Prohibition: Alchohol, Tobacco and Firearms (yes please!)

[Pendragon]

Actually, I was reading something earlier - can't remember what, and it got me thinking about prohibition - I think someone refered to the antis ans gun prohibitionists.

To me, this is an interesting angle to explore in PR tactics. Most everyone in the US has grown up hearing that they banned alchohol, but people still made it and people still used it and it was more trouble that it was worth.

There are some interesting analogies and of course some differences. Actually, it could probably be argued that without prohibition, we would probably has a lot less gun control - who knows?

I found this link in doing some research:

http://www.history.ohio-state.edu/projects/prohibition/andreae.htm

I have met many active prohibitionists, both in this and in other countries, all of them thoroughly in earnest. In some instances I have found that their allegiance to the cause of prohibition took its origin in the fact that some near relative or friend had succumbed to over-indulgence in liquor. In one or two cases the man himself had been a victim of this weakness, and had come to the conclusion, firstly that every one else was constituted as he was, and, therefore, liable to the same danger; and secondly, that unless every one were prevented from drinking, he would not be secure from the temptation to do so himself.

This is one class of prohibitionists. The other, and by far the larger class, is made up of religious zealots, to whom prohibition is a word having at bottom a far wider application than that which is generally attributed to it. The liquor question, if there really is such a question per se, is merely put forth by them as a means to an end, an incidental factor in a fight which has for its object the supremacy of a certain form of religious faith. The belief of many of these people is that the Creator frowns upon enjoyment of any and every kind, and that he has merely endowed us with certain desires and capacities for pleasure in order to give us an opportunity to please Him by resisting them. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to this belief, though some of us may consider it eccentric and somewhat in the nature of a libel on the Almighty. But are they privileged to force that belief on all their fellow beings? That, in substance, is the question that is involved in the present-day prohibition movement.

Those struck me. We all know of the activists who never cared much about weapons until they lost someone to a crime or suicide. To me, these people are devoid of principle. If tomorrow, someone with a gun kills half my family, I am going to be pretty devastated but when they put the mic in my face, they are going to be pretty shocked at what I will say.

My position is one of principle - I understand that at anytime, anyone I know could be killed by gunfire under a variety of circumstances - that event is already resolved in my thinking.

However, the other kind are zealots (like we aren't zealots ) sometimes they are the product of a tragedy(Sarah Brady), sometimes they are the product of an ideology (DiFi).

I wonder how effective we can be by appealing to peoples sense of history and the futility of prohibition? After all, alchohol is probably more dangerous than firearms (tobacco too) - yet these things have their place in our society.

After recent events, I think more people are going to be receptive to arguments about personal responsibility and liberty and not trying to legislate us back into kindergarten.

 

[jimpeel]

I have been waiting for tobacco to be outlawed so the BATF will have something to do besides rousting law abiding firearms owners. The BATF, which used to be the "revenuers", ran out of things to do once the price of sugar ran the moonshiners out of business. Tobacco became fairly expensive to traffic; although with the vast disparity of tax rates between states that could change. Then they will have something to do and maybe we can just get on with our lives.

 

[444]

This of course is one of the great conspiracy theories. The ATF enforced the Volsted Act. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed late in 1933. So, since the federal government doesn't lay people off, they needed something to do. Thus, the National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

[Jim March]

First off, gun control and prohibition are deeply tied.

When prohibition ended, the rum-runners found their funds drying up. Some went legit; some turned to other mostly-non-violent vice-supplying businesses, such as prostitution, gambling and the like. A few in the South stayed with untaxed booze, and eventually turned into NASCAR .

But some turned to violent crime, bank robbery, kidnapping, extortion and similar. It got so bad, they Federalized the crimes of bank robbery and kidnapping so that the same FBI agents that had been chasing the rumrunners back during prohibition could hunt down the same now-violent individuals.

But even that didn't give the huge Federal police force ramped up during Prohibition enough to do. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was part of the cure - create a whole new body of criminals, and pass the thing based on the hysteria over violence that was created by Prohibition.

