more absolutist gun-rights organization and public figures, a lot of Knox supporters also allege that the NRA, had/has failed to protect the rights of gun-owners during the debates over proposed Federal gun laws..A Case in Point, was the NRA's involvement in the pasage of the " Firearm Owners Protection Act, otherwise known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, which amended the Gun control Act of 1968. This represented a significant liberalization of the 1968 Gun Control Act, the fact that the NRA...Now GET This: The NRA did not seek its Outright Repeal....which led some people and critics of the NRA to feel that we were outright Abandoned as members!!!!!!!!!!! i was a member of the NRA at that time too!!!!!!!!!!! I felt that way.

    This is MY USA 2nd Amendment:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    ......And what anti-gun politicians, and liberals, and anti-gun people like Rosie, O'Donnel and Nancy Pelosi, and pro-gun organization, etc can't understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,, I will never understand why they don't understand that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • DeanCDeanC Member Posts: 156 Member
    GOA can be alarmist. But at least they aren't as alarmist and pompous as the NAGRs. :roll2:
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,815 Senior Member
    DeanC wrote: »
    GOA can be alarmist. But at least they aren't as alarmist and pompous as the NAGRs. :roll2:

    That is sooooo true... :tooth:
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    DeanC wrote: »
    GOA can be alarmist. But at least they aren't as alarmist and pompous as the NAGRs. :roll2:

    You got a point^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    "It is what it is":usa:
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.