Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Would you have supported this? Gun Control
From the Joey Bishop Show ^ | June 18, 1968 | Charlton Heston

Posted on 02/02/2003 5:56:41 PM PST by FSPress

Here are some to the same arguments that we hear today about guns. This was a plea that helped establish the Gun Control Act of 1967. Stop and Think. Would you have supported this legislation? The person who spoke the words is today a defender of the second amendment.

TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULLET. SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED. THE VICTIM MAY BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT, WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF THE GUNMAN....HE IS THE VICTIM OF INDIFFERENCE. THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL. THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED. OUR GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON....THE MENTALLY ILL, THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY WEAPON.

THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMARROW, THE DAY AFTER, AND ALL THE DAYS TO FOLLOW, UNLESS WE ACT!!! 6,300 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR WITH FIRE- ARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE.

LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION. WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS. THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS PRIVATE COLLECTORS. WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE WRONG HANDS. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH....NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, THE CARNAGE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE. MEDGAR EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.

NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER AND KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD......BY RIFLE. FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW... BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU, THE VOTER, SPEAKS OUT....UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW.

THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. IN THE SENATE, IT IS S-3633. IN THE HOUSE IT IS HR-)7735.

THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE AND DIRECT. IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS CONSTI- TUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF AMERICANS. IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES.

FIRST, IT WILL OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES. IF THIS LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD FROM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ONE MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS.

SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS - PEOPLE TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.

THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

WE URGE YOU, AS A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE BILLS. IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT IS BILL HR-17735.

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY....IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE....FOR THE COMMON SAFETY OF US ALL.... FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT....IT IS UP TO YOU....YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; copernicus5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: RogueIsland
A guy that goes to jail for drug posession or tax evasion or other non-violent crimes is not a threat to society if he owns a firearm. My point is that armed robbers, rapists etc are regularly released from jail, over and over again, obtain firearms through other than the existing legal methods anyway, and repeat the pattern over again. Why bother with regulating firearms sales when the black market is up and running for the persons inelligable for legal posession? Let's keep the creeps under wraps or fry them. Don't make it hard for me and my good citizen buddies to obtain a firearm, or have to turn in our now illegal AR-15s because repeat violent offenders are going to be released from prison.
81 posted on 02/03/2003 8:00:01 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with you!
82 posted on 02/03/2003 8:07:18 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
I see you are listening, that's good.

You still think that regulation is what to do when you admit it is ineffective though. Is there interference on this line? Am I breaking up?

Check out "Project Exile" and see what is effective.

This thread started with our NRA president being an example of someone observing the results of gun control and humbly changing his opinion, to the point of making it his life's (probably final, as his health fails) commitment.

I hate Hollywood, but I have to tip my hat to Chuck!
83 posted on 02/03/2003 8:18:53 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian

Why bother with regulating firearms sales when the black market is up and running for the persons inelligable for legal posession?

Because it's a lot easier to prove that someone has a gun than that he committed some specific crime.

I think it's something like the three strikes law. If you've committed two prior violent crimes, you can go to jail for 20 years for shoplifting bubble gum.

Some say that's excessive, but I'm not bothered at all.

If you've proven, though past behavior, that you cannot be trusted, you're put on notice that we will not tolerate behaviors that we accept in others.

If you're a released felon, we don't forbid you a gun because we think that we will prevent you from obtaining one, but so that if we ever catch you with one, we can throw you back in jail, without having to wait for you to shoot someone.

84 posted on 02/03/2003 8:42:08 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian; Copernicus
You still think that regulation is what to do when you admit it is ineffective though.

I am such a proponent of laissez faire capitalism that I probably could be convinced that anyone should be able to hang a "Doctor" sign in front of their office, and let the lack of a diploma, lack of insurance, and (even) death of patients and the subsequent lawsuits drive him from the market.

I am no fan of regulation.

I entered this thread as an intellectual exercise as to the Constitutionality of the proposals listed at the top.
(And not referring to any actual laws passed nor the historical abuse that arose from such passage, nor any abominations such as Brady)

We are not protected from bad laws being passed....just unconstitutional ones.

The "Prior Restraint" and the difficulty of determining "competence" are the best arguments that have arisen so far.

I still see no problem with denying anonymous "mail order" shipping of firearms.
That deals with interstate commerce and is in the purview of Congress.

Let's not make it any easier on any future Mohammed Atta.
(And before everyone jumps on this...I know he used boxcutters, but you also know what I mean)

85 posted on 02/03/2003 8:59:43 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
CHECK "YES" OR "NO": Have you observed gun control to be effective?
86 posted on 02/03/2003 9:25:02 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: jdege
If the felon(violent felon)is not released, what is the problem?
87 posted on 02/03/2003 9:32:02 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
CHECK "YES" OR "NO": Have you observed gun control to be effective?

