Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 2/18/2012 4:39:22 AM EDT
Had the Gangster violence of the prohibition period not happened, which as far as I know would have been the catalyst for NFA of '34, would it have possibly never been enacted, or would it have still happened around the same time, or just delayed it? How about the GCA of '68? What led up to that one, and had NFA not been in place, would no one have ever thought about strict gun regs down the line? I wonder how it could have changed things.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 4:47:25 AM EDT
The JFK assasination played a big part in the 68 GCA. Had there been no NFA in the 30s, there would have been in the late 60s/early 70s becasue of the big shoot-outs police were getting into with those goofy revolutionary groups, the the Patty Hearst shit.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 4:47:29 AM EDT
Research Federal Firearms Act before you make a conclusion.

The law was passed in 1938. It established a fairly simple federal control over interstate commerce in firearms that was up to each state to enforce if it wished.

You'll find next to nothing about the law online, but states that require a "Firearms ID Card" are relics of the federal act.

It was supposed to give states the ability to control firearm sales, but it was never enforced. It was superceded by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and it's pretty much a confusing and missing piece of US legal history. Had it been enforced, or even discussed in Congress during the GCA debates, the 1968 GCA might not have passed.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 4:47:33 AM EDT
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 4:48:26 AM EDT
If not for the prohibition would their have been the gangsters?
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 4:48:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 4:58:43 AM EDT by RDak]
I don't think it would have passed (i.e., NFA).

ETA: 1968 GCA clearly passed from Oswald's shooting and Black Panthers carrying around rifles in California IMHO.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 4:54:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WildApple:
If not for the prohibition would their have been the gangsters?


Sure, gambling and prostitution were still illegal. They just wouldn't have had the funding that Prohibition gave them.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 4:59:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 5:02:02 AM EDT by RDak]
Tidbit of info: Michigan's 1927 handgun registration and handgun purchase permit system was enacted as a direct result of the rum running.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:09:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Research Federal Firearms Act before you make a conclusion.

The law was passed in 1938. It established a fairly simple federal control over interstate commerce in firearms that was up to each state to enforce if it wished.

You'll find next to nothing about the law online, but states that require a "Firearms ID Card" are relics of the federal act.

It was supposed to give states the ability to control firearm sales, but it was never enforced. It was superceded by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and it's pretty much a confusing and missing piece of US legal history. Had it been enforced, or even discussed in Congress during the GCA debates, the 1968 GCA might not have passed.


1934. And yes OP, if you read the statements of the people who wrote and passed the bill out of the House Ways and Means committee, their purpose was to prohibit the weapons of the "desperado."

The 1934 NFA was also closely modeled by previous DC gun control legislation written and lobbied for by Karl T. Frederick (Then President of the NRA). The original language of the NFA bill included a definition of MG that would have included any firearm that could be fired 12? times without manual reloading.

I have also heard that handguns damn near made it into the NFA, too. I haven't read specific testimony to that effect, tho, so if someone could point me to a source for that...
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:12:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:14:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Research Federal Firearms Act before you make a conclusion.

The law was passed in 1938. It established a fairly simple federal control over interstate commerce in firearms that was up to each state to enforce if it wished.

You'll find next to nothing about the law online, but states that require a "Firearms ID Card" are relics of the federal act.

It was supposed to give states the ability to control firearm sales, but it was never enforced. It was superceded by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and it's pretty much a confusing and missing piece of US legal history. Had it been enforced, or even discussed in Congress during the GCA debates, the 1968 GCA might not have passed.


1934. And yes OP, if you read the statements of the people who wrote and passed the bill out of the House Ways and Means committee, their purpose was to prohibit the weapons of the "desperado."

The 1934 NFA was also closely modeled by previous DC gun control legislation written and lobbied for by Karl T. Frederick (Then President of the NRA). The original language of the NFA bill included a definition of MG that would have included any firearm that could be fired 12? times without manual reloading.

