Trying to figure out when we gave full control to .gov


PDA






gunnutery
January 26, 2013, 07:38 PM
My daughter reads the American Girl books which are fictional stories based on different time periods. When she finishes the book, my wife or I read the back few pages which further explain the actual events surrounding that time period.

One of the last books she finished was surrounding the Great Depression. It explained that many people were fed up with Hoover because he wasn't doing anything to help end the depression because he was thinking the free market would fix itself.

On the topic of guns, I've heard that the 1934 "ban" on full autos was because of a massive call from the people due to the extensive use of full autos by gangsters.

I personally consider the 1934 NFA law as the first major assault/regulation on guns. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Basically, my question is; Am I correct in thinking that the Great Depression time era was when the people gave the government complete control over our rights which lead to today's debates over our guns? Or were there events that are more pertanent to this conversation?

If you enjoyed reading about "Trying to figure out when we gave full control to .gov" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sota
January 26, 2013, 07:42 PM
an interesting correlation in time that I totally missed. if NFA 1934 truly was brought about because of gangsters, then by cause they came about because of Prohibition and the supporters thereof. One of the first and most impressively failed attempts at legislating "morality" as the root cause of all the firearms "debate" issues since then. I'll have to chew on that.

ApacheCoTodd
January 26, 2013, 07:50 PM
For my part I believe The People began to abdicate their (and OUR) power when FDR started his irresponsible give-aways in his first term.

Sugar Daddy wants to limit personal ownership of firearms? OK, look what he did for us with the New Deal.

That first 100 days of the first term set the ground work for anyone attempting to undermine the United States Constitution and any of its attendant documents.

Coop45
January 26, 2013, 07:53 PM
Prohibition and the War on Drugs......same same

Coop45
January 26, 2013, 07:55 PM
Duh!

John_galt
January 26, 2013, 07:58 PM
First - was Herbert Hoover not J. Edgar.

Back it up to the Wilson administration. Correlates to the Constitutional Ammnedments for direct election of Senators and the income tax. That, to me, was the point in time where America began to allow the government to have a heavy hand in governing this country on a micro level. We stopped truly being a republic and with the income tax politicians now had the financing to buy votes. That layed the ground work for FDR.

Prohibiiton just pulled the trigger. Set up a self inflicted crisis that the government had to react to counter.

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2013, 08:03 PM
Suffering people are willing to scream out for government to come in and do things it could never do before to make it stop hurting. Look at what we have now. Everyone is screaming to ban guns or screaming to arm all teachers. Just do SOMETHING, ANYTHING. And we got the Patriot Act and the TSA as a result.

People pretty predictable and consistent. When times get crappy, people look for a good scapegoat and demand someone do something about it. That all accumulates and the last hundred years of incremental infringements is how we've arrived at the boat we're in today.

Double_J
January 26, 2013, 08:10 PM
I have read a book that shows three tripping points that started us down this road to over-bearing government. The first point made is that the government created the federal reserve central bank. The second point made was the direct election of senators. The third point was the income tax amendment. The author also brought up a point about the education system being set up for ABSOLUTE obidience to the government/management/teacher, and do what you are told, no questions allowed.

The book is 1913 by Oliver Demille. He also has another book called "Freedom Shift" that covers these same topics in much greater depth. He is a philosopher who has read many classic books on government, the same ones read by the founding fathers when they set up the government/constitution. He has a series of books describing each point of failure along this path, and what we can do to change it.

oneounceload
January 26, 2013, 08:13 PM
It started 70 or so years before the Great Depression when Lincoln took control. It isn't J Edgar, but FDR that you mean, he was the first major Socialist in charge. Fast forward to the 60s and then you have LBJ's Great Society that flooded the educational system with liberals ( remember the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world)
50 years latter, we are reaping what we sow

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2013, 08:20 PM
It isn't one singular, sinister thing. It's a series of small infractions and infringements at the local, state, and federal level. Over a hundred years, it all adds up. Government is out of a job when it can no longer find new laws to make or create new departments to regulate some minutia of your life.