The whole thing is ugly from beginning to end.

As an aside, one key lesson is that when we finally end the "war on (some) drugs", we'd better have CCW available because the drug gangs are gonna go ape for a while.

 

[jimpeel]

444

No "conspiracy theory" there. The ATF didn't exist at the time of the Volsted Act.

Fact: the Treasury Department had authority over the sale and distribution of alcohol during and after prohibition. The moonshiners called them "revenuers" as they sought to stamp out stills that bypassed the tax system on alcohol. Taxes were the issue.

Fact: The Treasury Department had authority over the sale and distribution of cigarettes. Cigarettes were smuggled from canada and from states that had low taxes to states with high taxes. Every pack of cigarettes has a tax stamp issued by the Treasury department. Taxes were the issue.

Fact: The Treasury department had authority over firearms after NFA34 and were responsible for the tax on NFA34 firearms. Taxes were the issue. Of course the violent actions of the mob during prohibition helped give us NFA34.

As the cost of sugar drove the illegal stills out of business and the cost of tobacco leveled, the ATF had less to do but the budget didn't change. The number of agents didn't either. The problem is that they are now almost entirely focused on the firearms issue. No conspiracy, just fact. They don't have anything else to do. They exist mainly as a taxing authority.

The rise in sugar costs didn't happen until the late sixties and the tobacco smuggling continued well into the seventies. Thus the theory that they "needed something to do" at the inception of NFA34 is preposterous.

 

[444]

Jim, you are preaching to the choir. What you said is basically the same thing I said. Actually maybe it isn't, upon reading your post a second time, I am not sure of your point. I am a strong believer in the idea that laws are made to create criminals. I belive this is the case here.

 

[Seeker]

. So, since the federal government doesn't lay people off, they needed something to do. Thus, the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Do the research, find out what Harry Auslinger had to do with it. Heck, it wasn't even called Marijuana until Hearst decided to use it as a way to defame Mexicans (and later those danged troublesome Jazz musicians). "They" decided to require a Tax Stamp for possesion and then elected to not seel stamps. They sold it to the sheeple by making up stories of Marijuana Crazed Mexicans Raping White Women - you've seen Reefer Madness, right?

I kinow it's not directly firearms related, but it is the same game player against a different target. It made criminals where none existed before. And now it is a nice source of revenue for the jail-industrial complex (50% of prisinors are in for Cannabis possesion) and Law Enforcement (Asset Forfiture). It is also good copy for all those politicians that want to be seen as being Tough on Crime. Same O' Same O'.

 

[tyme]

Seeker, that Jefferson quote is by all accounts bogus.

see http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

 

[jimpeel]

444

Sorry for any confusion; but your post led me to believe that you believed that I was spreading some patriot mythology.

I, too, believe that many laws do nothing more than create criminals out of thin air by changing normal, customary behavior into a crime. I have said for many years that the thing politicians are best at is creating a criminal class from the law abiding. There is nearly nothing you can do these days that does not infringe on some law, or regulation under the color of law.

 

[444]

NO, I was just adding to your post. I don't buy into the "media" use of the phrase conspiracy theory. There are conspiracies (sp) and always have been. Before these conspiracies (sp) were proven, there were theories. There is nothing wrong with this. I also don't hold anything negitive to the word patriot. This word means the opposite of media.

 

[jimpeel]

444

I also don't hold anything negitive to the word patriot. This word means the opposite of media.

I would hope that you do not subscribe to the patriot mythology that goes around (tunnels under DIA, death camps in SW Indiana, {my favorite} government will project hologram of Jesus coming back to explain the disappearance of all of the patriots, etc). I, too, have no problem with true patriots and patriotism but some of the stuff that gets, literally, made up.

 

[444]

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"ät, chiefly British 'pa-trE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father
Date: 1605
: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests

As for the other stuff, I never heard of it and I live in the same town as Art Bell. From the kingdom of Nye, in an area near Dreamland..........................