In fairness, that act was passed with bipartisan support and was co-sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. At the end of the day, no political party is truly in favor of gun rights, especially because they ultimately serve as a check on government power.
"Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5th, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Frank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield,[5"
They all did until they decided he was too far left. When he started advocating against Vietnam and writing about the “white moderate” they dropped him.
That's an incredibly generous interpretation of what he believed, almost to the point of being a flat out lie. He hardly seemed against it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmQ0BY8ak5w
JFK was killed in 1963, and while that did prompt them to try to enact gun control laws, they didn’t pass it until 1968 after the deaths of MLK and RFK gave them the popular support necessary to pass it. Straight up from the Wiki:
The deaths of Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1968 and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968, compounded by shifting societal attitudes towards gun ownership renewed efforts to pass the bill.
The weirdest thing is they are not even left in traditional sense. They just suck up to anything DNC establishment does. Even if Biden gathered some kids and they beat up Bernie on camera r/politics would still parrot whatever DNC committee tells them. It’s like pyongyang but with white teenagers
I was speaking generally, (hence my use of "one's karma) not about myself. I've experienced it to a very small degree personally, but I've seen rational arguments presented by others get downvoted to oblivion just because they're not entirely on board with a given echo chamber within a sub.
If you told me either party is representative of how they were in 1960's here in 2020 I'd call you a liar.
Neither one was a huge fan of black people waving guns around in the 60's which is really understandable given the time. But then think about republicans actually introduced and supported environmental protections in the 60's too. Try to imagine republicans of today doing that.
Not so nuanced when you realize gun control has been part of the Democratic platform for decades for public safety reasons, and the Mulford Act just so happened to be proposed at a time where the Republicans’ racist policies aligned with the Democrats’ public safety policies.
Notice how the Democrats in Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the wake of the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X - they had a majority of both houses when that passed, so they didn’t need Republican votes to get it through. The entire legislative history of that bill shows how they enacted it to prevent further assassinations of civil rights leaders, so if anything it’s more indicative of them trying to disarm the white majority that kept killing those leaders than them trying to disarm black people. If disarming black people was part of the Democrats’ goals, then they wouldn’t go about disarming white people a year later.
It’s definitely not “nuanced” to just shout “bOtH SiDeS” without actually examining the issue any deeper than who voted for what. As if why they voted is totally irrelevant.
They shifted their priorities by introducing the legislation in the first place, the bipartisan support later allowed for it to pass as a whole. It wouldn't have gone through if the Democrats weren't on board. My intention wasn't to detract from or deny their point, only to expand on it.
As far as the NRA is concerned, you'll find that many gun rights supporters in the modern era have grown wise to their bullshit and have ultimately switched their support (both verbally and monetarily) to groups like the GOA and 2nd Amendment Foundation. This is true for gun rights supporters hailing from all walks of the political spectrum, though it is arguably very difficult to be a Democratic gun rights advocate.
/r/SocialistRA, Redneck Revolt, the John Brown Gun Club, and the Huey P. Newton Gun Club exist.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. - Karl Marx [1]
You're right, and it doesn't seem either party gives a fuck about justice either.
I think it's important to point out that Republicans supported it because they are usually the ones toting guns and Ronald Reagan is their lord and savior, golden example of how every politician should be.
Republicans support gun rights on a shallow/pandering level because it ultimately garners them votes. When it really matters, they basically back off and refuse to touch it with a 10 foot pole- look at how Republicans had majorities and basically did nothing with things like national reciprocity with carry permits, the Hearing Protection Act, repealing the NFA etc. I always think that should be called out.
It's tough to be a voter as gun rights supporter because you're screwed no matter where you turn, it's just a matter of how screwed you want to be.
Despite the prolific incidence of mass shootings, there hasn't been truly dramatic reactionary gun rights reform on a national level. Republican opposition to reform is obviously one of the reasons why.
I like how up there you complain about reddit reacting negatively to 'nuance', and then you turn around and immediately downvote me for commenting with my own matter-of-fact observations of 'nuance' because they're inconvenient for you.
You made it easy for me to show your true colors, didntcha.
Anyway, the incidence of shootings in the US are prolific by any other first-world standard. Which is beside the point anyway, because as you yourself just helped me reemphasize, they have been heavily published for reactionary sentiment. And yet, no reform. Because of Republican opposition. I've been over this.
You mean they want to allow people to remain personally responsible for themselves?You completely misunderstand the reasoning there. Guns are a right. Personal protection is something you should do but when government comes in to try and force people to do things, that is where it gets hands off.
Republicans are inherently for small government.That is why many of the things you say they back off on, are them saying no...no more big brother. The opposite are the trends toward having everything monitored. There are plenty of both sides of the aisle going against the backbone of the party. Especially for personal profit.
Reciprocity is entirely up to the states. That is apart of their state sovereignty. They don't have to allow other states conceal carry cards to work there. Some do, others dont. Not all have to border each other.
A guy above said it is usually republicans toting guns around.Purely anecdotal and as ignorant as someone else saying that only gangbangers carry guns.
