Sorry. Read the OP and forget I was on Post 1900. I'll edit out the most current parts of the post.
Why wasn't the Prague Spring used as an argument against Gun Control?
- Thread starter Quintuplicate
- Start date
He was, and not just for that reason. He was also no where near the universal public figure of the three men I mentioned. The GCA should probably be called the JFK Bill. It was initially energized by the Assassination of the President right in front of God and everybody but was put over the top by the assassination of two major political leaders in a 68 day period, with Bobby Kennedy's killing, only four days before the initial House Committee vote.
Without those event the GCA would never have even been brought to Committee.
Republican's, Democrats, the NRA and most citizens of the state at the time SUPPORTED the 1968 Gun Control Act because it (obviously) was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of 'dangerous revolutionary Communists' (the Black Panthers) rather than actually restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of "honest" citizens. And it arguably also closed a lot of weapons sales and distribution loopholes that had become somewhat problematic that weren't of any major interest to the majority of the public.
In all though is should be noted that at the time it was FAR less of a concept that gun-owners would take up active support for the police or government as it was well understood they contribution would be minimal and actually detrimental. Civilian's with legal guns could not and at the time it was assumed would not fight either the police or military.
If anything it was assumed that the end result of both Hungry and Czechoslovakia would show that "armed" citizens had no chance against regular military forces. Specifically as US civilian ownership of actual 'military' firearms was mostly surplus M1 Garand's and some semi-auto M14s and ownership of a "military" grade firearm was not seen as effective in most civilian uses of the time.
Fear of an 'armed' mob that might destroy civilian property and lives and could be a danger to the police. Even the NRA only advocated for hunting and sporting weapons use and did not see it's mission to 'protect' gun owners from reasonable gun control laws. (That came later) It was a fear campaign that guns might end up in the 'wrong' people's hands that prompted the law and it was seen as not being a violation of the Second Amendment, (even though it was taken all the way to the Supreme Court) since it was deemed a 'reasonable' restriction on firearms within the governments rights.
In the typical fashion the above mentioned politicians will NOT use them in an argument because they, obviously, failed and therefor do not 'prove' that a civilian with a gun is the equal to, nay superior to any "tyrant" army with tanks and such. And no they don't want or expect "law abiding" citizens and gun-owners to 'defend' themselves from the police! "If the police come for you and you defend yourself then you MUST be a criminal" seems to be the general logic but as time has gone on that whole rhetoric has been turned into a mess and while those politicians (and the NRA) will whip up anger and outrage over any form of 'gun-control' they will also quickly disassociate themselves from anyone who owns a gun that ends up on the wrong side of the law.
The main problem is that neither the politicians nor the NRA are going to come out and actually TELL people who own these 'pseudo-military' weapons HOW they should use them since it's much easier to deal with an ineptly armed and ill-trained 'mob' than an actual organized armed opposition.
Specifically it's part of the "Frontier" myth of individual "law-and-order" enforced by the "good-guy" with the gun. The main issue that the whole 'good/bad-guy' is dependent on your POV is ignored of course as is any other complications like being outnumbered or "out-gunned'
The "gun-lobby" of course is funded by the manufacturers who see a market and want to cater to it. The 'facts' are totally beside the point In "fact" the less that people know about how reality works and the more myths they are given the better sales are. The point is to give those that buy the guns a sense of 'safety' and 'security' not in any way to be effective or provide a capability since that is not inherent in the weapon but requires a very thorough and complete training program that is both maintained and updated on a regular basis. Something no "milita" or "armed citizen" actually does.
The sad part is that most of these "armed citizens" have been fed enough disinformation and distrust to fully fail to understand that fears of 'gun-control' and 'gun-registration' are so prevalent they overlook the more obvious means of how the government can and does track who may be a 'danger' to them in some future. The gun culture has become so confident that they post all sorts of information on social media without a second thought so monitoring and tracking is easy. Besides it not THOSE people the government would be worried about since they have no clue how an actual insurrection would work or how to carry out a successful resistance.
Randy
In the 1960s pretty much every white person in America feared the Black Panthers. There were a handy way to explain away Watts and Detroit. The REALLY depressing thing is that Watts started when a rumor spread that (stop me if this seems familiar) LAPD officers had beat up a pregnant black woman (in actual fact it was the classic DWI stop gone sideways and the woman was not beat up, nor was she pregnant, she was a hairdresser/barber's assistant and wearing a smock that was sort of the "uniform of the day" for the profession). The relations between the Watts community and LAPD was so bad that one thing led to anyother and ZAP Marines in roadblocks with half the businesses in the area burned to the ground.
Because it was Afghanistan. It was almost literally the Soviet's Vietnam, right down to trying to do things half-way when the "class enemy" fed support to the other side in a low intensity war that lasted 10 years and exposed enormous cracks in actual military readiness.
Oh really?
Ruby Ridge and Waco were the death-knell, (and don't get me wrong but they really did need to go away) of the organized "violent anti-government" organizations in favor of more vocal, more public, more visible and highly less effective "militia" movements. These are exactly the types of movements that governments do NOT worry about. At worst they may pose a 'threat' to police but since most of them are unquestionably "loyal" to the "idea" of government law and order they will most often support anything the police, and by extension the government do. Again exactly the type the government does NOT worry a bit about and for good reason.Keep in mind the key takeaways to 'counter' such tactics is seen to simply stack the odds in "your" favor with more armed but untrained persons of questionable ability so you "win" by having the Feds back down. So all you have to do is show up in public armed with a bunch of other wanna-bes and the "government" will respect your "rights" and concerns...
I know you've already seen the 'idea' on these forums; "Patriotism and the American spirit" will defeat any tyrant. A "well armed" populace is the match for anyone who might infringe someone's 'rights' even though the "book" literally says those are the kind of people who will end up supporting rather than fighting a tyranny as long as they can be convinced it's on "their" side.
Part of this is spreading the myth of a 'bad' government taking individual weapons as a 'first sign' of oppression. (In fact historically ensuring the "right" people get all the weapons they want is more the case while only 'denying' them to the more 'untrustworthy' segment of the population) This generates a fear in the 'right' people of having their weapons taken away and therefor they demand both more restrictive weapons laws, (but only for the 'criminal/bad' elements mind you) and less restrictions on "legal" gun owners (again as defined by the government but they never seem to notice this part) who fully support the governments ability to regulate weapons as long as it's not THEIR weapons...
An armed and TRAINED populace can make things ugly for an oppressive government, meanwhile a well armed but untrained population with enough preparation and propaganda will be very loyal in supporting any type of government that they feel represents their needs and concerns. Even if that government is oppressive and restrictive and an out-and-out tyranny. The way the US is supposed to work is in turn supposed to ensure that doesn't happen and instead we work out the problems. An "armed" population was supposed to allow (in theory) a large call up of armed men to augment a small standing Federal Army along with properly trained and outfitted State Milita's. Having an "armed" civilian population was never going to be more than "speed-bump" to an well organized and equipped State let alone Federal force. That wasn't possible when the US was founded lete alone anytime later in our history. Yet that myth has power and has the ability to sway pubic opinion and that's how it's used.
it simply make sit easier to draw up 'sides' of an internal conflict and 'justify' the use of force. If the "population" is armed that's not something the governments "fear" they actually count on that fact to allow the use of higher levels of 'force' to gain control of a situation. Why should Police/Guard/Military even consider using "less" force than is known to exist in the "public sector" at any point when what the end requirement is always going to be is 'control' over any situation they find themselves in.
The "opposition" brings signs and flowers, you bring teargas, high-pressure hoses and attack dogs
The "opposition" brings signs, masks and sticks, you bring bulldozers, rifles, bayonets and heavy weapons.
The "opposition" brings guns, you bring tanks, artillery and air support.
This isn't 'new' or different and has been an ongoing "issue" in more places than just the US for a century or more WITH easy access to firearms. Before that it was swords and heavy armor against peasants with pitchforks.
Back on-topic it is ALWAYS about control and how you manage, (or don't) the population. If peaceful change is not possible and a large part of the population has lost all hope of non-violent resolution then the only other option is violent revolution and change. The latter is a VERY ugly outcome that is to be avoided at all costs but if the latter fails and a large segment of the ARMED population is ready and willing to support and defend the 'status quo' instead of even considering change, (or worse not even admitting there are any problems in the first place) then that is one more layer the 'tyrant' can use to try and stay in power. Arming a population is almost never a way to support individual freedom but more a way to gain 'buy-in' from those so armed into supporting and defending the powers-that-be and it almost always works out that way.
Randy
Unlike David I am not an expert in US legal history.
Dubcek utterly and completely fucked the dog. People were so afraid of Budapest 1956 that they forgot the lessons of Poland in 1956. (Or for that matter Yugoslavia 49-53) A party with the confidence of its army cannot be rolled by the ussr. Nagy lost Maleter and comms on day 1 of the second intervention. Nagy never ordered the Honved to escort Soviet troops to suitable recreation sites.
similarly Dubcek shat the bed in public, leaving the revolutionary workers and students to clean up the party’s mess again. The workers and students made the best decisions they could given Hungary 56, but Dubcek completely fucked up given Poland 56.
Also where are the Czech kiddies gonna get manpads, at, mortars, 105s. The working kids of Budapest set the streets of Csepel on fire. It delayed the assault by days. It was the general strike from 11 November that most threatened USSR control in Hungary. Kadar wasn’t even a negotiant, it was the Council and the Commander.
Dubcek utterly and completely fucked the dog. People were so afraid of Budapest 1956 that they forgot the lessons of Poland in 1956. (Or for that matter Yugoslavia 49-53) A party with the confidence of its army cannot be rolled by the ussr. Nagy lost Maleter and comms on day 1 of the second intervention. Nagy never ordered the Honved to escort Soviet troops to suitable recreation sites.
similarly Dubcek shat the bed in public, leaving the revolutionary workers and students to clean up the party’s mess again. The workers and students made the best decisions they could given Hungary 56, but Dubcek completely fucked up given Poland 56.
Also where are the Czech kiddies gonna get manpads, at, mortars, 105s. The working kids of Budapest set the streets of Csepel on fire. It delayed the assault by days. It was the general strike from 11 November that most threatened USSR control in Hungary. Kadar wasn’t even a negotiant, it was the Council and the Commander.
It depends on who you compare the city with. If you are using San Francisco, then yes, fairly conservative. If you are talking about Chicago or NYC or the like than not so much. The city government was so damned corrupt that everything else took second place. Orange County was vastly more conservative then (and now). LA had a African-American mayor in 1973 (Tom Bradley) so that was fairly to very liberal at the time and he was reelected FIVE times, leaving office pretty much on his own terms in 1993 after 20 years in office. Interestingly enough, LA elected a Republican to replace him at the same time the state, including LA, went "blue" in a big way.