"NO"

But that wasn't the question asked at the beginning of this thread.

88 posted on 02/03/2003 9:35:56 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
An excellent question. With 20/20 hindisght, we all know that the Gun Control Act of 1968 didn't work. But in the absence of that knowledge, nothing about what Chuck described sounds unreasonable. Now, after 35 years of failed gun policies, we know why he doesn't support "reasonable" gun conrol anymore; we all know better. We've since learned that gun control isn't about controlling guns nor has it ever been about controlling guns.
89 posted on 02/03/2003 9:39:50 AM PST by Redcloak (Join the Coalition to Prevent Unnecessarily Verbose and Nonsensical Tag Lines, eh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head
Here's a definition for ya:

Low powered: 20 mm or less
Medium power: Greater than 20 mm up to and including 50mm
High power: Anything greater than 50mm

(We're talking caliber here)

90 posted on 02/03/2003 9:44:00 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
The question at the beginning of this thread was about then, whereas our conversation has come to now. At least that is my take.

Thank you for answering my last question.
Now do you still support gun control in any form?
91 posted on 02/03/2003 9:49:03 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Now do you still support gun control in any form?

I would still ban anonymous mail order and sales to children without their parent or guardian.

92 posted on 02/03/2003 9:58:06 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
BTW...please re-read my post at #85.
I don't believe I can make my position any clearer and it already touched on the last few quetions you have asked me.
93 posted on 02/03/2003 10:03:20 AM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
I still see that though you have observed gun control to be ineffective, you support it where you find it "reasonable" though ineffective. I just don't get it.
94 posted on 02/03/2003 10:29:13 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
The distinction between sentencing someone to 20 years in prison, or to 10 years in prison and 10 years on parole, or 10 years in prison and 10 years on parole and 10 years off parole but forbidden to possess firearms is purely a matter of sentencing choices.

We may argue about which we believe would be most effective, but there is no Constitutional issue.

I reserve the bulk of my ire for violations of individual rights. And if you commit a crime of violence, you've surrendered your individual rights. How quickly they are restored to you is a matter of policy, not of principle.
95 posted on 02/03/2003 10:51:26 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian; yall
--- "I just don't get it." ---
-BCC-


The right to bear arms is being 'regulated' by the same types of people, political groups, and government bureaucracies that support the WOD's, anti-smoking laws, seatbelt/helmet laws, radical DUI laws, ---- the list goes on and on, -- because in their view ANYthing can be banned if a majority rules it is 'dangerous' enough.

Those who find 'penumbras' in the commerce clause, --- for regulating gun transfers, --- can find in those same legal fictions a 'right' by governments to prohibit most anything by majority decree.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820965/posts


96 posted on 02/03/2003 12:13:49 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Project Exile would suit your fancy. Felons who no longer have the civil right to possess a firearm but are caught with firearm(s) go directly to jail, do not pass GO, even if they are just being harrassed for loitering. The felon not allowed to possess firearms but wants to aquire firearms has not a difficult task in front of him through black market channels.

How is making me wait for NICS, which puts my name and the gun's serial number in a government file going to keep that felon out of a gun?

Don't lie now.
97 posted on 02/03/2003 3:21:07 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Simple logic escapes many. I hope I'm not missing something. I don't get jazz music either ;o)

You got grit, keep hangin' in there.
98 posted on 02/03/2003 3:42:20 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Project Exile is simply the radical idea of enforcing a few of the laws we've already passed.

As for NICS its primary purpose is to increase the transaction costs of buying a handgun - the idea is if we can make it progressively more difficult to buy or own a handgun, fewer and fewer people will bother.

It never did have anything to do with crime.
99 posted on 02/03/2003 6:46:43 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers; Blue Collar Christian
Let's not make it any easier on any future Mohammed Atta. (And before everyone jumps on this...I know he used boxcutters, but you also know what I mean

Actually, I do not know what you mean.

Mohammed Atta et. al. were middle class Muslims smart enough to fly a World Class Airliner yet too stupid to take advantage of the opportunities their faith and intelligence could have provided them and their loved ones.

He was funded in his activities at a level far beyond the means of a large number of Americans (try it, call a flight school and tell them you want to take 747 lessons) and presumably should his type choose to strike again he will have entre to the level of society appropriate to the proper execution of his mission whether it be a dummy company to manufacture Fire Extinguishers or a Chicken Plucking plant.

I fail to see how regulating commerce through the mail between ordinary Americans will in any way hinder him or his cronies.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was intended to ensure uniformity of procedure (if you will) between the individual sovereign states.

That twisted Socialist FDR converted it into a bludgeon to wield against every citizen and transaction in every manner he could conceive.

My conjecture at this point is that you remain too much imprisoned in the voodoo logic of the muddlestream media.

Spend more time in Cyberspace, learn more about reality and live long and prosper.

Best regards,

100 posted on 02/03/2003 7:07:18 PM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson