1994 vs 1934 - Why Did We Ban in 1994 But Not 1934?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Plan2Live, Aug 5, 2019.

  1. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Sep 30, 2005
    The AWB was about capacity not how a firearm worked. You couldn’t make a new 11 round box magazine for a bolt action rifle when it was in effect.
  2. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Jun 14, 2006
    Morgan County, Alabama
    In that period subsequent to WW1 and the NFA, no one in the middle class could afford a Thompson. Most people who needed guns to deal with predatory critters amongst their farm animals had their Pa's single shot break-open shotgun, or their Winchester levergun, or some thing like that which was far more affordable.
    A advertisement for it in the 1920s pictured a bunch of rustlers stealing a bunch of steers, their owner, a Tom Mix like character, is going after the rustlers with a 1921 Thompson, sorta cowboyesque. Yea, he could shoot up those rustlers....and a number of his steers.
    I think aside from cost, many people then didn't feel submachineguns were very practical weapons (neglecting their high cost as a consideration for a moment) ... or just didn't relish shooting up their beeves along with the rustlers ....

    The Thompson was a commercial failure. Had WW2 not come along, it would be an asterisk in a book of forgotten weapons no one wanted.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
    AlexanderA likes this.
  3. FROGO207

    FROGO207 Member

    Dec 7, 2008
    Mount Desert Island Maine
    Like all things "bad" the time to act was not ripe yet.

    It was this simple in a nut shell.
  4. ofitg

    ofitg Member

    May 17, 2010
  5. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Oct 27, 2006
    Courtroom magic.
    The federal and state and local courts are the government. But they only weild the power of their decisions through law enforcement bureaucracies.
    With the military rank and file kept outside of the civilian system to prevent it from gaining control.
    Those employees like their jobs and work with the court, and the court needs its armed men to have power and be happy and willing to work with them or the court decisions wouldn't amount to much. So they work together more often than not, at the expense of the citizen. If the bureaucracies need certain abilities to accomplish things the court will interprete things over time to make that happen.

    The only thing that slows it down is direct attention from citizens through lobbying and election processes, and good honorable people in the courts and the bureaucracies that have so much integrity that they do what is honorable rather than what is more practical.
    But since the constant pressure is for more power to more readily and easily accomplish things with fewer resources, all they do is slow the inevitable push for absolute power.
    The bureaucracies not having a clear arms advantage over the civilians helps encourage working through these channels on a large variety of legal issues that are more impacted by the civilians as well as honorable men in both the courts and the bureaucracies.
    While honorable men in the military watch on, and prevent the military from taking absolute power for itself.
    It is a very fine balance that is quite intertwined with arms.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
  6. ChuteTheMall

    ChuteTheMall Member

    Feb 16, 2003
    Buried under the backstop
    In 1934, recent experience with Prohibition proved that Americans would break laws they didn't like, or at least seek out loopholes, enriching the black market and smugglers and turn against law enforcement.
    Texas10mm likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice