Bill Cypher on Nostr: This post reminds me of a little ATF history lesson I've been been thinking about ...
This post reminds me of a little ATF history lesson I've been been thinking about writing up for the #gunstr folks.
The "Revenoors" were the original form of the ATF. Note the name. ATF including by any historical name was always a tax collecting agency and was part of the IRS and its historical forms or the treasury department. It wasn't until after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 that the ATF was moved and became a law enforcement agency.
That sheds an interesting light on the NFA or National Firearms Act of 1934. The big point is that the act did not make anything illegal. It only created a $200 (around $15,000 in today's dollars adjusting for inflation) tax for manufacture and each transfer of ownership of certain firearms.
What firearms? Glad you asked because I have points to make about why each main category was included. First category were fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns. The second category were silenecers.
The first category was there to limit "gangster weapons." This was code for weapons that were being used by the bootleggers to defend their businesses. There are 2 big problems with this ban as I see it. First is that it is a classic slippery slope case of government demanding more of your rights given up to enforce the loss of rights they already took from you. They created this problem by taking away your rights with prohibition and now needed more of your rights to enforce that law. Second is it wasn't a ban, they simply said if you want to murder your bootlegging competition with these specific weapons you must pay a tax to us for the right to do so. This goes back to the point not being safety of the American people, but the government getting tax revenue from all private endeavors including murders. This was also racially motivated lawmaking, remember that the headline gangs of the time were mostly Italian. Italians were not considered "white" until years later.
Second category, silencers, is more disgusting in my book. You have to have the historical context of the economic depression at the time. People were out of work everywhere and struggling to feed their families. Silencers were added to the NFA to combat a recent rise in poaching, aka hunting out of season or without a licence. It wouldn't stop them poaching, but it would make them easier to catch and lock up. Why was there a rise in poaching? The government created economic downturn made food unaffordable. Hunting, or poaching in this case, is a very cheap source of meat if you already have the gun and can process the meat yourself. Most men of the time met both of those qualifications. Take away their jobs and hunting, sorry poaching, is now the most effective way for them to spend their time to feed their families. For the crime of taking the kings deer without permission. So what is the obvious effect of this part of the law with 30 seconds of thought? You take food off the plates of starving families and lock up the men who were desperately trying to feed them.
TLDR; Gun laws "for your safety" aren't really to protect you and it has always been that way.
More controversial history that wasn't in your school textbooks incoming next time I get struck with the inspiration.
The "Revenoors" were the original form of the ATF. Note the name. ATF including by any historical name was always a tax collecting agency and was part of the IRS and its historical forms or the treasury department. It wasn't until after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 that the ATF was moved and became a law enforcement agency.
That sheds an interesting light on the NFA or National Firearms Act of 1934. The big point is that the act did not make anything illegal. It only created a $200 (around $15,000 in today's dollars adjusting for inflation) tax for manufacture and each transfer of ownership of certain firearms.
What firearms? Glad you asked because I have points to make about why each main category was included. First category were fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns. The second category were silenecers.
The first category was there to limit "gangster weapons." This was code for weapons that were being used by the bootleggers to defend their businesses. There are 2 big problems with this ban as I see it. First is that it is a classic slippery slope case of government demanding more of your rights given up to enforce the loss of rights they already took from you. They created this problem by taking away your rights with prohibition and now needed more of your rights to enforce that law. Second is it wasn't a ban, they simply said if you want to murder your bootlegging competition with these specific weapons you must pay a tax to us for the right to do so. This goes back to the point not being safety of the American people, but the government getting tax revenue from all private endeavors including murders. This was also racially motivated lawmaking, remember that the headline gangs of the time were mostly Italian. Italians were not considered "white" until years later.
Second category, silencers, is more disgusting in my book. You have to have the historical context of the economic depression at the time. People were out of work everywhere and struggling to feed their families. Silencers were added to the NFA to combat a recent rise in poaching, aka hunting out of season or without a licence. It wouldn't stop them poaching, but it would make them easier to catch and lock up. Why was there a rise in poaching? The government created economic downturn made food unaffordable. Hunting, or poaching in this case, is a very cheap source of meat if you already have the gun and can process the meat yourself. Most men of the time met both of those qualifications. Take away their jobs and hunting, sorry poaching, is now the most effective way for them to spend their time to feed their families. For the crime of taking the kings deer without permission. So what is the obvious effect of this part of the law with 30 seconds of thought? You take food off the plates of starving families and lock up the men who were desperately trying to feed them.
TLDR; Gun laws "for your safety" aren't really to protect you and it has always been that way.
More controversial history that wasn't in your school textbooks incoming next time I get struck with the inspiration.
quoting nevent1q…79l2lulz #gunstr