Why wasn't the Prague Spring used as an argument against the Gun Control Act of 1968? Why did no one challenge it as violating the Second Amendment?
Why wasn't the Prague Spring used as an argument against Gun Control?
- Thread starter Quintuplicate
- Start date
Because no one in the US cared what Soviet Communists did to Czechoslovakian Communists?
I am not a regular participant in US gun-control debates, but I am familiar with the argument alluded to in this OP, ie. an armed citizenry has the power to rise against tyranny.
I do wonder how popular that argument is with politicicans, though, especially given that pro-gun politicians also tend to be law-and-order types. If you're the kind of guy whose main campaign theme is "More laws! More police!", do you really want to simultaneously be sending the message that the people have the right to shoot back?
I do wonder how popular that argument is with politicicans, though, especially given that pro-gun politicians also tend to be law-and-order types. If you're the kind of guy whose main campaign theme is "More laws! More police!", do you really want to simultaneously be sending the message that the people have the right to shoot back?
Last edited:
I’d imagine because Czechoslovakia was not subject to the Second Amendment.
Exactly this. If gun control and racism wasn't so established in terms of republican democrat I would expect the black lives matter movement to encourage black people to arm themselves for self defense against the police.
At the end of the day no one wants to encourage armed rebellion even though its a purpose of the second ammendment.
Also, I believe that the NRA hadn't been captured by gun lobby cultists at this time.
Really? I thought the Founding Fathers added it so people could defend themselves against Indian attacks and their new Government could avoid paying for a real army.
They did not add it, its a roll over from the English Bill of Rights, foolishly extended to Catholics and Baptists and suchlike.
The English Bill of Rights merely prevents the monarch from taking away Protestants arms without consulting Parliament. It doesn't actually grant any rights to the individual. Under English Common Law unless a law is passed prohibiting something it is allowed.
In countries with a written constitution unless there is a law allowing something it is prohibited.
Last edited:
Actually, it was, but the whole "citizens with guns can fend off an invasion" argument was a lot less common in 1968 than it would later be:
I think it was largely taken for granted in 1968 that the USSR would crush any armed resistance in Czechoslovakia (as it did in Hungary in 1956) and that it was understandable therefore that the Czechoslovaks did not offer any such resistance. In 1968, anti-Communist guerrilla warfare (as would later happen in Afghanistan) was not much thought of in the US; guerilla warfare and the political use of guns were more associated with Communists, Black Panthers, etc. whom it would not be patriotic to praise:
"Like many of my generation, I was active in the left. From the mid to late 1960s to the late 1970s, I was affiliated with Trotskyist organizations. We considered ourselves revolutionaries and foresaw the day when the working class would rise up against capitalist oppression, overthrow the government, and establish a proletarian dictatorship. There was no doubt in our minds that this could not be accomplished without violence. When the revolutionary situation was ripe, we would need weapons. Therefore, we were opposed on principle to any laws that would interfere with our ability to acquire them. Others on the left shared this perspective. After all, it was fully consistent with the teachings of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Che, Fanon, etc. Didn't "political power grow out of the barrel of a gun"?
"During those years of radicalism at home and revolution abroad, we were thrilled when we saw that poster of Malcolm X with his rifle and the photo of the female Viet Cong soldier with a baby on her back and a rifle in her hand. When Malcolm said “by any means necessary” we did not bother to ask for clarification and when he was murdered by the Nation of Islam, we insisted that the police and the FBI were responsible. As for the Viet Cong woman, no one questioned whether she was endangering the welfare of a minor.
Thankfully, the left did not practice what it preached, realizing that the time was not right for violent revolution here in the USA. The Weathermen were the exception to the rule. They planted a few bombs and participated in the Brinks robbery. But there was one organization at that time that really did pick up the gun—the Black Panther Party, established in Oakland, California in 1966—in response to incidents of police brutality. They openly brandished rifles at the California State House and their newspaper featured drawings of brave Black men and women toting military style weapons. The Panthers were wildly popular with the left.