I have also heard that handguns damn near made it into the NFA, too. I haven't read specific testimony to that effect, tho, so if someone could point me to a source for that...


The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 is not the National Firearms Act of 1034. They are two different laws.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:14:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 5:15:24 AM EDT by RDak]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.


There was a study not long ago (Cato Institute?) that analyzed, by demographics, the voting trends for men and women.

They were fairly close.

Anecdotal example, the wife and I BOTH don't like Obama.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:15:21 AM EDT
Flash forward with the newer version, and how much of our current problem is because of the "War on Drugs"?

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:16:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.


People also forget that women got the franchise because men extended it to them.

That said... yes. Men and women generally do base their votes on completely different reasons.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:17:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.


There was a study not long ago (Cato Institute?) that analyzed, by demographics, the voting trends for men and women.

They were fairly close.

Anecdotal example, the wife and I BOTH don't like Obama.

She's obviously an outlier.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:17:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Research Federal Firearms Act before you make a conclusion.

The law was passed in 1938. It established a fairly simple federal control over interstate commerce in firearms that was up to each state to enforce if it wished.

You'll find next to nothing about the law online, but states that require a "Firearms ID Card" are relics of the federal act.

It was supposed to give states the ability to control firearm sales, but it was never enforced. It was superceded by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and it's pretty much a confusing and missing piece of US legal history. Had it been enforced, or even discussed in Congress during the GCA debates, the 1968 GCA might not have passed.


1934. And yes OP, if you read the statements of the people who wrote and passed the bill out of the House Ways and Means committee, their purpose was to prohibit the weapons of the "desperado."

The 1934 NFA was also closely modeled by previous DC gun control legislation written and lobbied for by Karl T. Frederick (Then President of the NRA). The original language of the NFA bill included a definition of MG that would have included any firearm that could be fired 12? times without manual reloading.

I have also heard that handguns damn near made it into the NFA, too. I haven't read specific testimony to that effect, tho, so if someone could point me to a source for that...


The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 is not the National Firearms Act of 1034. They are two different laws.


Hell, I wasn't even aware of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

The NFA1034 tho... . Gun grabbing saxon bastards...
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:19:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

People also forget that women got the franchise because men extended it to them.

That said... yes. Men and women generally do base their votes on completely different reasons.


It was expanded to include them to correct an omission. Are you somehow thinking that they didn't want it otherwise?
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:21:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

People also forget that women got the franchise because men extended it to them.

That said... yes. Men and women generally do base their votes on completely different reasons.


It was expanded to include them to correct an omission. Are you somehow thinking that they didn't want it otherwise?


They were intentionally excluded at the start. Just like all the other non-property owners.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:25:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.


People also forget that women got the franchise because men extended it to them.

That said... yes. Men and women generally do base their votes on completely different reasons.


It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in '64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.




Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:28:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


WHile I do not think this is what did it, I think it sure helped.

An awful lot of women vote and think with their emotions and logic defies them.

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:29:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

People also forget that women got the franchise because men extended it to them.

That said... yes. Men and women generally do base their votes on completely different reasons.


It was expanded to include them to correct an omission. Are you somehow thinking that they didn't want it otherwise?


They were intentionally excluded at the start. Just like all the other non-property owners.


I understand that. The 19th fixed that error.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:29:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By piccolo:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


WHile I do not think this is what did it, I think it sure helped.

An awful lot of women vote and think with their emotions and logic defies them.



I'm sure the percentage of that varies by sex, but generally speaking, that defines the human race.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:37:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.


Women have every right to vote, but the fact that they vote much differently than men on many issues can't be ignored. They do in fact vote heavily in favor of Democrats, and in favor of those that they see as protectors and caretakers. It is part of the mindset of being a woman. Women are biologically engineered to be taken care of by men. They vote along those lines. They see keeping guns out of the hands of all but military and police as being a way to protect them and their children. Not all women are like that, but look at how many support those laws and the politicians that push them.
Also, the welfare state, health care from government and the like as a whole is seen as protection and care for them and their children, and they vote accordingly. That is why they break in favor of Democrat and socially liberal Republicans every election cycle.

