Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Government

What Does History Say About When the Gov’t Tried to Restrict Guns in the Past?

Feb. 12, 2013 8:19am Billy Hallowell

This article is part of a series on Guns in America that explores the use of firearms in our country and the debate over gun control. This is an editorially independent series sponsored by Tactical Firearms Training Secrets.

–

Story Highlights:

Guns played a special role in framing and shaping America’s founding and culture
The NRA, since its founding in 1871, has shaped the nation’s gun culture
Federal gun control laws date back to 1927 with the Mailing of Firearms Act
Key firearms control legislation was also passed in 1934, 1968, 1986, 1993 and 1994
Renewed calls for an assault-weapons ban are being met with skepticism amid misinformation

–
Editor’s note — We’ll be discussing this story and all the day’s news during our live BlazeCast from 12pm-1pm ET…including your questions, comments & live chat:

Guns are an integral and celebrated part of American history and culture. From their presence in the days preceding the American Revolution to their role in contemporary entertainment, firearms continue to enjoy a prominent societal standing.

Removing guns from the nation’s formative story is an impossibility, but the cultural impact of firearms goes well beyond the founding of our nation. Just think about the Red Ryder BB gun and its prominence in “The Christmas Story” or the legends surrounding famed Wild West outlaw Billy the Kid. There’s also Buffalo Bill, whose military experience and entertainment exploits converged and greatly impacted the historical narrative. And who could forget American sharpshooter Annie Oakley, the nation’s first female superstar?

Guns have became so prevalent and coveted as a result of the their role in early American history that, today, it is “almost as though [they are] in our DNA,” Tom Gresham, a gun expert and the host of “Gun Talk,” said in an interview with TheBlaze.

The U.S. gun-ownership rate, while down slightly from past years, remains extremely high. In 2012, Gallup found that 43 percent of households report having at least one firearm. With an estimated 270 million guns in America, statistics corroborate that the American people are the most heavily-armed in the world, as CNN notes (Yemin is a distant second).

Many Americans view guns as a symbol of the historic quest to secure and protect personal freedoms, and they believe fervently that their right to bear arms will ensure protection against those who seek to subjugate them. Others see guns as a threat to their personal safety, with violence such as the massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., serving as a solemn reminder of the dark side of guns in America.

Ultimately, firearms also have come to be a symbol of two differing views on the role of government in society, said historian Clayton Cramer.

“To much of America, a firearm is a symbol that you are a citizen, a responsible person who can be trusted with an instrument of considerable power that enables you to protect yourself, your family, and your property,” Cramer told TheBlaze. “To the elite, a firearm is a symbol of barbarism and a lack of trust of one’s fellow citizens and government.”

It is through these two starkly-different lenses that the current debate about guns is argued. However, one cannot tackle the issue on either side without considering its roots.

This Is the Complex History of Gun Control in the United States of America? | Firearms, Second Amendment

This February 4, 2013 photo illustration in Manassas, Virginia, shows a Remington 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a Colt .45 semi-auto handgun, a Walther PK380 semi-auto handgun and various ammunition clips with a copy of the US Constitution on top of the American flag. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

THE HISTORY: THE ROOTS OF AMERICA’S GUN CULTURE

It was in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified and America’s new-found government officially adopted gun rights as one of the most pressing national freedoms. After its acceptance, the Second Amendment opened the door for the general public to legally purchase and possess firearms under the umbrella of a new government structure. While it’s clear that the nation’s founders wanted to grant citizens the right to bear arms, contemporary debate surrounds the historical nature of the amendment and its practicality and applicability in modern times.

But before we move too deeply into that history, keep in mind that the traditional roots of gun ownership in America are profound and precede the historic actions taken in 1791. By the time the American Revolution concluded, the colonists had already used weapons in battles against both Native Americans and the English regime. After all, firearms were on U.S. soil well before the U.S. took official form.

“Because we have guns, we were able to have the U.S.,” Gresham explained. “The people who were in what is now in [America] came to escape oppression — and part of that was when policemen would outlaw crossbows and armor. The people came here to escape that very kind of control.”

This photo provided by the New Jersey Institute of Technology shows a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun configured with transducers to its handle that can detect the grasp of an authorized user. To gun rights groups, the idea of using technology to control who can fire a gun smacks of a limitation on personal rights, particularly if it might be mandated by government. At the same time, some gun control advocates worry that such technology, by making guns appear falsely safe, would encourage Americans to stock up on even more weapons then they already have in their homes. Credit: AP

In fact, firearms in the hands of those living here were necessities in order for the Revolution to be won. The colonists, having already had their rights stripped away in their homelands, had come to America for a better life — one in which the government didn’t restrict their freedoms to practice their faith, possess weapons and openly speak out on the issues of the day; recalling this history is essential when framing today’s gun debate.

Most men in what is now America owned guns prior to the Revolution for both self-defense and hunting, according to Cramer, who has extensively studied and documented gun rights in American history. The colonial governments and, at one point, even the U.S. government, required that all male citizens of militia age have a gun in their home.

“This happened infrequently after the War of 1812, but as late as World War II, Alaska, Oregon, and Maryland, among others, called on the unorganized militia to provide protection against invasion in the first year or so of the war,” Cramer explained.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The Second Amendment affirms “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” a central tenant that the majority of Americans embrace (the full text reads: “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”). But debate over the past century has surrounded just how far this sentiment should be taken.

To put it all into perspective, the Founders created the Second Amendment during a time when there was a need to protect Americans from central and state governments that new-found Americans viewed with deep skepticism. In fact, many people, recognizing the nation’s fragility, feared what might happen if the government ran amok, thus they sought to maintain military might among themselves by allowing guns in the hands of the general public.

A women fires a handgun at the ‘Get Some Guns & Ammo’ shooting range on January 15, 2013 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Lawmakers are calling for tougher gun legislation after recent mass shootings at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Credit: Getty Images

There’s a debate among scholars when it comes to the founders’ reasons for pushing for the Second Amendment. According to Stephen Halbrook, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer and scholar in this arena, the constitutional provision was crafted because the founders wanted the same rights they had as Englishmen. As Voice of America notes (VOA) reports, many colonists lost freedoms leading up to the American Revolution, including the right to bear arms. However, others disagree. VOA highlights another perspective:

Fordham University historian Saul Cornell says, “What’s easy to forget is that the Second Amendment actually poses an enormous burden on the citizenry.” For Cornell, the Second Amendment is more concerned with maintaining national defense through citizen militias than with protecting individual gun ownership rights.

“I don’t think that many people on either side of the modern gun debate — gun control or gun rights — really would be happy if we went back to the original meaning of the Second Amendment, because for gun control people it would involve a much greater militarization of society,” he said.

“We would be living in a country much more like Israel or Switzerland. And on the other side, it would involve much greater regulation because you could not muster the militia without regular inspections of firearms, without much more training. So you have to be careful what you wish for, because sometimes you may get it.”

And still others would argue that times have changed and that, perhaps, it’s time for an amendment to refine the rights afforded by the controversial amendment. Today, gun technology far outpaces what was available during the Constitution’s framing. Then unimaginable, 30-round magazines have become a reality — one that both sides of the debate are currently arguing over fervently. Along the way, legislative action, many times as the result of gun tragedy, framed the debate.

Regardless of the context that existed in 1791, gun culture continued to grow and progress in the decades following the nation’s founding.

After the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the next major milestone in U.S. gun culture came in 1871, when the National Rifle Association (NRA) was formed by Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate (former Union Army veterans). According to the organization’s official account of its history, Church and Wingate decided to launch the NRA after they realized the poor marksmanship skills that were possessed by their soldiers during the war. A newspaper article penned by Church at the time said that the group was founded to ”promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.”

It didn’t take long for the NRA to grow in popularity, as the group promoted marksmanship and shooting as a sport. In 1902, the organization pushed for rifle clubs at major colleges, universities and military academies and, by 1906, a youth program was in full swing. Naturally, with the NRA has always come controversy. By the time 1934 rolled around, the organization launched its Legislative Affairs Division “in response to repeated attacks on the Second Amendment rights.”

THE BEGINNINGS OF AMERICA’S GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT

In 1927, Congress cracked down on Prohibition-era violence, implementing the first ever federal gun restriction; it was called the Mailing of Firearms Act. According to LiveScience.com, the law banned mail-order sales of handguns and other concealable weapons. Prior to the 1920s, though, gun control was never really mentioned at the federal level, although states did apparently implement discriminatory laws that kept weapons out of the hands of African Americans at the time.

It was in 1934, though, that Congress passed America’s first major gun control legislation, signed into law by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). The National Firearms Act was intended to hamper gangster behavior during Prohibition. The controversial law placed a tax on the production and transfer of automatic guns, shotguns and rifles.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) web site claims that the original act also placed “a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearm.” All guns covered under the act were also required to be registered with the Secretary of the Treasury.

In 1938, the Federal Firearms Act was passed. It required gun sellers to obtain a license from the Internal Revenue Service to sell guns and to maintain records of purchases. The law, also signed by FDR, put restrictions on felons purchasing firearms and ammo as well.

Credit: Getty Images

On the legislative front, the next bill monitoring guns in America came in 1968 when Congress passedThe Gun Control Act, a law that sought to control interstate trafficking of guns. It was this law, following assassinations during that decade (President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.), that raised the age for purchasing legal handguns from licensed dealers to 21. Additionally, the new regulations cracked down on guns getting into the hands of felons, the mentally ill and drug users. The ATF web site has more about this the law, which was sponsored by Democratic Sen. Thomas J. Dodd:

Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.

“Today we begin to disarm the criminal and the careless and the insane,” President Lyndon B. Johnson said when he signed the bill. “All of our people who are deeply concerned in this country about law and order should hail this day.”

While Johnson had praise for the law, he was dissatisfied that a national gun registry wasn’t included.

“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,” the Democratic president said at the time. “If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country.”

Before continuing, it’s important to note the relation between gun control efforts in 1934 and 1968. While the former law required registration of guns that were under 18 inches in length, the Supreme Court found in 1968 that such a provision was unconstitutional. This ruling was reached based on the notion that gun owners would potentially be self-incriminating if they tried to register a gun that was illegal in their home state. Registration was inevitably removed from the law’s text.

FIREARMS CONTROL OVER THE PAST THREE DECADES

Next, came two additional pieces of legislation in 1986 — The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. The former prevented felons from owning and possessing guns and ammunition. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, according to the Washington Post, also limited the number of times that the ATF could inspect gun dealers (something gun rights advocates likely applauded). The act was sponsored by Democratic Rep. William Hughes.

The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act also became law in 1986, halting the manufacturing, importing and selling of ammunition with the ability to penetrate a bulletproof vest (i.e. “armor-piercing ammunition”). This particular bill, which was sponsored by Dem. Rep. Mario Biaggi, also called for a minimum five-year sentence for anyone carrying guns with the capability to permeate said armor. Both bills were signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan. But gun control initiatives didn’t end there.

The next legislative push to crack down on guns resulted from yet another assassination attempt. In 1981, John Hinckley, Jr.’s failed attempt at killing President Ronald Reagan left his press secretary James Brady partially paralyzed (on the left side of his body). It was this scenario that led to yet another legislative move to rectify firearm violence, as Brady and his wife, Sarah, became influential gun control proponents.

As a result of their efforts, in 1993, Congress passed the The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a law that was sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, requiring the United States Attorney General to assemble a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for Federal Firearms Licensees. The system, which was put into place in 1998 following the law’s passage, does not monitor firearms that are bought and sold privately (between hunters and in other similar scenarios).

Credit: Getty Images

But as most gun enthusiasts know, it was 1994 that brought with it one of the most contentious laws: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Also known as the “Assault Weapons Ban,” this law, as NPR notes, “banned the manufacture, use, possession and import of 19 types of assault weapons, including AK-47s and Uzis.” The original law (sponsored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein) expired in 2004, but the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has some calling for it to be reinstated. Last month, Feinstein, once again, introduced a bill that would reinstate the ban.

Some, though, have found themselves frustrated with this push to further crack-down on weapons. Female competitive shooter Jessie Duff recently appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” to discuss some of the misconceptions that surround so-called “assault weapons.” She noted that there are deeply-held beliefs and fears about these guns that are simply not rooted in reality, as fully automatic weapons are not available to consumers.

“These are all semiautomatic firearms and when you pull the trigger once it fires once,” Duff explained. “They don’t spray bullets everywhere like you see in Hollywood or in the movies or video games.”

The debate over gun control in America forges on today, with the Washington Post, perhaps best encapsulating just how divisive the issue is, particularly when it comes to “assault weapons.” The shooting at Sandy Hook is just the latest in a slew of attacks that has politicians and leaders at the highest levels calling for increased regulations, with others dismissing more gun laws as unneeded and ineffective.

“The gun-control and gun-rights camps don’t even speak the same language, with one side arguing that the Second Amendment can’t possibly mean the right to own an assault weapon, while the other side says ‘assault weapon’ is a pejorative invented by an urban elite that wouldn’t know an AR-15 from an AK-47,” the outlet writes.

It is only with the historical context in mind that one can even approach the contentious debate surrounding guns. The political flammability is evidence of how influential the issue remains in American society.

Check back next Tuesday for another installment in our “Guns in America” series.

Carousel image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (163)

woodyee
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 11:06am
billy goto hell – the “gun culture” is but a small aspect that’s grown out of the Right to self-defense. It’s no different than a group of porcelain collectors – everyone who wants a plate can have one, but porcelain collectors makes a hobby of it.

Then there is the main body of folks who choose NOT to collect firearms, but reserve the Right to own one. That is NOT a culture – that is citizenry.

Why don’t you go write a story on a subject you know more about than most of us care to know – homosexuality and your desire to be recognized by formal religion?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dustbunnieskill
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:08pm
  Amen!
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:10pm
  who the heck picks the pictures for these articles? The picture of the lady about to fire the Ruger SR9 is about to get her left thumb cut, when that slide comes back, and takes a chunk our of it.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:10pm
  Fordham University historian Saul Cornell is generalizing and inaccurate. There was no standard universal regulations on the militias. Each state, and each town had its own regulations, before and even after the founding of the country. Some required training, some even allowed you to pay someone to stand in for you, for others the militia was a social function, an organization in name only where you went to training to socialize and brought your wife to the ball. This lackadaisical attitude about militia service was why the British thought so little of them as a fighting force. America has traditionally feared a standing Army, because standing Armies are tools of the State, and can easily be turned on the populace the supposedly protect, hence the importance of a militia in American history.
  
  Report this comment
- CLEttinger
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:36pm
  When children graduate High School, instead of the blank piece of paper that is supposed to represent your diploma you should receive a copy of the Constitution. Maybe then people will actually start to read it.
  
  Report this comment
- commies.in.the.wire
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:49pm
  Yes, the Obama admin and progressives in govt have definately run amok. The founders knew that one day there would be people like Obama & his fellow red ilk. We are now in those times that they wrote the 2d amendment for.
  
  Report this comment
- Bohump
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:18pm
  A goverment can not take over a Country, … When it’s People are Armed !
  
  Report this comment
- Yeah_Buddy
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:27pm
  I wonder if our Commie-in-chief will refer to his anti-gun agenda as the ‘broken 2nd amendment’ or ‘broken Bill of Rights’ tonight.
  
  Report this comment
- iampraying4u
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:32pm
  I love my 223 handgun
  
  Report this comment
- jakartaman
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 5:37pm
  I do not care one iota what these politician pass for laws.
  I will ignore them completely – The law I follow is the constitution – period.
  I have guns for my personal and family protection. I also have them in the event that our government because too tyrannical and needs changing – fast. In my humble opinion this push for gun control is to aid their complete central government social takeover. Its getting close folks – their strategy is to kill us my a thousand cuts and we do not realize that we are bleeding out.
  
  Report this comment
- Mike Westfall No Hiding
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:31pm
  The 2nd Amendment is exactly that, an amendment. In the Constitution it outlines the parameters for raising a militia to defend America’s borders. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges that with the statement of “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state” The comma after is very appropriate. It clarifies the government needing a well regulated militia AND THEN clearly states the “right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” There is nothing about the right of the people being confused with a well regulated militia. Get over it you liberal gun grabbers. You are bending the truth and the English language one more time to suit your liberal agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- quadra
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 4:25am
  Do You have a clue what you just said. Obviously, you do not have much knowledge of history and there fore, just say nothing!
  
  Report this comment
- Hammerofthor
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 2:13am
  I’ve figured this out guys. Obama says if we can save just 1 life then we must try. Using his logic, more people die in vehicle accidents each year than by gun violence. I then say that you don’t need 300 horse power to go to the grocery store. We must ban cars that can exceed the speed limit and especially the ones that have mag wheels, spoilers, racing stripes, loud mufflers, and custom paint jobs. Surely if a car looks fast and dangerous, it is. We also must ban the classifieds loophole. All vehicles must be taken to a dealer where a legal transfer can take place and the dealer can get his cut. We must also urge all governments to divest all investments in auto company stocks since it is not politically correct for the people to be invested in companies that contribute to such human carnage.
  
  I know all of this sounds ludicrous but just substitute vehicle and car with gun or assault rifle and it is just as ludicrous. I can do as much damage with a Remington 1100 with slugs and a 5 gallon can of gas as any of those insane bastards but they want to blame the guns. When will they learn that their goal was not to kill people but to gain fame which the news media gave them.
  
  Report this comment
- CJ_94
  Posted on March 26, 2013 at 1:59pm
  @hammerofthor: While I can appreciate your analogy, guns are the only manufactured item available for public consumption specifically designed to kill people. Cars have a far more utilitarian purpose, so comparing the two is an exercise in absurdity.
  
  We (gun-rights advocates and gun control advocates) need to get over the fact that guns are specifically designed to kill people. That’s a fact. We need to FOCUS on the fact that there are legally appropriate times to kill people: in self defense, and in opposition to tyranny. Additionally, you don’t actually have to fire a shot for a gun to have an impact. The mere possession of a gun in any given situation changes the dynamic.
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:59am
“Then unimaginable, 30-round magazines have become a reality”

Unimaginable? UNIMAGINABLE???

What the folk crawled up your arse billy goto-hell? Did you ever think about the UNIMAGINABLE ability to transmit lies and falsehoods to millions of people at the same time, INVISIBLY, over ONE THING called a microphone?? How about pictures?

What about the UNIMAGINABLE power of the Federal governmnent to take what is earned by others to distribute to those whose votes they need?

You’re folked billy goto-hell. Your editorializing has gone far enough.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 12:43pm
  I imagine that the “cartridge” was unimaginable in 1791. At that time, you had to make your own bullet (it was just a ball), you had to pour in the gun powder into the barrel, then put the “ball” (bullet) in the barrel, then put some wadding in the barrel. Then you had to pour some gun powder into the pan, light a piece on fire so that when it burns down to the pan, it would ignite the powder in the pan, which in turn would ignite the powder in the barrel to cause an explosion of gasses to propel the lead ball out the barrel. Then things “evolved”, and the piece of cloth was needed to ignite the pan, they used flint.
  
  Eventually, the cartridge was invented which incorported a casing which held powder, primer and bullet. Yeah, the cartridge was very “unimaginable” in 1791.
  
  Gun control advocates are idiots.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:24pm
  The Blaze has been riding Bill O’Reilly’s coattails to the left for months now. This article is full of generalizations and inaccuracies.
  
  Report this comment
- SUNTZU
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:28pm
  I can always fall back on my 24 round
  cardboard box of quart size mason jar
  cocktails Can be used one at a time
  or all at once. I went to the
  Vietnam institute of higher learning,
  And we know that ended.
  
  Report this comment
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:34pm
  LakeHartwellSailor
  
  Wrong order. I goes powder, patch, then ball, then ramrod.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 6:57pm
  @TSUNAMI_22
  
  I stand corrected. Thank you, Sir!
  
  Report this comment
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:07pm
  LakeHartwellSailor
  
  I didn’t want you to blow yourself up ;-)
  
  Report this comment
1000-yd-stare
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:59am
I’m done with it. I have a concealed carry permit and I had a background check with every purchase. Any more than that is Hitler reincarnated digging too deep.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 12:46pm
  Amen, Brother.
  