"I vividly recall participating in demonstrations in support of the Black Panthers where we chanted "The Revolution Has Come, Off the Pig, Time to Pick up the Gun, Off the Pig…" over and over again. To "off a pig" was to shoot a policeman dead. No doubt about it. Although the Panthers technically advocated killing policemen only in self-defense, they glorified the use of guns in the "revolutionary struggle" and turned to violence to resolve internal disputes. In 1968, under Governor Ronald Reagan, California reacted to the tactics of the Black Panther Party by enacting a strong gun control law against openly carrying weapons in public. The National Rifle Association (NRA) supported it...
newpol.org
"The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by then governor of California, Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were lawfully conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[1][2] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[3][4][5]
"Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5th, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Frank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield,[6]. AB-1591 was made an “urgency statute” under Article IV, §8(d) of the Constitution of California after “an organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitol” on May 2nd, 1967[7]; as such, it required a 2/3 majority in each house. It passed the Assembly (controlled by Democrats 42:38) at subsequent readings, passed the Senate (controlled by Democrats, 20:19) on July 26th by 29 votes to 7[8], and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28th, 1967. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.[9]
"Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America, a major supporter of the act.[9] Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."[1]
"The bill was signed by Reagan and became California penal code 25850 and 171c."
en.wikipedia.org
Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, 2nd Edition [3 volumes]
Thoroughly updated and greatly expanded from its original edition, this three-volume set is the go-to comprehensive resource on the legal, social, psychological, political, and public health aspects of guns in American life.The landmark 2002 edition of Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia...
books.google.com
I think it was largely taken for granted in 1968 that the USSR would crush any armed resistance in Czechoslovakia (as it did in Hungary in 1956) and that it was understandable therefore that the Czechoslovaks did not offer any such resistance. In 1968, anti-Communist guerrilla warfare (as would later happen in Afghanistan) was not much thought of in the US; guerilla warfare and the political use of guns were more associated with Communists, Black Panthers, etc. whom it would not be patriotic to praise:
"Like many of my generation, I was active in the left. From the mid to late 1960s to the late 1970s, I was affiliated with Trotskyist organizations. We considered ourselves revolutionaries and foresaw the day when the working class would rise up against capitalist oppression, overthrow the government, and establish a proletarian dictatorship. There was no doubt in our minds that this could not be accomplished without violence. When the revolutionary situation was ripe, we would need weapons. Therefore, we were opposed on principle to any laws that would interfere with our ability to acquire them. Others on the left shared this perspective. After all, it was fully consistent with the teachings of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Che, Fanon, etc. Didn't "political power grow out of the barrel of a gun"?
"During those years of radicalism at home and revolution abroad, we were thrilled when we saw that poster of Malcolm X with his rifle and the photo of the female Viet Cong soldier with a baby on her back and a rifle in her hand. When Malcolm said “by any means necessary” we did not bother to ask for clarification and when he was murdered by the Nation of Islam, we insisted that the police and the FBI were responsible. As for the Viet Cong woman, no one questioned whether she was endangering the welfare of a minor.
Thankfully, the left did not practice what it preached, realizing that the time was not right for violent revolution here in the USA. The Weathermen were the exception to the rule. They planted a few bombs and participated in the Brinks robbery. But there was one organization at that time that really did pick up the gun—the Black Panther Party, established in Oakland, California in 1966—in response to incidents of police brutality. They openly brandished rifles at the California State House and their newspaper featured drawings of brave Black men and women toting military style weapons. The Panthers were wildly popular with the left.
"I vividly recall participating in demonstrations in support of the Black Panthers where we chanted "The Revolution Has Come, Off the Pig, Time to Pick up the Gun, Off the Pig…" over and over again. To "off a pig" was to shoot a policeman dead. No doubt about it. Although the Panthers technically advocated killing policemen only in self-defense, they glorified the use of guns in the "revolutionary struggle" and turned to violence to resolve internal disputes. In 1968, under Governor Ronald Reagan, California reacted to the tactics of the Black Panther Party by enacting a strong gun control law against openly carrying weapons in public. The National Rifle Association (NRA) supported it...