So, yes, the fact that women vote has led to this legislation as well.

As men, we have failed in caring for them and protecting them. By not acting responsibly and by not abiding by the law, and by our failure to prosecute felons and harshly and severely sentence them, we are partly to blame.

Our failure to do those things has led to the need on them to rely on the state instead of us, their husbands, fathers, and brothers.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:40:06 AM EDT
Great Depression probably had a bit to do with it. It effected the nations overall mood.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:40:57 AM EDT
According to this 2009 article, 41 percent of women are Democrat and 32 percent of men are Democrat.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:42:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:

Women have every right to vote, but the fact that they vote much differently than men on many issues can't be ignored. They do in fact vote heavily in favor of Democrats, and in favor of those that they see as protectors and caretakers. It is part of the mindset of being a woman. Women are biologically engineered to be taken care of by men. They vote along those lines. They see keeping guns out of the hands of all but military and police as being a way to protect them and their children. Not all women are like that, but look at how many support those laws and the politicians that push them.
Also, the welfare state, health care from government and the like as a whole is seen as protection and care for them and their children, and they vote accordingly. That is why they break in favor of Democrat and socially liberal Republicans every election cycle.

So, yes, the fact that women vote has led to this legislation as well.

As men, we have failed in caring for them and protecting them. By not acting responsibly and by not abiding by the law, and by our failure to prosecute felons and harshly and severely sentence them, we are partly to blame.

Our failure to do those things has led to the need on them to rely on the state instead of us, their husbands, fathers, and brothers.


As Rdak pointed out above, studies have shown that men and women don't vote all that differently.

And for every female who professes voting for some guy for no reason other than "he has great hair", you have some ARF member who salivates at the prospect of voting for Palin merely because "She's HAWT MAN!!".

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:46:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pavlovwolf:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.


Women have every right to vote, but the fact that they vote much differently than men on many issues can't be ignored. They do in fact vote heavily in favor of Democrats, and in favor of those that they see as protectors and caretakers. It is part of the mindset of being a woman. Women are biologically engineered to be taken care of by men. They vote along those lines. They see keeping guns out of the hands of all but military and police as being a way to protect them and their children. Not all women are like that, but look at how many support those laws and the politicians that push them.
Also, the welfare state, health care from government and the like as a whole is seen as protection and care for them and their children, and they vote accordingly. That is why they break in favor of Democrat and socially liberal Republicans every election cycle.

So, yes, the fact that women vote has led to this legislation as well.

As men, we have failed in caring for them and protecting them. By not acting responsibly and by not abiding by the law, and by our failure to prosecute felons and harshly and severely sentence them, we are partly to blame.

Our failure to do those things has led to the need on them to rely on the state instead of us, their husbands, fathers, and brothers.


I take care of my family just fine, but then that's maybe why my wife votes line item republican.

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:47:39 AM EDT
There was also the alleged coup d'état and bonus army march that had all the politicians all scared they'd be on a pike on the white house lawn.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:48:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 5:50:57 AM EDT by RDak]
You know, the 9 percent more women saying they are Democrats than men isn't that big as a raw number IMHO.

But that amount of a difference can sway the results of an election.

And that is something the Republicans have had a VERY hard time resolving over the years.

But all the GOP has to do is get a 5 percent swing in the party preference and that amounts to an overall 10 percent shift.

So, it ain't that huge of a difference IMHO.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:54:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
I'd say that the 19th Amendment had more to do with the nanny state than the gangsters ever did.


As if women and men vote in completely different ways. I am always amazed at the lengths that some people here would go to make sure that people who are "different" than them wouldn't get the right to vote.


People also forget that women got the franchise because men extended it to them.

That said... yes. Men and women generally do base their votes on completely different reasons.