Heck, this guy is trying to ban energy drinks. We've long run out of important things to address. http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Alderman-Burke-Proposes-Energy-Drink-Ban-for-Chicago-187375061.html

ACP
January 26, 2013, 08:21 PM
"OK, look what he did for us with the New Deal."

yeah -- cutting government salaries, fastest GDP growth in American history, banking reform, farm and rural programs, overturned prohibition -- just horrible!

or, one of the greatest public policies in American history.

yeah, that gets my vote.

2ifbyC
January 26, 2013, 08:28 PM
Erosion and time are two enemies of the gun advocate. As bans are put in place,the old guns will wither away as new guns will be forbidden. Our children will inherit only memories. The cost is too high to remain complaisant, compliant, or compromising.:mad:

PBR Streetgang
January 26, 2013, 08:28 PM
The 1934 NFA laws gave jurisdiction to the FBI to chase bank robbers under Federal law ,it wasn't about gun control.......basically like they finally arrested Al Copone for tax evasion and not fo the other crimes he committed.

gunnutery
January 26, 2013, 08:32 PM
First - was Herbert Hoover not J. Edgar.

Thanks for the correction, I've edited the OP.

It isn't J Edgar, but FDR that you mean

FDR certainly did indulge afterward, but from the bit I read, the public was already calling for .gov to do something before he was in office.

I hadn't thought of the Federal Reserve in 1913, but was the public calling for it, or was it just enacted via Wilson through EO (and followed up by Congress, not sure)?

The 1934 NFA laws gave jurisdiction to the FBI to chase bank robbers under Federal law ,it wasn't about gun control.......basically like they finally arrested Al Copone for tax evasion and not fo the other crimes he committed.

Why couldn't they just make a law against robbery federally instead of do it through gun control?

PBR Streetgang
January 26, 2013, 08:44 PM
back at that time the states had a lot more power,the local jurisdictions too.
LEO's had jurisdictions to county and state lines. The states were wary of Federal powers and didn't want the Federal Government to override their powers .

Even back in those days the state governments feared the attempts of the Feds to usurp their state powers.

not to mention political corruption......

ZeSpectre
January 26, 2013, 08:47 PM
I'd pretty much have to say it started with Lincoln who acted in a time of crisis, but if viewed objectively went WAY beyond the bounds of his authority.

Where we would be if he hadn't is another discussion entirely because, amongst other things, there were definitely foreign powers just waiting for us to bleed ourselves dry so they could march in and grab what they could.

evolve23
January 26, 2013, 08:50 PM
Read Kenneth Royce (Boston T. Party)'s book, Hologram of Liberty. You will discover that the fix was in since the drafting of the Constitution. What the Patriot, Freedom and Liberty movements expound is Jeffersonian ideology, which is in direct opposition to Hamilton's statist push. Hamilton created the first national bank, which ultimately led to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, thereby selling the American people into slavery.

There are two important things that Hamilton did.

First, he basically made the legislative branch subjugated to the executive by the creation of public debt. This is because the debt of the states from the American Revolution became nationalized. The Federal gov't became responsible for the debts, but also paid them. What the gov't gives, they can take. Therefore, the individual states were neutered, and their legislatures were bought through free Federal gov't money.

Secondly, how do you think the public debt is secured? That is, what do you think the collateral for the public debt is? Since the passing of the 1913 Revenue Act, we are all slaves to the corporation known as the United States of America. This act in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Act (passed around midnight during an extended session of congress when most Congressmen had gone home for he holidays) completed the trifecta. The Federal Gov't through a corporation known as the Federal Reserve could issue public debt, secured and collateralized by United States tax payers via the newly created Income tax.

Hamilton won. Jefferson Lost. You, me and our children will pay the eternal price.

