Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Whew,revision #6!
Cheap guns and choices for the poor
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
Whew,revision #6!
The Viking
Member
Nice work (as usual), but shouldn't it read "The 1968 Gun Control Act..."?
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Could be so. I also plan to replace the right image with a photo of a man standing with his family. This is work in progress, soliciting input.
The Viking
Member
Not knowing about the quality of the imported stuff of the day, I'm just thinking loud here...are they "cheap", or "inexpensive"?. Seems to be two different things to me. "cheap" as in "cheaply made" or "inexpensive" as in "available to everyone"? Is it possible to make a blanket statement about the quality of the pieces of that era? Cheap or Inexpensive?
The restriction was targeted towards import of all firearms, not those that were cheaply made. High quality but "too conceable" weapons were restricted, as well as pot metal types. So, weapons that were inexpensive due to the value of the dollar but were otherwise serviceable could no longer be imported . . . unless brought in for law enforcement purposes.
That last bit is what shows the lie in all the gun control legislation. "These weapons are too dangerous, defective, etc for you common folk . . . but we won't stand in the way of the agents of the government having them."
That last bit is what shows the lie in all the gun control legislation. "These weapons are too dangerous, defective, etc for you common folk . . . but we won't stand in the way of the agents of the government having them."
How about...
Imagine being poor and having two options for defending your family.
1) Inexpensive Gun 2) Bare Hands
By banning inexpensive firearms, the 1968 Gun Control Act
made the decision for you.
or
The 1968 Gun Control Act ensures you'll never get to make that choice.
or
Now keep dreaming, because in 1968, the federal government decided that's one option too
many.
or
In 1968, the federal government decided that's one option too
many.
Just some ideas.
It just made me think of another idea though. No pictures to go along with it, but a great tag line.
"22,000+ federal, state and local laws have turned your constitutional right to bear arms, the right to bare hands.
Imagine being poor and having two options for defending your family.
1) Inexpensive Gun 2) Bare Hands
By banning inexpensive firearms, the 1968 Gun Control Act
made the decision for you.
or
The 1968 Gun Control Act ensures you'll never get to make that choice.
or
Now keep dreaming, because in 1968, the federal government decided that's one option too
many.
or
In 1968, the federal government decided that's one option too
many.
Just some ideas.
It just made me think of another idea though. No pictures to go along with it, but a great tag line.
"22,000+ federal, state and local laws have turned your constitutional right to bear arms, the right to bare hands.
The Viking
Member
Where did the picture go? 
The Viking
Member
Nice! Can't make up my mind as to which version I like the most though.
Beatnik
Member
GCA68 is still in effect, but random poor guy can buy a HiPoint for a little over $100.
I wouldn't mention GCA68 at all. IMO it's misleading. I guess you could argue that small pocket pistols from other countries were banned and US companies weren't making them because there wasn't a market, but that's not the same thing.
I wouldn't mention GCA68 at all. IMO it's misleading. I guess you could argue that small pocket pistols from other countries were banned and US companies weren't making them because there wasn't a market, but that's not the same thing.
There was a market for the small pistols, and the cheaper imports (including some war surplus items) were filling them. That's why US companies supported (both indirectly and directly) the restrictions. It helped protect their markets. Quality US companies for various reasons stopped making the smaller pistols, even though there was still a market for them. Since the foreign production was no longer importable, the "lower tier" domestic firms started filling the void.
The Viking
Member
Picture's gone again .
.Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Picture disappeared momentarily while I switched it for the newest version.
Fosbery
Member
GCA1968 was a form of protectionism. Protectionism raises prises. So yes it did reduce the affordability of guns, though I agree it's perhaps a little misleading - I think the poster suggests almost that the Act banned cheap guns when in fact its effects were indirect and slight. You could still get 'cheap' guns, just for a bit more than would otherwise be the case.
RKBABob
Member
That's it, Oleg, its perfect.
BlackBearME
Member
I like it.
Don't like the title though. Strikes me wrong somehow. Maybe "The" American poor ( I know you have limited space though)
Don't like the title though. Strikes me wrong somehow. Maybe "The" American poor ( I know you have limited space though)
loose cannon
Member
having dabbled with inexpensive handguns in my lower income days i have a bit of experience with both old and new low cost guns.ive owned a couple of the rg 22lr revolvers and shot a few others
right now one can buy a cobra ca 32 or 380 for close to the same price when inflation is accounted for.buy 2 boxes of fmjs and shoot one box to make sure you didnt get a lemon load a couple of mags and have a far better weapon than those rg 22s.im not even considering high points which i hear are reliable and full house 9mm,40s&W and 45acp calibers.
imho i think we're better off today,sure ga68 is a stupid law but id chew on other parts of it.
if only the bgs were still armed with rg22s,,,,
right now one can buy a cobra ca 32 or 380 for close to the same price when inflation is accounted for.buy 2 boxes of fmjs and shoot one box to make sure you didnt get a lemon load a couple of mags and have a far better weapon than those rg 22s.im not even considering high points which i hear are reliable and full house 9mm,40s&W and 45acp calibers.
imho i think we're better off today,sure ga68 is a stupid law but id chew on other parts of it.
if only the bgs were still armed with rg22s,,,,
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Shouldn't it be "Families" instead of "Family?"
I had a gun like that, same grips and everything, but it had a front sight. Shot .22 shorts.
I am also moderately incensed about the "cheap gun" prohibition, as well as the fact that it costs so much to implement the right to carry concealed. I don't recall any pre-Bill-Of-Rights discussion of the definition of "to bear" arms in terms of how these arms should be borne.
Whether they be borne in one's hat or on one's belt or in one's boot or in one's panty hose or in one's saddlebags.
And we sometimes forget that knives are also "arms," and the same limitation on Government infringements should pertain.
I had a gun like that, same grips and everything, but it had a front sight. Shot .22 shorts.
I am also moderately incensed about the "cheap gun" prohibition, as well as the fact that it costs so much to implement the right to carry concealed. I don't recall any pre-Bill-Of-Rights discussion of the definition of "to bear" arms in terms of how these arms should be borne.
Whether they be borne in one's hat or on one's belt or in one's boot or in one's panty hose or in one's saddlebags.
And we sometimes forget that knives are also "arms," and the same limitation on Government infringements should pertain.
CajunBass
Member
Back in my younger days, immediately following the GCA68, I absolutly lusted for an RG-22, or a Raven 25. They had the one redeaming quality I needed in a handgun.
They were cheap. Yes, cheap. Not just inexpensive.
IIRC they both sold for about $29.95. Even that was too rich for me in those days. I've been broke before.
They were cheap. Yes, cheap. Not just inexpensive.
IIRC they both sold for about $29.95. Even that was too rich for me in those days. I've been broke before.
Neo-Luddite
Member
I like the poster--but some might misconstrue the editorial choice of making the 'poor American' a poor African-American; even though that particular demographic was likely the most effected by the law. The logic is behind the choice of model all the way, and he looks good in the poster. I guess I talked myself out of my concerns anyway--nice poster!
That demographic is the one that was specifically targeted by those laws.
I like the poster. Personally, I would have phrased it:
"Once upon a time, poor Americans had two choices for self defense:
A: An affordable gun
B: Bare hands
The Gun Control Act of 1968 took away that choice."
But that's just the particular phrasing I'd use.
I wish I had people to model for me. I think I've got a fairly good poster idea that hasn't been done. Maybe.
Picknlittle
Member
How about a pic of a man just beaten down and robbed by street punk thugs from whom he was unable to protect himself?
Joe the Redneck
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 249
Use a white guy instead of an African American.
- Status
