- breaker
- Jul 4, 2004
-
|
The full text of the NFA hearings they quote is online, and the one they pull out is a bit cherry picked: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm Aside from wanting to have licensed concealed carry he makes almost all of the same arguments the current NRA would, including challenging if the whole thing is even constitutional (spoiler: "I think that under the Constitution the United States has no jurisdiction to legislate in a police sense with respect to firearms.") Without the NRA testifying literally any gun that could take a higher than 12 round magazine would have been classified as a machine gun. Frederick is the NRA guy in all of this, everyone else is a congressman. Right before the quote he says:
quote:
Mr. HILL. When you do that, do not forget that we are after the gangster.
Mr. FREDERICK. You have put your finger on it. My general objections to most of the regulatory provisions are proposed with that in view. I am just as much against the gangster as any man. I am just as much interested in seeing him suppressed, but I do not believe that we should burn down the barn in order to destroy the rats. I am in favor of some more skillful method of getting the rats without destroying the barn. In my opinion, most of the proposals the regulation of firearms, although ostensibly and properly aimed at the crook, do not reach the crook at all, but they do reach the honest. man. In my opinion, the forces which are opposed to crime consist of two general bodies; one is the organized police and the second is the unorganized victims, the great mass of unorganized law-abiding citizens, and if you destroy the effective opposition of either one of those, you are inevitably going to increase crime, because as you destroy the forces of resistance to the human body to disease, you are going to increase disease. So, by destroying the resistance of any body which is opposed to crime, you are going to increase crime. I think we should be careful in considering the actual operation of regulatory measures to make sure that they do not hamstring the law-abiding citizen in his opposition to the crook.
Mr. KNUTSON. There is no opposition on the part of the victims?
Mr. FREDERICK. It is not a 100 percent effective. Of course, the right of self-defense is still a useful thing.
Mr. KNUTSON. It is a right, but an ineffective right under the present situation.
Mr. FREDERICK. I would be interested to show you a collection which I have made of newspaper clippings indicating the effective use of firearms in self-defense, as a protection against the perpetration of crime. Because of arguments which have been advanced by those who are against the use of guns, I have made it my business to clip from newspapers passing over my desk such cases as I run across of effective self-defense with pistols, most of them pistols. I have a scrap book two thirds full and I can show you dozens and hundred of cases happening every year.
If you take the time to read it you will also realize that these same arguments (and I mean EXACTLY the same) have been going back and forth for longer than anyone arguing about it on the Internet has been alive. So when someone busts about b-b-b-but guns should be regulated like cars, they were beat to that 80 years ago.
quote:
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frederick, the automobile is a dangerous, even deadly instrument, but never intentionally a deadly instrument, of course. States uniformly have taken notice of the danger to the innocent pedestrian and others involved in the use of the automobile. They have set up around the privilege of its ownership and operation a complete regulatory system consistent with reasonable rights to the use of the automobile. Approaching the subject of firearms, would you not consider that society is under the same duty to protect the innocent that it is with regard to the automobile and that with a view to the attainment of that result, the person who wishes the privilege of bearing firearms should submit to the same regulations as rigid as the automobile owner and driver is required to accept?
Mr. FREDERICK. You have raised a very interesting analogy, one which, to my mind, has a very decided bearing upon the practicability and the desirability of this type of legislation. Automobiles are a much more essential instrument of crime than pistols. Any police officer will tell you that. They are much more dangerous to ordinary life, because they kill approximately 30,000 people a year. The extent, so far as I know, to which the Government, or the Congress, has attempted to legislate is with respect to the transportation in interstate commerce of stolen vehicles, which apparently has accomplished very useful results. The rest of the legislation is left to the States, and in its effect and in its mode of enforcement, it is a wholly reasonable and suitable approach, because, if I want a license for my car I can get it in 20 minutes, by complying with certain definite and well-known regulations.
Mr. LEWIS. And qualifying.