Zoogster
January 26, 2013, 08:54 PM
The Gangsters were the reason given for passage of the NFA.
However many of the most notorious gangsters actually obtained thier full auto weapons from police and military armories, they didn't purchase them. So it would have had minimal impact on them in reality. We have created a list of them before. Many were stolen from national guard armories and police. Tommy guns were actually a police gun more than a gangster gun, though today they are with being a gangster gun, back then they were more popular and common with police than gangsters. So most that gangsters had were obtained from police through daring raids, theft, or corruption. While 1918 BARs were widespread in National Guard armories, also targeted by gangsters. Just as today the official reason given in the media or by politicians for public support can be misleading. The public is manipulated.
Gangsters played some role, but thier role was greatly exaggerated to manipulate and pass legislation.

The more realistic reason was the Bonus Army.

The Bonus Army scared Washington, and Congress was sneaking around in subterranean tunnels to avoid them.
FDR (who would be in power when the NFA was passed) was in DC at the time as well though he was not President yet.
It was thousands of WW1 Veterans, at a time when trench warfare was still considered a primary method of fighting. They were desperate experienced veterans who were routed with rather excessive force.
Thier movement was felt to be a bit left leaning.
This was also only a little over a decade after the Communists had had the October Revolution in Russia, a first demonstration of the lower class rising up and taking over, and that was something that still scared many governments and Capitalists, and especially those with the most to lose (who tend to have the biggest influence in our government.)
While the US was suffering through the Great Depression, and Communism would have had potentially its highest appeal level to average citizens.

It all combined to create a mindset that needed to insure these types of people, experienced people that knew how to fight, at a time when machineguns in trench warfare were exceedingly powerful, could not just go purchase machineguns or a variety of weapons.


Douglas MacArthur attacked them and drove them from the Capitol with tanks. At first the veterans cheered at his arrival, thinking it was a military parade in thier honor. Imagine thier surprise.
No, those tanks were there to be used against them.
But such a group in the future could return, and if they came back well armed, at a time when trench warfare dominated, it could be very bad.



However demonizing a bunch of desperate veterans when much of the nation could relate to them was not politically viable at the time. Driving them out with brute force meant they would have even more sympathy.
Gangsters on the other hand, most could agree gangsters were bad.
So gangsters were the official reason for the NFA.



However even when the NFA was passed most believed it was a temporary measure because it would be struck down as unconstitutional when it got around to review. That was a general sentiment at the time of many judges and politicians, even those that liked the NFA did not think it would pass Constitutional review.
They were correct, Miller went pretty far in that direction, all but saying that had it been a machinegun instead of a short barreled shotgun they would have ruled it a weapon suitable for militia use and protected by the 2nd Amendment, but without evidence offered that a short barreled shotgun was useful in a militant capacity (the plantiff died so nobody submitted evidence on his behalf or argued on his behalf) they couldn't rule it was protected. (Had he had representation they would have shown shotguns used in WW1.)
The Miller case showed the sentiment at the time.
Nobody believed the NFA would stand around that decade, but it gained defacto legitimacy by going decades with no review and becoming a common staple in law. Over time it gained legitimacy simply by being.
By the time of Heller it had been in place so long without review that they didn't want to shake things up too much.




Another key destruction of the 2nd Amendment was the addition of prohibited persons in the 1968 GCA. While on the surface it certainly is nice to not want dangerous people to have guns, and is something with widespread acceptance, in reality it means nobody really has the protection the 2nd Amendment was meant to provide. For if anyone really clashes with government they will find themselves a felon, whether from clashing with police, or civil disobedience, or something less obvious like tax or white collar charges when the government goes over them with a fine toothed comb to find anything they can charge a thorn in thier side with. And they will not legally be allowed to have firearms.
So the very types of things likely to happen as tyranny took hold, before things got that bad, would cause many of those active in opposing tyranny through political means and demonstrations to be prohibited persons. In fact you only need to look towards the Civil Rights era (the same era the GCA was passed in) to see the truth of that, as various demonstrators and activists were charged for a variety of things that with the prohibited person statute in place would prevent them from being legal gun owners.

