Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/20/2004 4:01:39 PM EST
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."--FDR

I was over at DU and MrBenchley quoted it in reference to the .50 cal California Ban here--->http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=87402&mesg_id=87424&page= (link cold)

Was FDR an anti-gunner? Does anyone know the context of the quote? Isn't the point of private firearm ownership to keep a government in check?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:04:52 PM EST
FDR anti-gun? He signed the most repressive gun-law in US history.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:12:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 4:15:38 PM EST by Atencio]
It's a true quote. I think it has to do with a leader or group becoming powerful enough that they can bully through whatever laws, policies that they see fit. I see the DU'ers compare the Bush administration's homeland defense policies with the Nazi's polices by using this arguement.

edit: I think FDR was refering to large corporations when he made that statement.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:13:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 4:14:23 PM EST by MillerSHO]
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:17:39 PM EST
FDR is a peice of shit.

FDR....

Stole the gold by taking gold coins out of circulation

Enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934, which lead to the all out ban on MG's

And started gooberment work programs which are the predecessors to welfare

He also got the south hooked on the Democratic Party with his damn work programs

May FDR rot in hell.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:19:54 PM EST
Openned the doors of the government and Democratic party to the Communists..he loved "Unckle Joe" Stalin!
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:31:34 PM EST
Coud it have been in response to the coup conspiracy brought to light by Gen. Smedly Butler home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Butler.html

Atencio is on target here, FDR dumping the gold scared a lot of wall street types... fullclip
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:40:56 PM EST
That was a very interesting link fullclip. I had never heard of that incident.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:49:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By ffsparky26:
FDR is a peice of shit.

FDR....

Stole the gold by taking gold coins out of circulation

Enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934, which lead to the all out ban on MG's

And started gooberment work programs which are the predecessors to welfare

He also got the south hooked on the Democratic Party with his damn work programs

May FDR rot in hell.



+1
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:54:21 PM EST
Benchley is a POS. Biggest idiot on the internet.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 11:06:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By METT-T:
Benchley is a POS. Biggest idiot on the internet.



Sometimes what he says is so damn unbelieveable that I think he is really an arfcommer just screwing around.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 11:46:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 11:47:56 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By nilatS:
FDR anti-gun? He signed the most repressive gun-law in US history.



Hardly...

NFA34 is not even close to repressive...

The most repressive gun law in US history was GCA68, which created the definition of "Destructive Device", and banned import of "nonsporting" weapons.

NFA34 just required the payment of tax on machineguns, short shotguns/rifles & supressors.

Further, NFA34 has NOTHING to do with 922(o) (the machinegun ban is a separate law, it aborgates the NFA34 tax requirements for the guns it covers, but has it's own penalties to replace the defunct NFA ones), and in fact you should be glad it was passed....

Without it ALL machineguns would be illegal, not just those made after 86!
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 5:18:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By nilatS:
FDR anti-gun? He signed the most repressive gun-law in US history.



Hardly...

NFA34 is not even close to repressive...

<snip>



Well, the $200 dollar NFA tax is the modern equivalent of a $2700 tax, adjusting for inflation. And let's not forget, NFA is the FIRST law that required you get PERMISSION from the feds to purchase a firearm, and that REGISTERED firearms. The NFA set the precedent that the federal government could pass laws which clearly violated the 2nd Amendment, and do so with impunity. Also, MANY people are unable to purchase an NFA firearm, not because they are criminals, but because they cannot jump through all the bureaucratic hoops.

The law never took NFA items out of the hands of criminals, but sure made their ownership prohibitively difficult for law abiding citizens.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:23:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 7:24:21 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By nilatS:
FDR anti-gun? He signed the most repressive gun-law in US history.



Hardly...

NFA34 is not even close to repressive...

<snip>



Well, the $200 dollar NFA tax is the modern equivalent of a $2700 tax, adjusting for inflation. And let's not forget, NFA is the FIRST law that required you get PERMISSION from the feds to purchase a firearm, and that REGISTERED firearms. The NFA set the precedent that the federal government could pass laws which clearly violated the 2nd Amendment, and do so with impunity. Also, MANY people are unable to purchase an NFA firearm, not because they are criminals, but because they cannot jump through all the bureaucratic hoops.

The law never took NFA items out of the hands of criminals, but sure made their ownership prohibitively difficult for law abiding citizens.



I would harly call ownership 'prohibitively difficult' today, and given the legal structure of things, registration is the only thing that has PREVENTED confiscation here.

It doesn't infringe on your right to keep or bear arms, you can still keep or bear whatever arms you wish, it just takes a tad longer to get one, and costs $200 more.

Unless your state bans them, ANYONE can purchase a NFA firearm, although you may have to spend a few hours at your PC throwing together articles of incorporation to do so, but that is not the fault of the NFA, rather of the ATF (as the NFA does not have the LEO sig written in law)....

Oh, and 922(o) is not part of the NFA. The only relation it has to the NFA is that it allows you to keep any NFA-registered items....
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:39:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By nilatS:
FDR anti-gun? He signed the most repressive gun-law in US history.



Hardly...

NFA34 is not even close to repressive...

<snip>



Well, the $200 dollar NFA tax is the modern equivalent of a $2700 tax, adjusting for inflation. And let's not forget, NFA is the FIRST law that required you get PERMISSION from the feds to purchase a firearm, and that REGISTERED firearms. The NFA set the precedent that the federal government could pass laws which clearly violated the 2nd Amendment, and do so with impunity. Also, MANY people are unable to purchase an NFA firearm, not because they are criminals, but because they cannot jump through all the bureaucratic hoops.

