Sunday, January 17, 2016

Life Anti-Second Amendment Editorial from 1967

Life editorial from January 13, 1967

I remember 1967.  I was not yet able to vote.  I was 16 years old when I bought my first pistol.  I still have it.  It is a Colt Woodsman sport and target model that has served me well over the decades and half way around the world.  It was made the same year that I was born.  I purchased it over the counter, across state lines, for cash.  My father had found it and had driven me there to make the purchase in a gun store.  I did not have a drivers license; the price was $60 and included a holster.

I mention this as a bit of history to keep it from being flushed down the memory hole by the media cartel.  They would have us believe that guns are more available now than ever.  The opposite is true.  In 1965, you could buy guns, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns through the mail.  Pistols required a federal license to mail order. The license cost a dollar.

What I remember about 1967 was the full court press of the media cartel to convince everyone that the Second Amendment was meaningless and only applied to some sort of "collective".  They insisted that radical restrictions on gun sales were only reasonable, and required to stop crime.  With this sort of propaganda push, and no effective way to get out opposition arguments to the public, Lyndon Johnson was able to bully Congress into passing the Gun Control act of 1968.  Crime immediately shot up, and has not returned to 1967 levels until the last few years.  Crime fell as shall issue concealed carry laws proliferated around the nation.

I want to preserve the 1967 Life editorial for all to see, because we hear the same tired old arguments today.  If you read the editorial carefully, you will note that they never explain why anti-tank guns should be banned.  They never list a single crime committed with such guns.  If they had an example, they would certainly have used it.  They simply state their opinion as if it were fact.

In the middle 1960's, the elites had decided that an armed citizenry was an impediment to the type of government that they wished to rule over.  They controlled the media to an extent that we are only now beginning to comprehend.  Notice the twisting of the Commerce Clause.  The Commerce Clause of the Constitution was written to prevent the states from erecting barriers to commerce across state lines.  It has been twisted to enable barriers to commerce across state lines.

Thankfully, there is advanced technology in the Internet and social media to counter the propaganda fed to us by the media cartel.  The Orwellian named "fairness doctrine" no longer hobbles free speech on the radio channels.  A great political awakening has occurred in the last 25 years.

A free republic is not based on *needs*.  We moved beyond *needs* a long time ago.  Some of the current crop of candidates are actually talking about defending our rights, and the Constitution.

It is about time.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

Nobody needs an anti tank gun until you have a tank to destroy and then if you do not have an anti tank gun that tank is going to destroy you. If this country were invaded by a foreign military how many tanks would they bring with them? How many of those tanks could we destroy if we do not have the weapons to do it with? When the militia are called to arms to defend this nation, who are the militia. we the people are the militia why should we not be armed? The second amendment has nothing in it that allows government to control any weapons we may want to own. I have several weapons that never get used because they have special uses that rarely ever come up. I have the right to be prepared at all times for what ever could possibly come up. emergencies do not happen by appointment. If I see an enemy tank coming down the road it is too late to go online and place an order. although I know other ways to take out a tank I would prefer having an RPG. safer, faster and more effective.

Anonymous said...

The difference being when I was in Vietnam in 1968 it was not people wanting to rob a liquor store that were shooting at me. Self defense is self defense where ever you are.