It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in '64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.






Don't be hating cause he's saying what you're thinking!
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 5:54:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RDak:
You know, the 9 percent more women saying they are Democrats than men isn't that big as a raw number IMHO.

But that amount of a difference can sway the results of an election.

And that is something the Republicans have had a VERY hard time resolving over the years.

But all the GOP has to do is get a 5 percent swing in the party preference and that amounts to a 10 percent shift.


As a followup to my earlier comment, of course women are going to have an interest on some issues that are more female specific. Abortion, for instance, will always be of more interest to women because its legal status impacts them more directly.

The GOP has in the past said some dumb things that drove away voters, specifically female voters. As long as GOP supporters say dumb things like "the only birth control women needed when I grew up was an aspirin between the knees", expect women to roll their eyes and opt to not support the candidate that guy is supporting.

It's like a bigger version of the gun clubs that traditionally did nothing to attract female membership because they saw the gun club as a boys club.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:12:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 6:14:35 AM EDT by RDak]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By RDak:
You know, the 9 percent more women saying they are Democrats than men isn't that big as a raw number IMHO.

But that amount of a difference can sway the results of an election.

And that is something the Republicans have had a VERY hard time resolving over the years.

But all the GOP has to do is get a 5 percent swing in the party preference and that amounts to a 10 percent shift.


As a followup to my earlier comment, of course women are going to have an interest on some issues that are more female specific. Abortion, for instance, will always be of more interest to women because its legal status impacts them more directly.

The GOP has in the past said some dumb things that drove away voters, specifically female voters. As long as GOP supporters say dumb things like "the only birth control women needed when I grew up was an aspirin between the knees", expect women to roll their eyes and opt to not support the candidate that guy is supporting.

It's like a bigger version of the gun clubs that traditionally did nothing to attract female membership because they saw the gun club as a boys club.


There's obviously some truth to what you are saying but the largest segment of women who call themselves Democrats is in the never married or currently single status groups.

I would guess they identify more with Democrats because they get more entitlements from Democrats than Republicans.

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:32:48 AM EDT
Women tend to vote for charm.

A good example is thet JFK had charisma. This is simply indisputable. He'd get off the plane, his tie would get caught by the wind, he would smile his award winning smile and the crowd went shithouse.

In '60 if JFK had something like a wart on his nose he would not have beaten Nixon.

Even today I can remember seeing women hold the side of their faces and saying 'he's so handsome'.

Much of this is similar to the black vote that went to Zero. It is based on emotion. Had Condi Rice run I seriously believe that she would have gotten the majority of the black vote.

I see that emotion plays too much of a role in politics. A lot of people think the vote should go to landowners only or something along these lines. I seriously believe that before you are allowed to be able to register to vote you should be able to prove that you can count, read, write and do basic math.

If people knew how to count they would not be so quick to say 'the gubmint will pay for it.'

Back to the OP.

The 19th Amendment had something to do with it.

Then again so did the 18th amendment. This was another emotionally based act. It was a stupid thing to do. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that Americans want spirits and don't really give a damn if it is legal or not.

All the 18th did was to cost us money and liberty.



Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:33:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 6:35:21 AM EDT by tc556guy]
Originally Posted By RDak:

There's obviously some truth to what you are saying but the largest segment of women who call themselves Democrats is in the never married or currently single status groups.

I would guess they identify more with Democrats because they get more entitlements from Democrats than Republicans.



Why do you assume that the female vote litmus issue is entitlements? And what does their marital status have to do with anything?

Originally Posted By piccolo:
Women tend to vote for charm.

A good example is thet JFK had charisma. This is simply indisputable. He'd get off the plane, his tie would get caught by the wind, he would smile his award winning smile and the crowd went shithouse.

In '60 if JFK had something like a wart on his nose he would not have beaten Nixon.

Even today I can remember seeing women hold the side of their faces and saying 'he's so handsome'.

