Did the US write most of Europe's gun laws after WWII?

[jlbraun]

I was wondering whether the current attitudes towards guns in Europe are a result of two things:

-the US and Allies rewriting the gun laws after WWII
-the US and Allies killing off most of the people of Europe that LIKED guns, as they joined the army.

I can't find any evidence for this in Europe, but am pretty sure it's what happened with Japan.

Any thoughts?

 

[Zoogster]

The US government and occupational forces have not created a RKBA in most places they have designed the government.

Japan is a major one as you mention.

Another one is South Korea, where only the police and military are suitable.

The same goes for the US backed Transitional Federal Government in Somalia.

A unique example seems to be Iraq, where the citizen is permitted to have an AK (no handguns, or other types of weapons, and even fine crafted expensive double shotguns have been confiscated.)


The US government has long been the primary influence in NATO, and of the UN, and the UN actively works to disarm the citizens of the world.
Treaties and trade restrictions are established, and even laws on export effecting US citizens stem from such pressure.


The US was the primary force of Western Germany before the fall of the Berlin wall. Do you think West Germans had firearm rights?

The American government attempted to disarm the Philippines through government and legislation, though the people have resisted it.

The US government has long had a large influence in politics in the Western Hemisphere, yet many of the nations it has had the biggest influence on in South and Central America are anti gun.

Then you have US territories past and present, almost all of which were denied the RKBA even though the US was the effective controller of the nations.
American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (U.S.) are all generaly anti RKBA.

Pretty much most places the US has had a significant role in establishing or maintaining the government, or the primary influence, the US has not extended the 2nd or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Yet the US citizens have not demanded this of thier government either.

So yes if the government could create a new government in the United States I imagine the RKBA would not be included. Leaders of nations usualy do not want thier subjects armed, that should come as no surprise. Those few permitted arms they want to insure are possessed by those who go through a process that includes strict background checks and only favors certain content successful people, not the rabble likely to use them for non sporting purposes.

The founding fathers recognized this tendency, and knew it was the natural direction of government. That is why it "Shall not be infringed" *




* Except in every single possible way deemed reasonable, and inluding all prohibited classes henceforth created.

 

[Mk VII]

Ask yourself how many emerging countries since 1788 have seen fit to incorporate such a provision in their constitutional arrangements. Not many (I'm tempted to say 'not one', but I'll settle for 'not many').

 

[Cosmoline]

The folks who have traditionally decide these matters are from the federal State Dept. They're American, but they tend to have a much more "internationalist" approach and very little regard for conservative, libertarian ideas such as the RKBA. In addition to this, even when we took over nations such as Japan or parts of Germany it would have been politically unpopular even stateside to let them have arms. They were beaten enemies, and beaten enemies are traditionally disarmed.

 

[Zoogster]

They were beaten enemies, and beaten enemies are traditionally disarmed.

Of course, that is after all the whole basis behind the RKBA, it makes it harder for unpopular rulers/tyrants to rule over a people.
The RKBA also encourages a mindset that is not that of mindless obedience, which is what many leaders strive for.
Japan has been one of the best accomplishments of such obedience.

 

[xjchief]

Seems to me that many of the layers of our own government are actively trying to ban firearm ownership right here as well.

I view gun ownership as the keystone right in a free country- without it all the rest of your rights come crashing down.

 

[Gifted]

The Iraqi constitution is pretty much the same as ours, except the bill of rights adds "except as regulated by law" to everything. Back when they were working on it, I asked around here to see if anyone was interested in writing etc. various influential Iraqis to let them know what kind of idiocy that is, and to stop it or something. No one was interested in helping to write or find addresses, or anything. Kind of blew my mind.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Wasn't Gun Owners of America responsible for that? I seem to remember them sending out mimeographed notices headed "No compromise!" to all the world leaders after WWII, which scared them into passing strict gun control laws. I could be misremembering though.

 

[Zoogster]

except the bill of rights adds "except as regulated by law" to everything

Just cross out anything that has that added because it no longer counts.

Mexico's RKBA has essentialy that on the end of it, and the result is they have no RKBA in practice.

The whole purpose of declaring a right is declaring it is off limits to the government. If you say the government cannot infringe on it unless they pass a law allowing infringement there is no point in stating it. That is just what would have been the case anyways.

Such a constitution is just paying patriotic lip service that amounts to nothing.

 

[LAK]

The Swiss were pressured and intimidated into gutting their Constitution a short while back. And it was gutted.

------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Gifted]

That's the whole point of writing a constitution like that Zoogster. one of my thoughts though was that Iraq would have enough of a gun culture that most of the lower level people would understand and oppose it. Or, after the fact amend it to fix the thing. With work, we could even bolster our cause with Islam and ME specific points and issues.

I couldn't find any good contact information, and no one was interested in helping prevent the travesty they now call a constitution, so there it is. I understand the Afghan document is similarly worded.

