Jakob Wastek did his thesis on several Supreme Court gun control cases. There’s hope yet that not all students in our universities have been brainwashed.
Instead of starting a new thread, I’ll just post here, as I am just throwing this stuff out there in case anyone is intrested, here is another thesis written in 1976 titled “The History of Gun Control in America”
It’s a pretty interesting read so far (not finished yet)
Thanks for sharing the video and document with us. Always good to be well educated on the subjects of guns and gun ownership.
I’ve watched the video and partially read the thesis on gun control history (reading it in sections, with breaks).
The thesis seems to be accurate, from what I have read elsewhere, but the video has some statements that show how anti-gun propaganda had skewed people’s views of the issue, by the 1990s. As laid out in the Heller ruling, there was considerable legal basis showing that the 2nd amendment had always been viewed as an individual right.
Where the anti-gun propaganda twisted things, is that the courts had historically viewed it as an individual right to own ‘arms’ that would be necessary for militia service (protection of an individual right to own ‘military style’ guns, but no protection for other types of guns). This was shown by the full text of the Miller ruling by the US Supreme Court, in that the Court decided that Miller’s gun (a sawed off shotgun) was not covered by the second amendment, because the Court did not consider it to have a military use, though the ruling did state the Court would reconsider, if evidence of military use could be shown. The Court could have been informed of the use of ‘trench guns’ in World War 1, which may have swayed their opinion in the opposite direction, but Miller died while waiting for the case to be argued, so the case was effectively presented to the US Supreme Court as a completely one sided case, with the government simply going through the motions of defending an existing law.
The one page summary of the Miller ruling was later used to claim that the second amendment only applied to state militias (guard units), since the summary only stated that the second amendment did not apply to Miller’s case (you have to read the full ruling, to see the reasoning for why it did not apply). Following the rules previously laid out for successful propaganda, the lie was repeated often during the 1960s and following decades, with the one page summary of Miller twisted into being ‘proof’ of the second amendment not applying to individuals. Many eventually came to accept it as common knowledge, without bothering to do any research for themselves.
Thank you for the info
So the decision states flat out:
The Federal Government Cannot Direct Sheriffs or State level agencies and therefore City level as well to do what the Federal government dictates.
It is great that this was also a 2A decision protecting firearm owners.
I got done with that thesis I posted above. It was really good. I wasn’t aware that gun control went back that far. It was nice reading the stories surrounding it as well. And like today, its always spurred by a major attack/shooting by some nut job. Looks like none of the arguements on either side have really changed in 100 years, but the anti-gun folks still seem to be winning as they always manage some sort of legislation eventually on a federal level and even more so on state levels, yet crime doesn’t decrease. Gee, go figure. You would think after 100 years of various gun control regulations and crime never declining that these anti-gunners would get a clue.
Controlling crime was never really the intent, in the first place.
This is true, but I’m not talking about anti gunners in the government wanting total control, I’m talking about the sheep in the general public who believe their bs.
Well, as sheep (sheeple), they tend to believe whatever bs their government officials give them and they don’t follow thru to make sure what they were given actually worked or was true.
That is one of the biggest differences between the sheeple and us, here. We take the time and energy to follow thru and know the truth.
We also need to be able to learn from the truth and amend our beliefs when the facts reflect a different truth then that we believed.