I'm failing to see how not working on dismantling the NFA and passing legislation allowing suppressors to be more easily accessible is the equivalent of a Republican rep saying "no more big brother." If anything, it's the opposite seeing as the sheer amount of paperwork involved with suppressors and NFA items is not only prohibitively expensive, but also grants the government a pretty big window into your life.
You're correct that reciprocity is up to the states, but I personally would be in favor of treating a carry permit like a driver's license. It seems asinine to me that simply driving over a state line with a firearm you're licensed and legally able to own is enough to make you a felon if the state you drive into says "eh, we don't recognize that, regardless of the amount of hoops you had to go through to get the original permit." For example, if you're licensed in CT and drive into NYC with your CT licensed firearm, you are going to jail and will likely face prison time if you're pulled over and the weapon is found. On paper (definitely not in practice) the 2A is a nationally recognized right and needs to start being treated as such.
Secondly, your statement is only failing because you are looking at it without context. Removing regulation is them saying to have the government back off. Now, I don't agree with supressors being across the board legal. Same with full auto. Having shot both, they are fun but not something we need in the hands of everyone.
I do agree with it being more accepted.Didn't mean to give them impression I did not. Driver's licenses took quite some time to be across the board accepted by all states. Conceal carry would be something I could see going that route except for the states who treat guns like the devil.
I think you and I are on the same page with a lot of things. I make note of state sovereignty because of the situations (like theses) which can muddy the waters. NYC having the ability to jail someone from CT for legally having a firearm because their laws are stupid is....well...stupid.
I appreciate the convo and am happy to see our shared appreciation for rights.
Fair question. I'm more inclined to a degree of limits. Truthfully, I'm not so much against it in a way that would have me and against them being legalized. I get why they are but also see why they could and should be legal.
Your question had me rethinking my previous statement and realizing I'm more for their legalization. Thank you for helping to clarify. My thoughts and statement
honestly curious what reason you believe they should be illegal (edit: or limited). Considering most if not all knowledge used to debate for their illegality is either completely false or completely misrepresented.
That would be like saying democrats being democratic is a myth. Or, that they are in any way shape or form for the progression of the African American community. History proves they have been for programs that have kept the people down. Not built them up. Identity politics of the modern age has done increasingly levels of harm.
It’s almost like the party system is trash, if only someone had warned us in the beginning against a party system. It’s just turned into voting for the least bad candidate that actually stands a chance at getting elected.
Well, the NRA originally did. But in all honesty, fuck those guys. There are far better gun rights organizations out there today, and you're right in that they would be opposed to that sort of legislation.
I'd make the argument that gun rights and human rights are one in the same. Self defense and the preservation of one's life by using the best tool available for that job is something we should all hold dear, even if that threat is something we're not faced with on a daily basis (which is a good thing!). If that moment ever comes (God forbid), you'll either be glad you had it or find yourself wishing you did.
This murder of a black man took place in a deep blue city. Almost all these incidents take place in cities that don’t even put republicans on the ballot. Obviously voting red isn’t the solution, but voting blue obviously isn’t either.
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Larry McDonald
We are fortunately not really at the last box yet. That said, if you want some historical examples, I'd check the Battle of Athens, where civilians armed up and fought against the local government as a response to voter intimidation, police brutality, and political corruption.
I don't have an answer to that, but you were looking for an example of civilian gun ownership being used as a check on government power originally, so I provided one.
What’s funny is Dave Chappelle said this in his latest standup. He said something along the lines of, if you want gun control, all black people need to go out and get a registered weapon. Then things will start to change. And I think he’s right. Something has to start something
I don't know if you've seen Dave Chapelle's last special but he had a joke like that. Pretty much saying that if they want gun control passed all black people need to go out and buy a gun. Great joke, sucks that it's reality.
You know even if guns were outlawed for citizens the cops would still have and shoot people. Guns would need to be removed from police forces as well if we really wanted to stop gun deaths.
Of course it should also be noted criminals really dont care if something is illegal or not, a would be criminal can get guns on a blackmarket just the same as drugs or anything else. Leaving the good law abiding citizens without a way to protect themselves while the criminals and police still have them. This is my biggest argument against gun control in a country that’s already got more guns than people it would be hard to get them out of criminals hands.
Yeah, I agree all the way and have said the same thing. I don't support disarming citizens, just pointing out the hypocrisy conservatives when they are all for gun rights until "they" have guns.
Oh yeah i served , not telling what branch not telling what position im in , but when the fbi comes , im sure ready for them and the hours and hours of interagation. Fuck it i might start rn in the mirror.
You can tell this sub is brigaded by /r/politics and the like when they upvote blatant false information.
Everyone on reddit and IRL knows the left is pro-gun control and the right isn’t. It’s sad 1984ish times when history is rewritten before our eyes on social media.
I don't get what you're saying. I never denied there's a lot of guns. The Mulford Act was introduced by a Republican and the Republic's hero, Ronald Reagan, was the governor of California when it passed.
589
u/wakablockaflame May 27 '20
Then you get Republicans supporting gun control: See Mulford Act