Double_J
January 26, 2013, 09:08 PM
The federal reserve was set up when the bankers decided that they wanted control over the purse strings. They did this by using that all powerful tool that the rich use to control people a.k.a. lobbying and holding closed door meetings.

FDR got power by using the gift of gab a.k.a. being a smooth talker, and telling people what they want to here. He also is the one who BANNED private ownership of gold coins and bars. The only gold you could have was jewelry. This is in complete defiance of what the people knew, they could trade in paper money for gold, also known as gold certificates. This way the people has to use his paper money for all transactions.

FDR created jobs, but is it .gov job to create work for people? This is similar to a socialistic method of fixing a problem. Every man shall have a job working for the government, and shall depend on the government for his paycheck. This goes against what the founders would have wanted. They saw what happens when a small group controls the work/money supply; that group becomes powerful and unstoppable as they control the populace.

FDR also is the one who froze peoples wages, so the only way that employers could compete for employees was to offer to pay for insurance. This lead to the point we are at now where insurance comes from the employers, and private individual insurance policies are so expensive.

CarolinaChuck
January 26, 2013, 09:13 PM
ACP,

Fastest growing GDP under FDR??? Might want to fact check yourself on that one; FDR was a disaster in many ways, and the GDP and unemployment durring his terms tops the list. Hint, thats why it was called "the great depression."

Back to the orginal poster's question; FDR is high on the list, if not topping it. Woodrow Wilson is probably secound with his setting up the administrative state we see now, along with his progressive views of the Constitution.

I would put LBJ as the thrid with his Great Society, and dear Teddy fourth with his progressive views and new found ways to use the office of the Presidency.

Others, well most others, have made good points, but these four characters get my vote for having done the most destruction as Presidents. I don't believe any of them set out to destroy our nation, but if they could see what their ambitions have done in the end, I would like to think they would be ashamed to have meddled in what our founding fathers left to them.

As per the education system, look to Dewey for screwing that pouch; LBJ was a little fish for the demise of our public education system compaired to the likes of Dewey.

Just my thoughts,

CC

gunnutery
January 26, 2013, 09:41 PM
All very good points.

Zoogster, I've thought about the "prohibited persons" laws as well. I'm one who usually reads things such as "shall not be infringed" as literal. While I also don't want "the wrong people" to have guns, who gets to decide who "the wrong persons" are, and what limitations are there from becoming too broad? If laws against committing murder aren't enough to stop someone, no other law will be either. If felons were to be re-allowed to own guns, I do wonder if there would be more crime, as long as more people were armed.

FDR also is the one who froze peoples wages, so the only way that employers could compete for employees was to offer to pay for insurance. This lead to the point we are at now where insurance comes from the employers, and private individual insurance policies are so expensive.

I've always wondered how we got to the scam of insurance. Thanks for filling me in.

oneounceload
January 26, 2013, 09:47 PM
Hamilton created the first national bank, which ultimately led to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act,

Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" - tells all about the creation of the Fed by private bankers in 1913 on Jekyll Island - too many think the Fed reserve is some gov't institution - it isn't

BobTheTomato
January 26, 2013, 09:56 PM
Major shifts in government first occurred during the war to prevent southern independence (civil war which is a bad name since the south wanted no part of a centralized power structure). At this point we went from a federal government to a national one meaning we lost the idea of the states and went to a central government. After that Teddy Roosevelt changed the president from someone who did very little to someone who made sure something got done. If you look at the number of executive orders he put out verses all other before no one is close. It was also around this time we got the federal reserve and the 16th and 17th amendments which were "progressive ideas".