When I Was Against Gun Control...And Why I Changed My Mind - New Politics
Like many of my generation, I was active in the left. From the mid to late 1960s to the late 1970s, I was affiliated with Trotskyist organizations. We considered ourselves revolutionaries and foresaw the day when the working class would rise up against capitalist oppression, overthrow the...
newpol.org
"The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by then governor of California, Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were lawfully conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[1][2] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[3][4][5]
"Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5th, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Frank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield,[6]. AB-1591 was made an “urgency statute” under Article IV, §8(d) of the Constitution of California after “an organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitol” on May 2nd, 1967[7]; as such, it required a 2/3 majority in each house. It passed the Assembly (controlled by Democrats 42:38) at subsequent readings, passed the Senate (controlled by Democrats, 20:19) on July 26th by 29 votes to 7[8], and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28th, 1967. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.[9]
"Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America, a major supporter of the act.[9] Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."[1]
"The bill was signed by Reagan and became California penal code 25850 and 171c."
Mulford Act - Wikipedia
English Bill of rights
All Protestants have the right to bear arms for defence. These the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
2nd amendment.
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
My emphasis Its a pre existing right, of Englishmen, that shall not be infringed see also US v Cruickshank
The English bill goes way beyond preventing the monarch, its subjects the Monarch to Parliament and ofc it asserts that the rights therein are ancient rights and privileges'.
Now Under English Law Parliament can amend the law as it sees fit and the US congress cannot but thats just another bit they screwed up.
Then Such tyranny must be avoided at all costs. though I would expect most US citizens would be surprised to know they were forbidden to do things unless a law allowed for it.
New Priority bipartisan bill Bill for the promotion of recreational sexx, which will cause riots particularly over the Epstein Clauses but without it you are never getting laid again.
Congress Must ACT
All Protestants have the right to bear arms for defence. These the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
2nd amendment.
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
My emphasis Its a pre existing right, of Englishmen, that shall not be infringed see also US v Cruickshank
The English bill goes way beyond preventing the monarch, its subjects the Monarch to Parliament and ofc it asserts that the rights therein are ancient rights and privileges'.
Now Under English Law Parliament can amend the law as it sees fit and the US congress cannot but thats just another bit they screwed up.
Then Such tyranny must be avoided at all costs. though I would expect most US citizens would be surprised to know they were forbidden to do things unless a law allowed for it.
New Priority bipartisan bill Bill for the promotion of recreational sexx, which will cause riots particularly over the Epstein Clauses but without it you are never getting laid again.
Congress Must ACT
If nothing else the Czech's were virtually unarmed (it was supposed to be peaceful after all) and facing MBT's. Unless you legalised ATR's gun control liberalisation would have done nothing to change the outcome. In contrast the gun nut argument is mostly based on facing a gang or the cops who for the most part don't have armoured vehicles. Also at that time there was a slow drift towards what became detente (as Cuba had been way to close a call) and an acceptance that outside of a few out of the way places (eg Vietnam) the two worlds would live and let live and would tolerate each other. A ritual"you arseholes" condemnation was one thing but calling for armed revolt (especially when American's were trying to crush an armed resistance in 'nam) wasn't really the done thing.
No offence, but is this some sort of weird joke ?
1.) Czechoslovakia in the 1960s doesn't have a "gun culture" like the US and never had. Modern day Czechia and Slovakia have even less guns in private ownership than in the 1960s. There isn't much of a gun control debate over here, at all. When we tightened our laws about guns in 2010, no one batted an eye. This decade, some fringe political groupings tried to form armed militias and even the crap previous government finally came to their senses and banned them. The laws are now unambiguous that the only armed organizations allowed are official armed forces and official law enforcement. Forming an armed group, uniformed or non-uniformed, is considered one and the same as forming a criminal organization, a gang, or a mob. Unless you're a certified reenactor of 20th century warfare with a dummy gun, forget about playing partisan.
2.) Small arms would be worth absolute diddly against the Warsaw Pact occupation of 1968. Good luck waging a guerilla war on a nuclear-armed totalitarian superpower that barely cares about how many people it kills to keep its power, and which has a huge conventional arsenal, ready to wage another world war. Guerilla tactics in the woods with a few stashed rifles, against the Warsaw Pact, would be utter lunacy.