  Report this comment
- RhondaKellyClarkComcast.net
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:41pm
  Obama real name is Berry go to fake birth certefect Obama SSN# issued to a harrison J Bounel Born 1890 Connecticut a state he never lived My questions sirs is: how can an eligal take an oath under fake name fake birth certifecte fake SSN # ? we got hip-hopperes creaping in our homes I got 11 sex affenderes just down the street Black on Black crime up go to Government orderes millions of bullets And then Barry the eligal terrest kills Americians using drones and GOD removed out of his speech and when Hitler took all of there guns 16 milion jews were driven to tourchure chamberes and gas chamberes.. he waants our guns next Bibles already removed crosses ten comandments flag United States Flag If you give him guns you have nothing to proctect yourself with also did anyone noticed that he only adressed his africian family hoow they came a long way and CNN ESPN BLACK ENTERTAINMENT CBS ABC news saying its BLACK AMERICIA its not Africia or mexicio and I wont let africians kill another one of my family memberes and I wont worship you your people are not Gods to me this is not a racist stateement Im sick of seing them rapperees gangsteres on TV they either shot beat up there girlfriend or murdered someone I do not celebrate Africiian History month to me its about worshiping Jesus not worshipping whites blacks ECT go to inforwars utube worrld war3 RIOT2013USA utube Ace Ventura FEMA CAMPS NDA LAW utubee AFRICIAN DANCES EPT CARD)
  
  Report this comment
- Stone Cold Truth
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:44pm
  Wow. That’s all I can say.
  
  Report this comment
- Stoneez
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 5:14pm
  Hey Mommmm….Rhonda is ramblin again!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- TheirMom
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 6:09pm
  What you went through is illegal as it is.
  
  Report this comment
- realjd
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 1:09pm
  Viet vet here,I agree. Enough is enough.
  
  Report this comment
macluc
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:56am
THIS IS WHAT HISTORY TELLS US WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKE GUNS AWAY.

WOUNDED KNEE MASSACRE
On the morning of December 29, 1890; a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment went to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it. A scuffle over Black Coyote’s rifle escalated and a shot was fired which resulted in the 7th Cavalry’s opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their own fellow troopers. Those few Lakota warriors who still had weapons began shooting back at the attacking troopers, who quickly suppressed the Lakota fire. The surviving Lakota fled, but U.S. cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed. By the time it was over, at least 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux had been killed and 51 wounded (4 men, 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300. At least twenty troopers were awarded the coveted Medal of Honor

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 19RANDY59
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 11:34am
  So, what you’re saying is that American military fired on American citizens? I’ve been told on this site that, that would never happen, now. I tried to ask some Branch Davidians about this, but they were all dead. You have no rights anymore, you have permission!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:11pm
  “So, what you’re saying is that American military fired on American citizens?” Not so. In 1890 Native Americans were not yet legally citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- macluc
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 6:26pm
  This is not a matter of citizenship but rather of natural law. The right of self-defense is called by Locke the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life. Whether you are a citizen or not we have the right to self-defense; in 1890 mans-law not natural law lead to this massacre. Heaven forbid we are placed in a similar situation where we are disarmed and left defenseless.
  
  The Founders framed the Second Amendment as a certification to protect what was frequently called “the first law of nature”—the right of self-protection, an inalienable right—guaranteed to every citizen individually
  
  Report this comment
- tlhonmey
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 11:15pm
  So, to sum up, the government has a history of disarming groups it wishes to oppress, enslave, and murder…
  
  Who’d'a thunk it…
  
  Report this comment
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on March 26, 2013 at 9:40am
  Tragic but its a different government now, right? (note sarcasm) Study history to know what the future has in mind…
  
  Report this comment
BacktotheFounders
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:44am
“The Second Amendment affirms “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” a central tenant that the majority of Americans embrace,,,,,”

Please check your dictionary. A TENANT is a person who rents space in a building. A TENET is a principal or precept. You have chosen the wrong word here.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Xanderson
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 11:09am
  Thank you for pointing this out! So much of the “journalism” of today is so rife with word misuse and misspelling that it is hard to focus on the articles at all. Now I can reread the article without wondering where all of these “tenants” live :o)
  
  Report this comment
- rebsoldier
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:34pm
  BACKTOTHEFOUNDERS—-You’re so right. The public day care system, laughingly called “Public Education” has been dumbing down not just the present toilet bowl collection of students, but their parents and grandparents before them ever since corrupt labor unions and corrupt government got involved in their financing. William B Dean, ex-teacher turned security guard due to “Age Discriminination” in Mexifornia.
  
  Report this comment
team1blazer
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:43am
I will NOT comply! PERIOD.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- oldguy49
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 11:02am
  you know i love my guns and took them fishing this past weekend and they drowned………they will be missed…………
  
  Report this comment
xpilotah1s
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:40am
If you are thinking rather than buying right now you are a fool and need to reserve you seat on the train to the camps.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- common_sense_donkeys
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 12:17am
  Whats the point? I cant find jack **** for ammo. Luckily I saw this bs coming, I was able to buy enough weapons for my family and a small amount of ammo. I hope I wasn’t the only one that was afforded a head start. May God give us the streagth and courage to bad together and stand strong when that day comes.
  
