When did the Anti-gun movement start?

For me it started towards the end of 1993 when Bill Clinton and the anti-gunners in Congress tried their big gun grab. The anti=gunners were voted out but like hungry wolves they hover on the fringe waiting to exploit any weakness they can find.
 
IMHO that's true about the assassinations, but before jumping to the conclusion that gun control was an entirely leftist idea, let's not forget that the 1968 GCA would not have passed without the cooperation of the following groups:
Click to expand...

Let's also remember that the NRA used to be only about owning guns for sporting reasons, and in fact supported both the 1934 NFA and '68 GCA. It was only in the mid 1970s that they had a little internal revolution and became the more libertarian staunchly pro-2A group we know today.

Edit: wow, year old topic. Didn't even notice.
 
I often have fun during these discussions, pointing out that the "Gunfight at the OK Corral" was about disarming cowboys who thought they should be able to carry guns on the streets of Tombstone.

And, the opening salvo of the American Revolution was fought when the British decided to move against militia supplies.
 
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was reportedly heavily supported by owners of gun shops?
For purely business reasons, of course.
Eliminating the mail order buying of guns, and the requirement that gun sellers be licensed and restricted, was good for business.
An easy way to reduce competition is by government edict.
 
The 68 GCA also contained restrictions on imports. Totally arbitrary, but it gave the Sec Tres authority to decide what was "suitable for sporting purposes".

Gun A might meet the criteria, and be legally imported. Gun B, identical to gun A except for a 1/4" difference in height, or width, or length was "not suitable for sporting purposes" and could not be imported.

Part of the GCA 68 was about trade protectionism. US gunmakers were being hit by lower cost imports (including but not limited to milsurps), and either passively supported or did not strongly object to the GCA 68 because parts of it were good for their business.
 
I doubt General Butler had that in mind when he testified before Congress
Click to expand...
Well, as Smedley is my favorite Marine (sorry Chesty), I'm not so sure he had ill-intent when speaking of nationalizing ammunition manufacture. Just going off the top of my head without doing further research, I would imagine that to be an extension of his overall view of the military-political machine. He knew all about it before Ike referred to it as the military-industrial complex decades later. An ardent big business foe regarding war profiteering, I don't believe his intent was to restrict an individual rights. Needless to say, Congress liked big business, not Smedley Butler. I'll have to reread his Congressional testimony.
 
Modern gun control started with the assassination of JFK.
If you want to look before WWII then the violence surrounding prohibition sparked legislation. That brought us the National Firearms Act.

As has been mentioned there has been different types of weapons control for centuries before firearms. From keeping knightly weapons out of the hands of peasants to keeping firearms out of the hands of minorities, much of those laws were in support of an entrenched power structure.

Current entrenched power structure no longer use firearm restrictions to keep a segment of society under control. There are a host of other measure for keeping the peasantry in their place.

Most gun control advocates claim a compelling societal harm done by firearms. They feel that restrictions on firearms makes society and citizens safer.
If you visit the Brady web site they can give your their arguments.
http://www.handguncontrol.org/?q=bradycenter

The Bray campaign itself was instigated by the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and the wounding of Jim Brady.
 
Actually, the earliest gun control laws in the US date back to the French Black Codes in Louisiana, which were written in 1751. Clayton Cramer's article on the history of gun control is good reading for context.

As was pointed out the last time this thread was active, it's not so much about guns as it is about disarmament in general. The idea that people should be disarmed for their own good by their betters goes back throughout recorded history. It's a bad piece of social engineering that says we can make people better by banning instruments.
 
History of the right to bear arms.

A great source for the history of the 2nd amendment is:

The Second Amendment Primer
by Les Adams
Palladium Press , 1996

The Citizen's guidebook to the history, sources, and authorities for the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is a must read for all current defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. One great point it makes is that all current gun control laws are unconstitutional as the right to keep and bear arms is part of our Rill Of Rights and the only way to change it is thru passing an Amendment. The anti gun camp know that they can't do this so they make changes by the legislative action - that the President signs into law. This has all of the appearance of being legal - but is unconstitutional. Oh crap - that darn infringed thing.

The Strawstalker, behind enemy lines in Liberal Colorado.
 
Must have been gun grabbers before 1787 or the Founders wouldn't have thought to included it in the Bill of Rights.
 
I had a copy of Sports Afield magazine dated 1939 and there was an article in it about the various groups and political factions that were against the second amendment. It was quite an article about the dangers of Nazi's and Facists and all the various world problems at that time. They put a huge importance on the need for militia's.
 
David Kopel's book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy is a excellent read on gun (weapon) control in different parts of the world-especially from a historical context. So much of it having to do with the individual culture.
 
The anti-gun, or anti-weapon in the hands of the ordinary citizen, began back in mediva/feudal times. The concept of a right of the average citizen to have weapons for personal defense began in the 1600s in the New World, America. The antis are still with us.
 
One thing to remember about gun control in the past, (or swords/crossbows..)
it was about the group in power wanting the arms out of the hands of specific groups of people (the ones they didn't want capable of resistance).

Generally they were fine with guns in the private hands of the people on their side. Or allowed them anyway, within a regulated system. For those of proven loyalty/acceptable politics/religion/ethnicity, etc.

Today (and in the recent past) the focus is on getting the guns out of the hands of EVERYONE, because of the "harm" that they do. Police, military and private security get exceptions.

The Crown isn't trying to take your fowling piece because they are worried you are shooting Redcoats with it. They want it because its "bad" and causes "gun violence".

I see that as a significant difference.

you may argue that the change in focus is merely a change in tactics, but I would say that the change is fundamental, and is the origin and identifying feature of "modern" gun control.
 
In 1547 a German archbishop declared that rifles were the work of the devil. To prove his point he had two marksmen fire 20 rounds, one of lead balls, the other of silver balls stamped with a cross and blessed by a priest. The silver Holy balls all missed the target, proving him correct. He declared that anyone who makes a rifle is to be burned at the stake.

Tales of The Gun-bullets and ammo. 6:10 minute mark
 
Both Ronald Reagan (then Gov. of CA) and the NRA supported gun control measures after the Black Panthers started using guns as a means of defense, and as a pr tool. Things change, the great thing is that our rights do not change. Fascinating thread.
 
sodbuster said:
Well, as Smedley is my favorite Marine (sorry Chesty), I'm not so sure he had ill-intent when speaking of nationalizing ammunition manufacture. Just going off the top of my head without doing further research, I would imagine that to be an extension of his overall view of the military-political machine. He knew all about it before Ike referred to it as the military-industrial complex decades later. An ardent big business foe regarding war profiteering, I don't believe his intent was to restrict an individual rights. Needless to say, Congress liked big business, not Smedley Butler. I'll have to reread his Congressional testimony.
Click to expand...

I was always partial to Dan Danly myself.

That being said, based on what I've read of General Butler, he didn't have much to say regarding domestic ammunition manufactures. Most of his ire was directed at big armament type guys.

However, that didn't stop from assorted progressives of the time trying to tie that into nationalizing the ammunition industry, which is most definitely a form of gun control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top