Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
Well there was a pretty notable shooting by someone who purchased a Carcano through the mail. I think it was for that reason that mail order gun purchases were stopped.
It sure helped although took another 5 years. Of course the 68 GCA did more than ban direct mail order sales as well, and there were other assassinations, plus large amounts of civic unrest, that led to its passage.
What a mass shooting is defined as appears to change. Sort of like "assault rifle", etc. Or is kept indeterminant for largely political reasons.
St. Valentine's Day Massacre was thug on thug so would probably pass "mass shooting muster", but, of course, it helped being about the 1934 National Firearms Act.
I suspect that there WERE plenty of "mass shootings" if one went through the records. But they were not tracked in the popular media like they are today, largely for agenda purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
Guns and violence isn't a new phenomenon in the US. Look at the "Old West". Its just covered in a political context now for gun grabbers to say look we need to disarm everybody and then we'll all be safe or some junk like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
Suspect that a lot of push for gun control starting in early 1900s may also be tied in with the rise of a more nationalized press though that's a conjecture on my part. Influence of big northeastern papers I believe probably was on the rise at the expense of more localized news. Hmm. Tammany Hall and the New York Times. Methinks "Gray Lady" has ALWAYS been overrated as a source of "all the news that's fit to print" and has always been more of the "all the news we see fit to print (consistent with our own biases and payoffs made to owner and editorial staff). I admit this is subjection on my part but.....
Probably the same time frame that a lot of local beer breweries were starting to be supplanted by national brands.
Also a case about how laws against monopolies, which were starting to come out in same general time frame, have always been selectively enforced. And frequently against those targets which were targeted by the media.
Of course, this is obviously simplistic since the Old West itself had plenty of examples of attempted gun control to keep guns out of saloons or to keep open carry out of those parts of town on the right side of the track, and supposedly attempts to keep freed men from being able to at least carry guns in former slave-owning areas after Reconstruction. by requiring approval by local sheriff or other police authorities.
But....just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,066 Posts
With regard to "mass shootings" I'll provide a link to the school shooting section of "mass shootings". It seems the motive changed over the years. I read that somewhere, but cannot remember where. Used to be the result of personal disputes. I think the trend of randomly shooting people (in school) picked up steam in the 1980s and 1990s. I read the change in motives occurred a little earlier....perhaps in the 70s. Again, cannot remember the article (I read it a few years ago). Probably, I would guess, stems from societal decay starting in the 60s. Columbine seems to have started the trend of school shootings. Prior to that, I don't recall the constant "news" barrage of school shootings. The "news" made these people into celebrities, resulting in more school shootings. With Covid lockdowns going away, I suspect we'll be inundated with "news" reports of school shootings in the near future. Here is a link of school shootings found from the 1700s through early 2000s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,053 Posts
Mass shootings are tied to the 24 hour news cycle. Shooters know they'll get instant attention, immediate feedback. Before the 24 hour news cycle it'd take at least a day to get in the paper and there wouldn't be photos or video right away. Not instant feedback.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
With the supply of internet-fueled wingnuts being what it is today, does anyone really want to see a return to 1962 era laws? Would this really be an improvement?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
737 Posts
No mass shootings? Seem to remember a guy in a tower, plus the guy who blew up a school for the biggest death toll of school violence.
Plus wounded knee and a whole bunch of other race based massed shootings.
Lets not pretend violence is new. Just the hype and media coverage.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,066 Posts
With the supply of internet-fueled wingnuts being what it is today, does anyone really want to see a return to 1962 era laws? Would this really be an improvement?
"Shall not be infringed". Like to see pre 1934 laws
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
"Shall not be infringed". Like to see pre 1934 laws
As long as you're going back, how about 19th-century interpretations of the 2A?

This board has displayed plenty of hand-wringing over the past year regarding the conduct of mobs in Seattle, Portland, NYC, etc. Yet somehow making it extra-easy for these mobs to be armed is the way forward? Someone is going to have to spell that one out for me in greater detail because I just don't see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
The original intent would be nice
The individual right aspect of 2A is a very recent legal development in the nation's history. And at any given moment, the Constitution effectively means what the current spate of living judges thinks it means. But if you want to go back to the rulings of dead judges, know that they were less generous towards individual 2A rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
The individual right was the original intent, and modernists have attempted to hide this. The founders and writers of the foundational documents had just watched a revolution that was sparked when the British decided to confiscate privately-owned muskets and bayonets (the assault rifle of the period) and cannons! This happened on April 19, 1775 in the Battle of Lexington and Concord. Lest anyone question, the constitutions of the original states all had equivalents of the 2nd Amendment that were more specific about the individual right because they knew that the government itself was the greatest threat to freedom. The ignored fact of the 2nd Amendment is that demanding of the gobvernment that possession of firearms not be interefered with wasn't for fun or hunting but in order to allow the citizens to turn those arms on the government it isef, should t ever become tyrannical. But let's hear from the founders themselves, shall we? These quotes have been aggregated on my web page:

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence (sic) is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Professor of Law, University of William and Mary, in the foundational analysis of the U.S. Constitution, Blackstone's Commentaries with Notes of reference to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia (In Five Volumes), 1803

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" - Noah Webster

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson in three drafts of the Virginia Constitution

All the best,

Bob
 
  • Like
Reactions: hershmeister

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,066 Posts
The individual right aspect of 2A is a very recent legal development in the nation's history. And at any given moment, the Constitution effectively means what the current spate of living judges thinks it means. But if you want to go back to the rulings of dead judges, know that they were less generous towards individual 2A rights.
I want to go back to the intent of the founders. Judges shouldn't be making laws. That's the job of Congress. Judges rule according to the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
I want to go back to the intent of the founders. Judges shouldn't be making laws. That's the job of Congress. Judges rule according to the law.
There are a lot of Conservative activist judges out there these days. Used to be Liberal activist judges.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member/Moderator/Administrator/
Joined
·
26,705 Posts
Never happen. Could have happened in the 1960's, don't you think?
Why didn't it?
Because the MOB would have known they would have been met with a fuselage of flying
lead ten times what they had.


As long as you're going back, how about 19th-century interpretations of the 2A?

This board has displayed plenty of hand-wringing over the past year regarding the conduct of mobs in Seattle, Portland, NYC, etc. Yet somehow making it extra-easy for these mobs to be armed is the way forward? Someone is going to have to spell that one out for me in greater detail because I just don't see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
The individual right aspect of 2A is a very recent legal development in the nation's history. And at any given moment, the Constitution effectively means what the current spate of living judges thinks it means. But if you want to go back to the rulings of dead judges, know that they were less generous towards individual 2A rights.
Seems to me it was pretty much a given that citizens could have guns. At least in many cases there were no prohibitions from ex-cons having guns either.
Founding fathers were allegedly against standing armies (when they needed more reliable troops in Revolution, the stories sometimes changed) so technically all citizens had to serve. Lines got pretty muddied early on, of course. Later federal government began to feel obligation to provide arms to the "militia" although in many cases the muskets and stuff were stored in federal arsenels for distribution. Not sure if the issue of forced servitude in an active militia came up back in the day or not: would almost think it would have had to but I don't recall reading about any cases.
But, then, there was damned sure no right to abortion in those days either. and it was typically considered murder.
Another point to ponder is that there ARE 3 branches of government allegedly separate but equal.. Without really any Constitution means to address what happened when there were conflicts between the branches. Still really aren't. Just like secession: not discussed in Constitution I know of.
Rest assured there are still more liberal activist judges than there are conservative activist judges.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top