  Report this comment
SamIamTwo
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:38am
Tom Gresham hands the left more ammo. Thanks Tom…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JRook
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:33am
  ok billy let’s just play fantasy land and make things up to feed the angry mob. Who exactly is talking about taking away anyone’s guns????? Show me one proposal that isn’t an NRA plant to try and protect itself and the gun manufacturers. From the NRA and gun manufacturers this is all about money, not the 2nd. amendment. But your right there is no reason to even ban any guns. Just make it a requirement that every gun in the US be registered. Registered by the gun manufacturer, gun shop and gun owner when they are sold. And yes there should be 100% background checks. Once that is done then gun owners should be both criminally and civilly responsible for any actions that occurs with their gun, unless they report it stolen within 72 hours. Case in point, were she not dead Mrs. Lanza should be held both criminally and civilly liable for the shootings in Newtown. As there is no reason her 4 guns should have not been under lock and key. She wants to keep her handgun under the bed for protection, fine. But no reason for the semi automatic and excess ammo to not be kept under lock and key.
  
  Report this comment
- Maji
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:44am
  Why is it that after two hundred years the gov says it all wrong
  The 2nd amendment was really about hunting
  and the” commerce clause ” is so wide they can tell you what kind of commode to buy!!
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:49am
  @Jrook
  
  Oh please, stop with the boilerplate. We already heard your marching orders being sent to you from Biden.
  
  If you “dry up the supply” that means that they disappear through attrition. That is a de facto removal of our rights.
  
  If you have more boilerplate, save it for people who don’t pre-read your leaders words first, k? Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
- BSdetector
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 12:28pm
  @JRook
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRblw29I14U
  In their own words.
  
  Report this comment
- BSdetector
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 12:34pm
  That clip took about 4 seconds to find by the way, including typing out the words into the search and watching the first few seconds to make sure. There’s plenty more where that came from.
  Take your propaganda elsewhere JPawn.
  
  Report this comment
- JoeBloe
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 8:44am
  @JROOK
  
  I would ask you to show me one case where “gun registration” has prevented so called gun violence.
  
  What is the point of registration?
  
  As to the talk of “taking your guns away” See Senator Dianne Feinstein http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary Note:That means if you have a hand gun that that accepts a detachable magazine and has one other military characteristic, it is an assault weapon and it will be illegal to own under this proposed law. ALSO NOTE: That failure of current gun owners to meet NEW requirements (in the new registration/permitting process) for guns they already own… Guns they ALREADY OWN…would result in confiscation. You have to read the full text to find that.
  
  See New York Governor Cuomo: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-option-eliana-johnson
  
  See former Governor of West Virginia and now Senator Joe Manchin http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167563478/gun-advocate-sen-joe-manchin-calls-for-gun-law-changes-after-newtown
  
  See Iowa, state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/
  
  There are many more Senators and Congressmen on local and federal levels calling for and submitting legislation that INCLUDES confiscation – - often retroactively.
  
  So please, stow your sarcasm. At least 5 separate pieces of legislation have been submitted – 5, not just 1 – calli
  
  Report this comment
Inform
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:35am
Most of the arguments against “assault weapons” are the same arguments used against firearms of any kind. Many of these arguments have propagated through the media for decades, and even though judicial courts have addressed some of them, they keep marching on. By continuing to bring up the same trite points, they show that in the battle of reasoning, they are unarmed. They are probably also hoping that you haven’t read the counter points in this discussion: http://www.youargue.com/index.php/34b13z212

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RANGER1965
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:28am
Let’s rephrase the title of this article to be a little more accurate. Replace History with Government and it’s just about right.

Control of weapons is always a concern of a governement. Without this control, a government is beholden and fearful of it’s own people. With this control a government need no longer fear the people. It has the guns, the people don’t.

Simplistic isn’t it? A Liberal hates simple, elegant, truths. Such things are hard to obscure with their nebulous words and thoughts.

If the Socialists and their media are able to convince the majority to give up, or restrict guns to the point that they are too expensive and too much of a hassle to own, then this wonderful American experiment is over. And when the government becomes so Tyrannical that people want to rise up in rebellion they won’t, because they no longer have the means to resist.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:36am
  Not to put too fine a point on it, and I’m not being contrarian, but it should be noted that we are highly armed now, should have rose up long ago (say, at the invention of the Income Tax), and have not. More powerful than firearms is convincing people who are slaves that they are free. If we can chant the Pledge enough times, salute the flag, sing the Anthem and tell ourselves that we’re free when clearly we no longer are, why does the government need to fear our arms?
  
  The time is past nigh for action, and now we’re going to pay for our inaction in the past. This is it, the last huzzah. We resist, or we perish.
  
  Sitting down and demanding to be arrested and “suing” them under their own rigged system won’t cut it.
  
  Report this comment
- kadster01
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:54am
  @GHOSTOFJEFFERSON
  
  Good post. That’s why they call in “incrementalism.” If they can ease past us, those violations to our rights, just a little bit at a time, they’ll eventually render us helpless against them.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 11:49am
  @GHOSTOFJEFFERSON
  
  I agree with you. Sometimes I think they’ve stolen the heart of America. We are in many ways a weak people now. Our strength has been dilluted by fear and apathy.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 12:55pm
  “They” are chipping away our rights. Slow, incremental stripping away of rights eventually leads to no rights. Only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Got to admit, the Libs have been patient, they are eating that elephant one bite at a time.
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:44pm
  I can only hope for some type of event, some impetus occurs to get the ball rolling. The Zimmerman acquittal would be a nice start. You know they are going to go bonkers when that happens.
  
