Thursday, February 6, 2014

Prag City, USA. A trip down memory lane for the Lairds of Fairfax. NRA endorses White House executive action to ban firearms.

"Today we begin to disarm the criminal and the careless and the insane. All of our people who are deeply concerned in this country about law and order should hail this day. . . Congress adopted most of our recommendations. But this bill--as big as this bill is--still falls short, because we just could not get the Congress to carry out the requests we made of them. I asked for the national registration of all guns and the licensing of those who carry those guns. For the fact of life is that there are over 160 million guns in this country--more firearms than families. If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible, then we just must have licensing. If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country."  -- Lyndon Johnson,  Remarks Upon Signing the Gun Control Act of 1968, October 22, 1968.
As I mentioned the other day, I lucked into some back issues of American Rifleman at the thrift store. Regarding the NRA's positions on gun control from the period of the run-up to the adoption of the GCA 1968, I found this in the March 1968 issue:
Editorial: Restraint on TV, Cheap Handguns Wins Favor.
Most NRA members heartily endorse our February editorial suggestion that the White House initiate action to reduce firearms violence, to judge by early responses from across the Nation.
The editorial pointed out that Executive Orders could be issued, without any Congressional action, for the State Department to shut off importation of tons of cheap foreign pistols and for the Federal Communications Commission to restrain television violence that in some opinions stimulates crime.
Comments from NRA members included: ". . . Couldn't agree more if we had written it ourselves;" ". . . has my unequivocal support;" and "I agree completely . . ." Some, but not all, sent copies of their letters to the White House to get their sentiments on the record there.
Regarding a ban on cheap imported handguns, it should be pointed out that while the NRA upholds and protects normal civilian firearms activities, it does not necessarily approve of everything that goes "Bang!" It is on record against machine guns, sawed-off shoulder arms, antitank guns, mortars, bombs, and other devices that have no role in civilian sportsmanship.
Viewed realistically, junky .22 handguns that retail for as little as $7.98 -- we saw some tagged at that recently -- are in much the same category. They aren't suited for target shooting, handgun hunting, or police or protection purposes. Most honest-to-goodness gun owners wouldn't have one around. Yet the reckless use of such junk has harmed legitimate firearms ownership. Many are sold by mail. Therefore it is fortunate that the President, who protested "mail-order murder" in his State of the Union message, can apparently cut off their importation.

Yeah, you read it right.  I certify that it is a correct copy.  Unfortunately I do not have the February 1968 issue referred to.  It seems that the NRA weeniemobile has been in continuous use since at least 1968.  (Actually 1934's National Firearms Act, but then I don't have a photo of that vintage transportation.)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nothing but hate for all of them and a special mention for the NRA. Apparently they've been "helping" us a lot over the years.

And the constitution and bill of rights have taken a drubbing non-stop.

I think we'll see an actual repeal of these documents, before we see any action to repeal the GCA-68. Obamacare well be the same sort of law,. Once passed, it never goes away.

Anonymous said...

I'll say it again.
The NRA has more in common with the oft renamed Brady bunch than with the American Citizen. They align on keeping disunity because they can keep reserve notes rolling in.

The NRA is the biggest and best disguised GUN CONTROL group in these united States. Period.

"NRA membership" is to be SCORNED!

Anonymous said...

I seriously doubt if the current NRA leadership had anything to do with the Gun Control Acts of either 1934 or 1968. I hasten to add that The NRA has always wanted violent criminals to not be able to get guns. I see nothing wrong with that. If you think violent criminals or dangerously mentally ill people should be able to legally obtain guns, perhaps you need to rethink your position. The NRA has always fought against government restrictions on magazine capacities, too. I think we all can agree with The NRA on that as well. So, I don't see the problem some of you have with The NRA. I think the current administration in Washington and governments of several states are the extremists, not us or The NRA. I'm thinking of sending the NRA-ILA some more "reserve notes". I think we all need to do that.

If this commentary pisses you off, then I can only conclude that you know little about The NRA and perhaps you need to become a member for a few years so you can learn. If that makes you angry, then you are more ignorant than I thought. Your attitude would then be properly called closed-minded. I am as much in favor of the second amendment as any of you, and for the ultimate reason it is in the Constitution, but I'm sick of hearing anti-NRA sentiments from uninformed people!

Anonymous said...

I have not seen any money sent to that organization returned to this state in any way, to include helping shooting ranges defend frivolous lawsuits, promote shooting sports, or even just be present at events.

I believe they have succumbed to Beltway Syndrome, in that nothing matters that occurs outside a 25 mile radius of DC. Many of them just want to be part of the power structure, even if it results in them contributing suggestions on regulation of flintlock muskets. That is all we will be left with if those 3-martini lunch types have their way.

Even their Institute for Legislative Action reports result from articles reported elsewhere previously.

In the NRA's case, it has gotten too large, too out of touch with grassroots members ("the great unwashed" I had heard once), and disinterested in what firearms owners want and need now.

I am keeping my money to donate locally, and to journalism like this, so I can see where the money went, and know who to talk to if it doesn't. Mike will never disappoint us, and neither will your state, county, or local gun owners organization.

Anonymous said...

Before this time it was possible for 12 year-olds and older to order directly from Sears, and have delivered to their home, their very own rifles. All they had to do was earn the money, send in their order form (with their parents signature) and the rifle would be shipped to them.

At the same time they could purchase, from the local store, any type of ammunition that was available, except handgun ammunition. All .22 ammo had to be signed for in a purchase book because it could be used both in a handgun and a rifle.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous February 6, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Yeah, the NRA was really active bringing suits and attacking the enemies of freedom wasn't it?

Tell me, with all their resources, why weren't they the initiating party in heller? How about any of the other recent cases?

But they are very good at jumping in to steal as much thunder as they can, after someone else or some other group takes action, aren't they?

And they were very active calling me daily for donations, which I now realize were not intended to produce any actions that would in any way bolster freedom and constitutional rights.

You go ahead and cheer-lead all you want for the NRA. They'll laugh at you for being foolish and we'll get a chuckle too.

smitty said...

LBJ:

"If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible..."

Criminal, insane, irresponsible...

Gee, doesn't that sum up our government in a...nutshell ?

smitty said...

A poster comments that the "NRA has always wanted violent criminals to not be able to get guns".

Not so...

Check out Project Exile, a program that operated to stuff more people in prison over disability to possess or own guns, often without any violent component.

NRA fully backed and promoted the adoption of Project Exile.

If there's any evidence that NRA has makes any distinction between firearms rights for non-violent and violent felons, please present it.

Damn but it's pitiful that some gun buffs themselves haven't an understanding of the meaning of the 2nd...

"...shall not be infringed."