Much of this is similar to the black vote that went to Zero. It is based on emotion. Had Condi Rice run I seriously believe that she would have gotten the majority of the black vote.


Posting the above on a site where so many men post " That Palin is SO HAWT!!" only shows a double standard.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:35:35 AM EDT
NFA really had nothing to do with violence among the people (bootlegging, gangs, etc)

FDR was a piece of shit progressive. Period. He would have found one way or another to do some damage to the gun world.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:36:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 6:41:03 AM EDT by BatchelorGroda]
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Research Federal Firearms Act before you make a conclusion.

The law was passed in 1938. It established a fairly simple federal control over interstate commerce in firearms that was up to each state to enforce if it wished.

You'll find next to nothing about the law online, but states that require a "Firearms ID Card" are relics of the federal act.

It was supposed to give states the ability to control firearm sales, but it was never enforced. It was superceded by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and it's pretty much a confusing and missing piece of US legal history. Had it been enforced, or even discussed in Congress during the GCA debates, the 1968 GCA might not have passed.


NFA predates that by 4 years.

Originally Posted By WildApple:
If not for the prohibition would their have been the gangsters?


Gangsters were there before and after Prohibition...Prohibition was just an extra sideline for them when it was enacted.

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Posting the above on a site where so many men post " That Palin is SO HAWT!!" only shows a double standard.


No. No it does not.

If Palin was a POS Progressive Democrat, no "real" man on this board would vote for her. They would still say she was hot, but they would also espouse why she was a POS Progressive.

Women and a hot guy? 90% of women cannot see the piece of shit behind the nice hair...men can...Romney comes to mind.

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:46:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Posting the above on a site where so many men post " That Palin is SO HAWT!!" only shows a double standard.


Yeah, but Palin is a conservative. Go see how she fares among the male population over at DU.

Still, to a certain point I agree with this statement.

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:51:38 AM EDT
Gangsters had nothing to do with it. Gun Control is about control, not safety.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 6:54:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 6:59:23 AM EDT by RDak]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By RDak:

There's obviously some truth to what you are saying but the largest segment of women who call themselves Democrats is in the never married or currently single status groups.

I would guess they identify more with Democrats because they get more entitlements from Democrats than Republicans.



Why do you assume that the female vote litmus issue is entitlements? And what does their marital status have to do with anything?
Originally Posted By piccolo:
Women tend to vote for charm.

A good example is thet JFK had charisma. This is simply indisputable. He'd get off the plane, his tie would get caught by the wind, he would smile his award winning smile and the crowd went shithouse.

In '60 if JFK had something like a wart on his nose he would not have beaten Nixon.

Even today I can remember seeing women hold the side of their faces and saying 'he's so handsome'.

Much of this is similar to the black vote that went to Zero. It is based on emotion. Had Condi Rice run I seriously believe that she would have gotten the majority of the black vote.


Posting the above on a site where so many men post " That Palin is SO HAWT!!" only shows a double standard.


I've read articles and polling questions asking them specific questions.

They state that government safety nets are good and have specifically answered questions where they are asked which Party better protects them overall.......the answer is usually the Democrat Party.

They are also not as wealthy as the other classes of people. People with less income usually vote Democrat.

These reasons were gleaned from my reading articles over the years on this subject.

Finally, you left out "single" or "never married" females in response to my statement. That is the class of female that consistently and substantially favors the Democrat Party.

Alot of these trends go similarly for males but not quite as large a difference as with females.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 7:04:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 7:05:14 AM EDT by RDak]
Originally Posted By DisplacedHoosier:
Gangsters had nothing to do with it. Gun Control is about control, not safety.


People have always argued that that is the underlying reason and gangsters were used as an excuse.

Could be?
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 7:14:25 AM EDT
"Gangsters" were just an excuse.