  Report this comment
- Iwillvetalways
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:11pm
  Right on Ranger; “When a government fears the people you have liberty.When the people fear the government you have tyranny”. The strongest reason for the people to retain and and bear arms,as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in GOVERNMENT” Thomas Jefferson
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:02pm
  @Ghost, perfectly said. My sentiments exactly.
  
  Report this comment
- desertspeaks
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:14pm
  Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they
  be. Westbrook v. Mihaly, 2 C3d 756
  There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional
  rights. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 946
  Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation
  which would abrogate them. U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 380 U.S. 436 (1966)
  
  Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:19am
It depends on how far back you go. Lately, as in the last 100 years or so, the people have been getting stepped on by the government. No more I say!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kadster01
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:09am
I am afraid we will only find out too late (those of us who don’t already know) what really is the true aim of new gun control legislation.

Hint: It’s the very same aim as every other country that has ever done it.

If you give them a foot in the door – and that’s all they need – they will take control. It is not an honest debate, as this article attempts to suggest. It is an obvious attempt to systematically, incrementally restrict our right to defend ourselves.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- samurai2112
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:39am
  You are correct. It is the low hanging fruit and a beginning with the end game of complete removal of all guns from society. I’m sure they will leave loopholes for elite like in Europe.
  
  Ironic how the laws continue to adress felons and “insane” from posessing firearms but they seem to thumb the law when they commit crimes.
  
  The same pushback for gun rights is the same that the left has when any type of proposals to effect abortion rights. They are afraid it will lead to overturn of Roe v Wade.
  
  Funny how the left will fight tooth and nail for a “right” not instilled in the Constitution but a court ruling interpreting the Constitution but something specifically and clearly articulated in the Constitution they fight to limit.
  
  Report this comment
Mike Benton
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:08am
You have to be an idiot not to sense that this country is coming apart at the seams. The class warfare is going to increase as the economy gets worse. The “poor” are going to come for what they believe has been taken from them by the “rich”. That all means we have to be our own militia and our own first responders.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:08am
” Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms.”

Gee, that worked out well didn’t it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 12:57pm
  Oh, I am sure there are a bunch of law-abiding criminals out there.
  
  Report this comment
- z00mer11
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 2:34am
  What constitutes a law abiding citizen? Aren’t criminals just law abiding people that make poor choices? The truly chilling question should be this: When do Constitutional rights get to be taken away from one group of citzens by a statute? This makes the rest of the bill of rights – not unalienable – but only given to us by our benevolent government. The truth is that we are slaves with rose colored glasses on. Have a great day sheeple!
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:57am
“In 1927, Congress cracked down on Prohibition-era violence, implementing the first ever federal gun restriction; it was called the Mailing of Firearms Act”

And here we have the seed. The federal government decides, for the first time in our history, to get into our personal lives via the Volstead Act (prohibition), which caused rampant crime, which the government then responded to by taking rights away from free men while ignoring that gangsters don’t follow laws. And they haven’t deviated from this pattern ever since. What is the war on drugs, but another form of Prohibition, in both form and substance, after all?

It’s all a game to them, and some of them know that they are the cause of the problem and that their solutions to their own fumbling are nothing short of tyrannical denial of liberty, but they don’t care.

Say it with me folks, “We will not comply with any new gun control laws. We will defy them openly. We are free men, not slaves”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
frogg
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:55am
Guns are not a Fad! Guns have and are our only defense against our Government The writers of the Constitution knew this and this is why we have the 2nd. Amendment! There can be no compremise on the subject! The reason people are buying guns in record numbers because they realise that they are only free if they are able to inforce their rights! When you are defenseless you have no choice but to do whatever the government tells them. Whether it is to go to a concentration camp or to give up your home. You have no rights except those you are able to protect. Ther are now app. 300 million legal guns in the United States and that means way over half of the population will bemand that the Government leave them alone. You got 300 million cops (Ones who don’t believe in the Constitution that is) You send them to take all of our guns, well them you have 300 million dead cops. stupid comment huh? I know, we don’t have 300 million cops! But the point is that in reality the only ones who will attempt to take our weapons are those who don’t like them and do not know how to use them! I’ve spoken to many cops and haven’t found one who said that he would violate the Constitution. Nough said! Check out http://www.rescueourconstitution.com/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Eternal
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 10:32pm
  Molon labe
  
  Report this comment
- common_sense_donkeys
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 12:44am
  Maybe yes maybe no. As much as I am dismayed by all this jazz, its not just the cops we have to worry about. Here around saint Louis we have seen freshly painted fully equipt humvees cruising the streets. To my and many others disbelife the white U.N. could still be seen through the new paint.
  I also believe, but am not positive, that the posse comitatus is all but null and void due to some wording within the patriot act. This is even more scary because of some of our young soldiers misunderstanding of duty. Some of them do not know that they have the right and obligation to refuse an unconstitutional order. You can even see some evidence of this on youtube from a few activists.
  