The law never took NFA items out of the hands of criminals, but sure made their ownership prohibitively difficult for law abiding citizens.



I would harly call ownership 'prohibitively difficult' today, and given the legal structure of things, registration is the only thing that has PREVENTED confiscation here.

It doesn't infringe on your right to keep or bear arms, you can still keep or bear whatever arms you wish, it just takes a tad longer to get one, and costs $200 more.

Unless your state bans them, ANYONE can purchase a NFA firearm, although you may have to spend a few hours at your PC throwing together articles of incorporation to do so, but that is not the fault of the NFA, rather of the ATF (as the NFA does not have the LEO sig written in law)....

Oh, and 922(o) is not part of the NFA. The only relation it has to the NFA is that it allows you to keep any NFA-registered items....



Unless your CLEO refuses to sign... or the BATFE refuses to allow the transfer... or you cannot afford the tax...

Your assertion that it does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is absurd. It certainly does. It requires that you get previous government approval, and pay a tax, before being able to exercise a right. Please name for me another RIGHT that requires prior governmental approval and payment of a tax BEFORE it can be exercised? Also, if $200 is not an infringement, would $2,000 be one? How about $20,000?
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:44:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By ffsparky26:
FDR is a peice of shit.

FDR....

Stole the gold by taking gold coins out of circulation

Enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934, which lead to the all out ban on MG's

And started gooberment work programs which are the predecessors to welfare

He also got the south hooked on the Democratic Party with his damn work programs

May FDR rot in hell.



Great post! But you forgot...

Allied the US with a Communist dictator who was responsible for the greatest mass murder in human history.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:47:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By ffsparky26:
FDR is a peice of shit.

FDR....

Stole the gold by taking gold coins out of circulation

Enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934, which lead to the all out ban on MG's

And started gooberment work programs which are the predecessors to welfare

He also got the south hooked on the Democratic Party with his damn work programs

May FDR rot in hell.



Now don't be shy there..... tell us what you really think !
FWIW I agree with you and about gave my liberal brother a heart attack when I 'splained it to him.

Rip
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:13:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 8:24:11 AM EST by imposter]
If Congress placed a $200 tax on newspapers would that be constitutional? How about if the tax was only only on newspapers that had certain content, perhaps content that was dangerous to the government?

It is my understanding that the FDR wanted the NFA to include handguns, but this did not pass. ("Early versions of the bill proposed including handguns under the comprehensive licensing structures of the NFA, but that provision was eventually dropped from the bill at the NRA's urging."-source). That is why SBRs were included in the act. It really does not make much sense to regulate SBRs and then not regulate handguns, which are even more concealable. So FDR wanted to impost a $2,700 tax (in current dollars) on all handguns - which basically amounts to a complete ban - and he is not anti-gun?

And let's not forget the (now repealed/repalced by the GCA of 1968) 1938 Federal Firearms Act. The first step in controlling the gun industry and arm sales. How would we all react if you needed a license to print a newspaper or if the government could stop the interstate sale of certain newspapers because they do not have the proper licenses?

As originally enacted, SBRs included rifles with a length of 18" or less. And FDR is not anti-gun? He is an anti-gun sack of shit. He is Sarah Brady in a wheelchair.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:08:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By C-4:

Was FDR an anti-gunner? ?



Eleanor is reported to have carried a .25, FWIW.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:11:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 11:14:21 AM EST by shotar]
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:13:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:21:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Your assertion that it does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is absurd. It certainly does. It requires that you get previous government approval, and pay a tax, before being able to exercise a right. Please name for me another RIGHT that requires prior governmental approval and payment of a tax BEFORE it can be exercised? Also, if $200 is not an infringement, would $2,000 be one? How about $20,000?



+1
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:51:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By nilatS:
FDR anti-gun? He signed the most repressive gun-law in US history.



Hardly...

NFA34 is not even close to repressive...

<snip>



Well, the $200 dollar NFA tax is the modern equivalent of a $2700 tax, adjusting for inflation. And let's not forget, NFA is the FIRST law that required you get PERMISSION from the feds to purchase a firearm, and that REGISTERED firearms. The NFA set the precedent that the federal government could pass laws which clearly violated the 2nd Amendment, and do so with impunity. Also, MANY people are unable to purchase an NFA firearm, not because they are criminals, but because they cannot jump through all the bureaucratic hoops.

The law never took NFA items out of the hands of criminals, but sure made their ownership prohibitively difficult for law abiding citizens.



I would harly call ownership 'prohibitively difficult' today, and given the legal structure of things, registration is the only thing that has PREVENTED confiscation here.

It doesn't infringe on your right to keep or bear arms, you can still keep or bear whatever arms you wish, it just takes a tad longer to get one, and costs $200 more.

Unless your state bans them, ANYONE can purchase a NFA firearm, although you may have to spend a few hours at your PC throwing together articles of incorporation to do so, but that is not the fault of the NFA, rather of the ATF (as the NFA does not have the LEO sig written in law)....

Oh, and 922(o) is not part of the NFA. The only relation it has to the NFA is that it allows you to keep any NFA-registered items....



who's side are you on anyway dave? NFA34 was the "foot in the door" that completely DESTROYS the second amendment (formerly a "right"), thats the big and small of it.

you are clueless
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:55:04 AM EST
FDR gave us the "Raw Deal"...'nuff said!
Top Top