The motivation for the '34 NFA was social unrest. 12 million in the Klan, widespread open support for socialists and communism, the Bonus Army, the rise of fascism in Europe. The Feds weren't worried about a few smugglers murdered with Thompsons here and there.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 9:16:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RDak:

They state that government safety nets are good and have specifically answered questions where they are asked which Party better protects them overall.......the answer is usually the Democrat Party.

They are also not as wealthy as the other classes of people. People with less income usually vote Democrat.

These reasons were gleaned from my reading articles over the years on this subject.

Finally, you left out "single" or "never married" females in response to my statement. That is the class of female that consistently and substantially favors the Democrat Party.

Alot of these trends go similarly for males but not quite as large a difference as with females.


Other classes of people? We're talking about men vs women.

Maybe the GOP is on the wrong side of some of the issues....but you'll never see people here admit that. Nope, folks here will simply complain about RINOs, complain that women non-landowners and anyone they disapprove of got the vote, and how the future of the GOP is in political purity tests...and then wonder why voters shy away from the "new" GOP.
Link Posted: 2/18/2012 11:32:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2012 11:40:30 AM EDT by RDak]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By RDak:

They state that government safety nets are good and have specifically answered questions where they are asked which Party better protects them overall.......the answer is usually the Democrat Party.

They are also not as wealthy as the other classes of people. People with less income usually vote Democrat.

These reasons were gleaned from my reading articles over the years on this subject.

Finally, you left out "single" or "never married" females in response to my statement. That is the class of female that consistently and substantially favors the Democrat Party.

Alot of these trends go similarly for males but not quite as large a difference as with females.


Other classes of people? We're talking about men vs women.

Maybe the GOP is on the wrong side of some of the issues....but you'll never see people here admit that. Nope, folks here will simply complain about RINOs, complain that women non-landowners and anyone they disapprove of got the vote, and how the future of the GOP is in political purity tests...and then wonder why voters shy away from the "new" GOP.


TC: What I have seen from the articles I have read is females who are single and especially those who have never been married substantially favor the Democrat Party.

A similar bias exists with males but not as large a difference as with females. However, the males are more akin to females in that same group as not. They both vote primarily for Democrats by a pretty substantial margin.

That is just a category of females and males.

Other categories (this is a better word than "classes") show men and women are not as inclined to be Democrat.

Also, I repeat, the differences between male and female voting overall are not huge because that recent Gallup poll indicates only a 9 percent difference. A 5 percent swing to GOP would wipe it out. To me, those numbers aren't huge but they can sway elections IMHO. (I've read other polling that is on par with this Gallup poll.)

These overall numbers and "category" breakdowns are not my opinion, because I am not knowledgeable enough to really know. I have to go with what the pros have polled and researched.

I don't know how much more clearly I can summarize what I have read on this subject.

Sorry for the word "classes", should have been "category" to make it clearer.

Link Posted: 2/18/2012 9:44:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BatchelorGroda:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Research Federal Firearms Act before you make a conclusion.

The law was passed in 1938. It established a fairly simple federal control over interstate commerce in firearms that was up to each state to enforce if it wished.

You'll find next to nothing about the law online, but states that require a "Firearms ID Card" are relics of the federal act.

It was supposed to give states the ability to control firearm sales, but it was never enforced. It was superceded by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and it's pretty much a confusing and missing piece of US legal history. Had it been enforced, or even discussed in Congress during the GCA debates, the 1968 GCA might not have passed.


NFA predates that by 4 years.


See also:

Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:
"Gangsters" were just an excuse.

The motivation for the '34 NFA was social unrest. 12 million in the Klan, widespread open support for socialists and communism, the Bonus Army, the rise of fascism in Europe. The Feds weren't worried about a few smugglers murdered with Thompsons here and there.


If you want to understand history, you need to understand the events in context. The Depression and Post-Depression US was not a pretty place. The NFA and the FFA were products of it.

Wickard v. Filburn was four years in the future in 1938. The federal government license to do anything that SCOTUS granted was only a wild speculation on the part of the nanny state. They did what they could with what they had.
Top Top