  Report this comment
JUSTANOTHEROPINION
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:54am
Gun control advocates are continually using the argument that the founders never envisioned weapons with a 30 round magazine. Well, my argument against this theory is the weapons available to the government were also available to the citizenry during and after the revolutionary war, ergo, if they had 30 round magazines during that time the citizenry would have possessed them too. My point is we the people can not defend ourselves against an out of control tyrannical government that possesses automatic weapons with a revolver. “Don’t Tread On Me”!!!!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 12:58pm
  Yep, and I am sure they never envisioned the cartridge.
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:53am
The right to keep and bear arms far precedes even the European discovery of America. The ancient Anglo-Saxons, and the Gaels who lived to their west and north, both defined the role of a free man as different from a slave strictly by the ability to keep and bear arms in times of peace, as his own weapons, for his own protection and liberty. A high rank slave could own property, engage in trade and do other things we associate with freedom, but unless specifically permitted to wield a weapon for war purposes only, could not carry arms or own them. The first rank of freeman, the creol (in Anglo-Saxon) could do all of these things, and he could buy a weapon as his own and carry it as he wished without leave or permission of others, as could those in Gaelic societies.

We inherited this notion of freedom from our British originators in this nation, and still hold onto them dearly, and while we no longer speak the ancient Anglo-Saxon tongue that turned into our language, we still strongly associate the right to keep and bear arms as the mark of a free man as opposed to a slave.

History began before the discovery of America, editors. :)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:30am
  “ceorl”, sorry, happy fingers this morning
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:51am
“To the elite, a firearm is a symbol of barbarism and a lack of trust of one’s fellow citizens and government.”

Has the elite ever given us any reason to trust them?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:16am
  Yeah, there’s not a good track record when it comes to government and trust throughout history.
  
  Of course, I do trust my fellow man, or as it were, fellow citizen. I want him armed too. What is that impulse but an extreme form of trust, trusting him to have the power to take my life if need be?
  
  And last, barbarism. What is more barbaric pray tell, me being able to rightly and justly defend myself and others from vicious aggressors, or an institution which has slaughter, by intent, hundreds of millions of people just to maintain its power and dominion over unwilling subjects?
  
  Report this comment
mikem1969
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:50am
My guns will only leave my cold dead hands. I will not bow to tyranny and if a new shot heard round the world has to be fired, then so be it. The time is coming when we may have to water the tree of liberty, she is withering fast.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Bum thrower
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:47am
If we’d had ‘gun control’ as advocated by Piers Morgan and the other lefties 250 years ago, today our national anthem would be ‘God Save the Queen’………….think about it. Registration and then confiscation is the goal. “Bite Me” Biden LIES; ALL DEMOCRATS lie…….they can’t speak the truth or they’d be unelected………..or impeached.

None of the so called ‘gun control ideas’ would prevent any mass shooting. What would going from a 15 round pistol mag to a 10 rounder do? Nothing….gut the 2nd Amendment one little bite at a time.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lonelyrepublican
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 4:38pm
  Bum Thrower: And if we had gun control as advocated by Piers & Feinstein in the 1940′s, we might all be speaking Japanese today. The one thing that kept Japan from putting troops on the ground in America was the knowledge that the citizens were armed. A Japanese General even admitted this. He said that he could not invade America because there would a gun behind every rock. This is the same reason that Russia never did win their war in Afghanistan, and why the French Resistance was so successful.
  
  Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:36am
I dont know about my DNA but I do have a 9mm sigma next to my bed.
Does that count?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:42am
  Morning OLDSURFRAT, I’d say that counts.
  
  Report this comment
- OldSurfRat
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:51am
  Morning to you RJJ
  
  Oh good!!
  I was starting to worry I may not be an American.
  
  Report this comment
Rickfromillinois
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:31am
Just saying if you have been thinking about buying a firearm, do it now. If you already own a firearm, stock up on ammo NOW if you can. I went to a large outdoors sporting store yesterday that focuses on hunting and fishing and they were even out of .22 ammo.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:45am
  So the article says what we all know….liberty and freedom are the enemies of the progressives. They don’t want people they want drones in our society. They created Unconstitutional legislation to stop the sale and consumption of alcohol.
  
  Report this comment
SREGN
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:26am
Molon Labe, punk.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- realjd
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 1:14pm
  Molon Labe!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
Ron Staiger
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:23am
Millions of Americans own SEMI-automatic rifles and use them for shooting sports and home defense. The rabidly leftist “gun control” advocates have gleefully latched on to the despicable acts in CT with a particularly vile political opportunism in their hearts, a copy of ‘Rules for Radicals’ (opened to the page with the line “let no crises go to waste”) in the one hand and a pen waiting to sign away our Second Amendment rights clutched in the other. This leftist, treasonous attempt to subjugate the rights granted by the wisdom of our forefathers (who they so vociferously despise) is done with the full knowledge that not one person will be saved by their treachery. Using their logic, one could make the case that because of the widespread carnage on our nation’s highways, all vehicles capable of driving in excess of 65mph should be banned or governors installed to restrict their speed and prohibition of alcohol should once again be in our Constitution. I wonder if these wackjobs would have been personally disappointed about the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary if the murderer had used two 5 gallon cans of gas instead.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:21am
  if 2 5gal cans of gas were used then his mothers ownership of firearms would be the issue and calls for laws against gas cans over 4 gallons would be shouted by that limey wanker piers….
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.