 

[The Viking]

IIRC, many of the gun laws in continental Western Europe is the result of the pressure of "doing something" against leftist terrorists during the 60's and 70's. From what I've read, Germany was disarmed after WW2, a few years after they could buy pretty much anything again, and then the RAF started shooting politicians and blowing stuff up. Same thing with France IIRC. Up until 1995, the French were allowed to keep up to three automatic weapons...
Later changes/restrictions have been brought down upon us by the European Union, specifically the Mastriicht Treaty IIRC. Basically set down the minimum restrictions for various types of firearms, with automatic weapons being the most regulated, pistols and evil black rifles coming after that, manually repeated rifles and shotguns after that, side by sides after that, and black powder, electroshock weapons, pepper spray, tear gas and similar having the least amount of restrictions.
AFAIK, Belgium had very few restrictions until the Mastriicht Treaty. Shotguns and perhaps rifles were fairly unregulated in Norway up until the 80's.

 

[Mk VII]

successive waves of conquest, occupation and dictatorship have cut a great swath through the heritage of arms in continental Europe. Especially pre-1945 arms of which the shortage is marked.

 

[La Pistoletta]

Gotta love people who actually buy laws that pretty much state "you have the right to X...except you don't."

 

[Kentak]

I think that's a pretty far fetched scenario you came up with there. That's what I think.

K

 

[mp510]

-the US and Allies rewriting the gun laws after WWII
It wouldn't surprise me if we did promote some arms control. However, you have to realize that in the aftermath of WWI, fascism rose partly from post-war violence. Preventing that sort of future destabilization is part of never again.

-the US and Allies killing off most of the people of Europe that LIKED guns, as they joined the army.
We didn't intervene in Europe directly until over 2 years after Hitler invaded Poland. By your logic, the allies should not have fought back, and simply allowed the NAZIS to take over their countries. Does that really make sense?

I can't find any evidence for this in Europe, but am pretty sure it's what happened with Japan.
Japan has always been pretty anti-gun (and anti-sword). After WWII, we had to force their police to carry service revolvers. I read that to this day, the entire Tokyo PD fires a combined 6 rounds in the line of duty each year. They spend way more time training in martial arts than firearms- a 360 from the US.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Wasn't Gun Owners of America responsible for that? I seem to remember them sending out mimeographed notices headed "No compromise!" to all the world leaders after WWII, which scared them into passing strict gun control laws. I could be misremembering though.

Hmmmm. I seem to recall that it was the NRA who appealed to the world leaders to pass reasonable restrictions on a pre-existing right. I could be misremembering though.

 

[Art Eatman]

The U.S. had little to do with any post-WW II laws in "most" of Europe. Germany was partitioned and the area around Berlin was controlled by Russia, Great Britain, France and the U.S.. Italy went back to being Italy rather quickly. Austria was controlled for a while by the Russians and the U.S. Those countries did not represent "most" of Europe.

Otherwise? Sovereign governments resumed pre-war powers immediately after the fall of Germany. The Italians followed soon after.

Once West Germany's Bonn government was in place, we kept our nose out of their domestic business.

Prior to around 1967, the NRA was little concerned with all the gun rights issues, heavily involved as it is today. It hadn't been seen as being particularly necessary, the more fools we. GOA, CCRKBA and the 2AF weren't even around in that post-war period. Most RKBA groups came into being with the brouhaha over the 1968 GCA, which is when I got into all this stuff.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I must have misremembered both American history and world history. Sorry. Nobody cares much about old stuff (what happened before last Tuesday) anymore.

And it's just so much easier to get quick historical information on the Internet than to actually learn it. It's all good though.

For example, what I've managed to piece together is that Smith & Wesson were brothers before Wesson changed his name and they went into the gun business.

Before that they invented the cough drop and grew beards for a living.

Later on the Smith brother who changed his name to Wesson went into the petroleum industry and sold oil.

He first named his product "Smith Oil" but that didn't work. After several shots he got the name right.

None of the above is to be confused with wesson movies. Now you know why they wore 10 Gallon Hats: that was the amount of oil required to lubricate a horse.

No problem, ServiceSoon. At your age the memory banks can't be sufficiently stocked with recollections from your own experience, so you're not going to have much of it from before the last ten years. You've got lots and lots of space to fill in what my generation considered an exciting adventure. But that was long before last Tuesday.

 

[H088]

Quiet a few European countries are actually pretty similar to the US in regards to firearms they can purchase, the UK is just particularly bad.

 

[The Viking]

Quiet a few European countries are actually pretty similar to the US in regards to firearms they can purchase, the UK is just particularly bad.

Sure, and in theory I can have stuff that you guys can only dream about with your current laws. Only a minor problem - getting an actual license for it. If I could get a license, I would be able to buy, oh, a UMP45 submachine gun for, oh, say $1200-1500? Not too bad IMHO. If I only could get a license...