3.) And that brings me to my final point. The best resistance was the one that happened in OTL. People building barricades, sabotaging road signs, confusing Warsaw Pact troops, doing everything to make them look like the complete and utter buffoons they were, along with the Soviet leadership that ordered this. The best discreditation of the Soviet occupation was the fact Czechoslovak citizens did not take up arms against the aggressors, neither the armed forces nor individual citizens. The Warsaw Pact was once again abused not to defend its member states, but to put them down and enslave them. A lot of the more naive communist supporters in the West lost a lot of ammo that August 1968. Thankfully ! No one sane could argue "the Soviets were justified in mopping up unruly elements" and other claptrap that was used until then, even after the events of 1956 in Hungary. The fact that Czechoslovaks did not fight, unlike the Hungarians in the 1950s, was very intentional, because they were both convinced it's the better solution and they knew it would bring them more international sympathy.
Emil Gallo's defiant gesture in front of a Soviet tank, Bratislava, Commenius University in the background. Photo by Ladislav Bielik.
Do you think he'd be better able to take out that tank if he was running around with an assault rifle and spray-and-praying at the tank armour ?
Of course not. One salvo from the MG or one shot from the cannon and it would be all over.
I think this is a far more striking and memorable photo than if he was carrying a gun. It shows the moronic impotence and cowardice of Soviet power, going after unarmed people in armoured vehicles. (In some cases, the morons even ran over innocent people. Remind me again, soviet apologists, how those soviets were better than the nazis... Not by much.) It shows the defiant gesture of an angry man, a sincerely angry man. And it accomplishes far more than any guns and ineffective angry shooting could accomplish.
Signed,
a person born in the last two years of communist Czechoslovakia
I have never understood the "badass cowboy drifter with sixshooters and a rifle" fantasy of some Americans, about grabbing a gun and suddenly becoming some nigh-unstoppable action hero, mowing down bad guys left and right, saving the day, and other pulpy nonsense. The US gun lobby should realise that even if the US government decided to wage war on its own citizens, a few gun stashes around the countryside wouldn't make much of a difference. Holding a gun, even a big one, means absolutely nothing if you can be shot by snipers, artillery, tanks from afar or strafe or bombed with aircraft. Even fifty years of technological progress don't make much of a difference. They could have bombed your plucky little insurrection as easily in the 1960s as they can nowadays, almost as precisely. It's easy to crow on about freedom and not giving up when you're not out in the open, in actual fighting, and aren't mowed down by professional armed forces in a few seconds flat. The idea that a few beer-sipping guerillas with a few rifles could defeat an entire army (especially one with post-1940s equipment, communications included) is total Hollywood fantasy. It's about as realistic as me running around in replica plate armour with a replica hand-and-a-half longsword and declaring I'm invincible against any modern military. I'd make excellent target practice.
Last edited:
It's not a weird joke, he's merely asking why the arguments--he's not necessarily saying they're good arguments--that have become so commonplace with anti-gun-control forces in the US in the past few decades were relatively uncommon in 1968.
Let's take the absurdity of the OP argument at face value and go full Nixon on it:
Let's say that civilians having military surplus rifles on the back of their skodas would have stoped the Soviet tanks.
Then why do we need all those expensive nukes to deter the soviet threat?
Why do we deploy all those expensive forces in Europe to stop a Soviet attack? Hell, let's just give every (West) German a surplus KAR98 and a box of surplus 7,92mm ammo and they'll take care of the Reds themselves.
Let's say that civilians having military surplus rifles on the back of their skodas would have stoped the Soviet tanks.
Then why do we need all those expensive nukes to deter the soviet threat?
Why do we deploy all those expensive forces in Europe to stop a Soviet attack? Hell, let's just give every (West) German a surplus KAR98 and a box of surplus 7,92mm ammo and they'll take care of the Reds themselves.
Last edited:
JFK
MLK
RFK
Start killing national political leaders it tends to motivate the rest of the national politician to get off the dime.
Wasn't Malcolm X called a dangerous radical for mentioning the 2nd amendment in "The Ballot or the Bullet"?