Also please stop saying Herbert Hoover did nothing. Reading his memoirs you will see he did not want the market to correct itself. He did a bunch....Roosevelt did more. You do realize its called the Hoover Dam right?

mnrivrat
January 26, 2013, 09:57 PM
Hamilton's statist push. Hamilton created the first national bank, which ultimately led to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, thereby selling the American people into slavery

Follow the money

Woodrow Wilson is probably secound with his setting up the administrative state we see now, along with his progressive views of the Constitution.

And in 1913 during his administration came the Federal Reserve - NOT a government agency

The federal reserve was set up when the bankers decided that they wanted control over the purse strings.

Like I said - Follow the money

We stopped truly being a republic and with the income tax politicians now had the financing to buy votes.

And the bankers had the financing to buy the politicians


I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

Instead of crushing them Wilson went to bed with them .

And then along came FDR

Steel Horse Rider
January 26, 2013, 09:58 PM
I agree that the oppression of states rights by the federal government started with Lincoln and the Civil War as the southern states were trying to exercise their right to leave the union (setting aside the reason they wanted to leave which is an entirely different subject) and Lincoln was determined to keep the union whole. It took a hard left turn with Woodrow Wilson, the first "intellectual" to be elected to that office but was greatly expanded by Teddy Roosevelt and then put on steroids by FDR. We have been trapped in the vast whirlpool of a sinking ship of state since....

John3921
January 26, 2013, 11:26 PM
a little place called Appomattox.

Double Naught Spy
January 26, 2013, 11:59 PM
Founding Fathers...
In the second Militia Act of 1792, less than 6 months after the Bill of Rights, the first infraction occurred. While the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it was when keeping and bearing arms became a legal requirement.

The right to keep and bear arms means you have a choice to bear them if you so desire and to not bear them if you don't. The Militia Act squashed this aspect right off the bat.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

So by making the militia mandatory for white males of the proper age range, an aspect not present when the 2nd Amendment went into effect months prior, citizens became subjects, albeit armed subjects, but subjects with no choice in the matter. The right became a requirement. This was done by the government, ostensibly for the protection of the new country, including assuring the government's own survival, a theme that has apparently been carried forward, but the methods of preserving the government have changed. In Colonial times, the threats perceived were without more so than within for which the government felt help was needed.

BHP FAN
January 27, 2013, 12:03 AM
1865.

wacki
January 27, 2013, 12:52 AM
Am I correct in thinking that the Great Depression time era was when the people gave the government complete control over our rights which lead to today's debates over our guns?

As far as I can tell, all dictators are proceeded by financial crises.

Ironically, there are many economists at Harvard, Chicago Booth, Stanford and GMU that believe the government caused the great depression. They were just very good at blaming the free market.

Ben Bernanke is part of this camp as well. Proven by his famous toast to Milton Friedman where he said "you are right, we caused [the great depression]. Never again, not on my watch."

230RN
January 27, 2013, 02:19 AM
An immensely edifying and stimulating thread!

Thank you all!

Terry, 230RN

berettaprofessor
January 27, 2013, 08:08 AM
+1 on Lincoln's actions, ZeSpectre. And I would think the second and third tipping points were when we enacted income tax and then when we hid collection of those taxes in the paycheck. Genius, sheer genius.

gunnutery
January 27, 2013, 05:49 PM
I'm one of those that doubts the whole 9-11 attack was caused by terrorists. There will never be enough proof to say whether our government had anything to do with it, but even with that mindset, I'd never even thought about the Great Depression being caused by our government. Very interesting.

I'd also never heard of the Militia Act of 1792, also very interesting.

This is all very sobering really, to know that we can never rest against tyranny, even though we have the rights we do.

It's good to see the vast knowledge that exists here on THR.

John_galt
January 28, 2013, 07:26 PM
Read the Forgotten Man. Evens FDR's own people said they had made things worse near the end. Much of FDR's NewDeal was struck down by the courts. Just took to long. By the time it was struck down people had come to accept it. Health Care will likely be the same but on a much grander scope.

If you enjoyed reading about "Trying to figure out when we gave full control to .gov" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!