Mr. FREDERICK. And qualifying, yes, sir. I do not have to prove I am a driver in order to get an automobile license. I do in order to get a personal driver's license, of course. Complying with the regulations, I get that automatically, as a matter of course. If I want a pistol license, and I have had one for a number of years in New York, it takes me 6 weeks to 4 months to get that license, and it costs me an enormous amount of personal bother and trouble. The difficulty in a sense is in the manner of administration and we know that that which is oppressive can be put into the administration much more effectively than into the law; it is the way the thing works. I have no objection, personally, to having my fingerprints taken, because my own fingerprints have been taken many times, but I do object to being singled out with the criminal element and having my fingerprints taken and put in the Bureau of Criminal Identification because I like to use a pistol or because I may need one for self-defense, whereas automobile owners are not fingerprinted and are, as a class, a much more criminal body, from the standpoint of percentage, than pistol licensees.
Crime guns are stolen:
quote:
Mr. HILL. I take it then that it is your opinion that the criminal is going to get firearms regardless of any laws.
Mr. FREDERICK. I think that is the opinion of any person who has knowledge of the subject. In most instances, the guns are stolen. They are not gotten through legitimate channels. Dillinger stole his guns. I have a half-dozen cases where guns have been used in prisons to effect a break; we have had that in New York, and all over the country. If you cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals in jails, I do not see how you can keep them out of the hands of criminals walking about on the public highways.
Need to limit those clips:
quote:
(H.R. 9066, 73d-Cong. 2d sess.)
A BILL To provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in small arms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate Transportation thereof
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of this act the term “firearm” means a pistol, revolver, shotgun having a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, a muffler or silencer therefor, or a machine gun.
The term “machine gun” means any weapon designed to shoot automatically or semiautomatically twelve or more shots without reloading.
...
Mr. WOODRUFF. As a matter of fact, the only thing that controls or limits the number of shots that an automatic rifle or shotgun can fire is the magazine itself, is it not?
Mr. FREDERICK. I think that is correct.
Mr. WOODRUFF. That is the only way in which you can limit the number of shots that can be fired. And it is a very simple matter, is it not, to change the magazine or the clip or whatever they use to hold these cartridges, to meet any restrictions, particularly restrictions such as are proposed in the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of this bill?
It goes on like this, but basically same poo poo different day all over. Replace John Dillinger for the name of the last mass shooting and you have pretty much every argument covered on both sides.
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 04:24
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 16:14
|
|
- breaker
- Jul 4, 2004
-
|
Unless they're being wielded by Sovereign Citizen-type militias, in which case it's okay because they're being wielded by patriots valiantly defending themselves against the tyranny of big government.
See: The cattle rancher thing happening in Nevada right now.
The point isn't the point, it's that the points haven't changed. If you review a congressional hearing from 1934 and recognize that you are participating in a near verbatim argument 80 years later I would hope some level of futility is realized.
Gun control arguments are about as productive as Catholics and Sunnis debating why theirs is the one true faith. You will have as much chance of talking a gun owner out of his gun as talking someone out of their religion, and likewise a gunhaver is not going to be able to convince someone who was taught to fear weapons that they should take up arms. Whether you like guns or not in the US is a question of your parents, your economic status, and your surroundings. When people call guns tools of murderers, realize that for about half the country who grew up rural with their dad teaching them how to shoot, you are insulting their family and upbringing. Likewise when a pro-gun person accuses an anti of cowardice they don't understand that person was likely taught to run from physical confrontation and that only criminals used guns by their parents. Basically expect the same level of fervor from gun owners when you impact their beliefs as you see from the religious when you attack theirs. Convince someone that their parents were either monsters or cowards and that everything they were taught to believe is wrong. Do that and you will win the debate. Since that won't happen how about everyone figures out how to stay out of each others way and only deal with problems that are based on hard data.
breaker fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Apr 22, 2014
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 08:57
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 04:24
