Are you talking about the Gun Control Act of 1968? Cause that was Johnson, not Nixon. He signed the Crime Control Act in 1970, though. Nixon was in favor of gun control legislation, but I can’t find a specific law he signed aimed at gun control… like other aspects of the liberal consensus, gun control was not a particular hot button issue that divided republican and democrats until the late 1960s and white people were clutching their pearls over the Black Panthers…
The change from the NRA wasn’t just from the leadership “realizing they needed a seat at the table”… Rather, it was a radical faction within the NRA that essentially took over the organization in 1977:
My mistake, I thought the Gun Control Act had been signed by Nixon; Nixon was interested in further restrictions, particularly on Saturday Night Specials, and there was already a gun lobby to oppose him by then. : Gun control: Richard Nixon wished for total handgun ban - POLITICO
I do recall reading an interview with someone from NRA about how they had been blindsided by GCA of 68, though, and that it convinced them to put more effort into lobbying. I don’t have citations handy, may well have read it in an NRA magazine long ago.
The problem here is not explained away by pointing out that it’s a joke. If it’s a joke, it’s at the expense of RFK…you know, the guy who was assassinated. Which makes it a very poor attempt at humor.
Carter was seen as weak… Old Man Bush was seen as a pale imitation of Holy Saint Reagan… and Junior was installed by the SCOTUS, as we all know…
Reagan {like Nixon] gained office because of treason.
Rember Iran-Contra? Weapons for Hostages? Old Man Bush was neck deep in that shit, but he conveniently pardoned those who could implicate him… Reagan, of course, couldn’t remember…
If Nixon had been executed [as was proper, as per the Constitution] for ‘giving aid & comfort to the Enemy in a time of War’, then just what are the odds of anyone else trying the same shit soon afterwards?
I will moderate my comment from 'no fascist bastids ever ', to ‘no fascist bastids as quickly’.
Of course not. That mindset has been around since the beginning.
Racism is ingrained in this country. So is classism, though we deny it.
Anywho, after RFK’s two terms, what next?
That puts us around '76. If Nixon is still alive in prison, that would hopefully help trash the rep of the GOP, provided there is the spine to do so on the D side.
IF laws were passed to do away with gerrymandering, and if the likes of El Rushbo, Fox, etc, never gained traction, I find it hard to imagine a scenario where the likes of Newt, etc, would have prospered.
Not saying the previous [mal]administration would never have happened, but it may well have been delayed… & better politicians may have prevented it.
If anything the shameful way Nixon left office paved the way for the election of Carter—probably the most liberal US President in living memory—rather than whetting America’s appetite for someone like Reagan.
Was that person from those who supported the shifts in the NRA and thought that restricting weapons meant to kill was somehow an infringement on “god given” rights to murder others? WHO that person was matters. There is NO doubt that the mission of the NRA changed dramatically in the 1970s, that it was not just because people felt “blindsided” in some innocent manner, and the person who led that charge had no problems killing people.
Not exactly an objective source. Articles written AFTER the 1977 shift would reflect their new ideology of ensuring that white people could murder non-white people with impunity and that laws that protect us from mass shootings are seen as fascist impositions on the rights of “real” Americans. The NRA has not been a positive force as a lobbying group, full stop. I have no reason to trust their interpretation of history, as it’s all in the service of their dangerous political agenda that has not problem with murdering elementary school children.
Also, Nixon was NOT wrong on a handgun ban. Let’s be honest on Nixon - he was a mixed bag, because he was the last real liberal consensus president.
Well, there may be a possibility of parole, but that’s not the same as a promised certainty of parole.
If I wanted to be snarky, and who doesn’t, I’d say, gee willikers he still looks sort of mean and angry to me.
How does anyone know what lurks in the hearts of man. I don’t. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no…
After 53 years, he might as well stay where he is. Where will he live? Who will hire him? Is there a family to take him in? Is he ill? How many years do the doctors give him? In other words: What are the circumstances?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Well on the one hand we have the findings of a parole board whose entire purpose for existing is to evaluate whether a person who committed a crime years (in this case, generations) ago is likely to re-offend based on careful consideration of the evidence.
On the other hand we have the gut reaction of an internet rando who glanced at a man’s prison photo and decided he looks kind of angry and mean.
The default position should NEVER be “keep a person in prison forever.” If the state doesn’t have a convincing rationale for keeping a person incarcerated then the default position should be to let that person go free.
Even if he ends up living on government assistance because he can’t support himself—so what? The taxpayers are covering his room and board either way.
